Government
of Andhra Pradesh & Anr Vs. P. Ravinder & Ors [1991] INSC 187 (13 August 1991)
Misra,
Rangnath (Cj) Misra, Rangnath (Cj) Kuldip Singh (J)
CITATION:
1991 SCR (3) 564 1991 SCC Supl. (2) 112 JT 1991 (3) 480 1991 SCALE (2)349
ACT:
Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules.
Andhra
Pradesh Government's Order dated 18.11.81 --Appointment to Non-Gazetted posts
of all services--Weight- age of 5 marks to candidates who have obtained basic
educational qualifications through Telugu Medium--Applica- bility of order
confined to selection carried through State Public Service Commission--Whether
arbitrary--Benefit of order whether applicable to selection made through bodies
other than the State Public Service Commission.
HEAD NOTE:
The
Government of Andhra Pradesh issued an order dated 18.11.81 which provided that
in respect of appointments to NonGazetted posts of all services, candidates who
have obtained their basic educational qualification through the medium of
Telugu shall be given weightage of 5% marks. But the benefit of the order was
confined to selection made through the State Public Service Commission. The
State Administrative Tribunal held that the order applies to' all selections
irrespective of the body that makes selection in the State and extended the
benefit of the order to the selection of the Sub-Inspectors of Police made
through the State level Recruitment Board. Against the order of the Tribunal,
the State of Andhra
Pradesh filed an
appeal to this Court.
Allowing
the appeal, this Court,
HELD:
1. The
Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in lifting the restriction imposed by the
Government in the matter of benefit of 5% marks. The order of the Tribunal is
vacated. [567D-E]
2. The
State Government is the authority to take a policy decision. Whether the
decision is tenable or not in law, is not to be decided by the Court. Since
Government in their wisdom have specifically confined the application of the
Notification to recruitment through the State Public Service Commission, the
decision of the Tribunal that it was also available to be extended to selection
through bodies other than the State Public Service Commission, cannot be
appreciated. [566H, 567A] 565
3.
When the Notification is specific and is intended to apply to a specified group
of cases for selection, it would not be open to the Tribunal to extend its
application beyond what has been clearly specified. It is one matter to say
that the Notification applied in a limited way may he hit by law; it is another
to say that contrary to the restriction imposed, the Tribunal would allow the
Notification to have general application. [S67C]
CIVIL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1694- 1709 of 1991.
From
the Judgment and Order' dated 23.1.1990 of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal,
Andhra Pradesh in R.P. Nos. 13986/89, 24045-50/89, 25091/89, 1027 &
2111/.89, 28925- 26/89, 28929 to 31/89 and O.A. No. 1918 of 1990.
K. Madhava
Reddy and G. Prabhakar for the Appellants.
M.K. Ramamurthi,
S. Markandeya and Ms. C. Markandeya for the Respondents.
The
following Order of the Court was delivered:
This
is an appeal by the State Government of Andhra Pradesh by special leave:
Challenge is to the order of the State Administrative Tribunal directing the
benefit of the Government Order of 18.11.1981 to be extended to selection of
the Sub Inspectors of Police which is done through the State level Recruitment
Board. The Government Order which has been extracted in the Order of the
Tribunal reads thus:
"Notwithstanding
anything in the Andhra Pra- desh State and Subordinate Service Rules or the
Special Rules, candidates seeking appoint- ment of all the non-gazetted posts
of all services, and seeking eligibility in general educational test who have
obtained the basic educational qualifications prescribed for direct recruitment
eligibility for promotion in the special rules governing such posts, through
Telugu medium, shall be given weight- age in the matter of selection to such
posts by awarding them 5% of the total aggregate maximum marks of the relevant
competitive examination held by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission
for recruitment acquiring eligibility to such posts.
566
"Having regard to the avowed policy of the Government to introduce Telugu
progressively in the State in the coming years and as Telugu has been
'introduced as official language at Directorage level and also in the lower
courts in certain Districts of the State and so as to give preference to
candidates who have ob- tained the basic educational qualification through the
medium of Telugu, Government have after careful examination decided in consulta-
tion with the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission that such candidates to
give weightage of 5% of the total aggregate maximum marks of all the
competitive examinations of the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission for
recruitment to all the non-gazetted poStS of all services.
There
is no dispute that the Order in its own terms applies to selection carried on
through the State Public Service Commission; nor is there any dispute that the
selection of Sub Inspectors, for the relevant period was being carried on by a
body other than the State Public Service Commission.
The
Tribunal observed as follows:
"We
cannot the rule too literally and defeat the object and purpose with which it
has been made. If the object and purpose are kept in view, then' we have no
hesitation m holding that it applies to all selections irrespective of the body
that makes selections in the State. We see no merit in the literal con- struction
suggested by Sri Sagar." We are told that the validity of the Government Notifi-
cation under challenge on the ground that the Government have no authority to
make such a direction and that chal- lenge is in an independent petition
pending disposal before this Court. Since this petition is not one challenging
the Notification but seeking its extension to areas not covered by the
Notification in terms, disposal of this petition has no bearing on the petition
which challenges the Notifica- tion.
The
State Government is the authority to take a policy decision. Whether the
decision is tenable or not in law, as we have just pointed out, is not to be
decided here. But since Government in their wisdom have specifically confined
the application of the Notification to recruitment through the State Public
Service Commission, we have not been 567 able to appreciate the decision of the
Tribunal that it was also available to be extended to selection through bodies
other than the State Public Service Commission.
Mr. Ramamurti
appearing in. support of the respondents' cause has pointed out that if the
Government Notification is confined to selection through the State Public
Service CommissiOn, the Government-Notification would be hit by Article 14 of
the Constitution. Therefore, according to Mr. Ramamurti, it was open to the
Tribunal to read down the requirement by saying that the benefit of the
Notification would be applicable to all categories of selection.
We
have not been able to agree with Mr. Ramamurti that when the Notification is
specific and is intended to apply to a specified group of cases for selection,
it would be open to the Tribunal to extend its application-beyond what has been
clearly. Specified. It is one matter to say that the Notification applied in a
limited way may be hit by law;
it is
another to say that contrary to the restriction im- posed, the Tribunal would
allow the Notification to have general application. We are inclined to agree
with Mr.
Madhava
Reddy for the State that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in lifting the
restriction imposed. by the, Government in the matter of benefit of 5% of total
aggregate marks to those candidates who wrote their papers in Telugu language.
The appeal is allowed and the order of the Tribu- nal stands vacated. No costs.
'
T.N.A. Appeal al- lowed.
Back