Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the promotion of a Scheduled Caste employee in the Revenue Establishment of Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh, to the post of Deputy Tehsildar. The appellant was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in 1975, promoted as Upper Division Clerk (Senior Assistant) in 1982 and as Deputy Tehsildar in 1984. For the promotion panel for the year 1983-84, he was short of the required total service of eight years by one year and three months and short of the required two years as Senior Assistant by five months. His name was recommended for 1986-87, but he represented in August 1990 for relaxation of Rule 8(11) of the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Subordinate Service Rules to be impaneled for 1983-84. The District Collector and Commissioner of Land Revenue recommended relaxation. The Government, invoking power under Rule 47 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Rules, issued G.O.M.S. No. 792 dated 28 July 1992 relaxing the service shortfall and by proceedings dated 1 December 1992 empaneled the appellant for 1983-84, granting regular promotion. The contesting respondents challenged this before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. A Division Bench on 26 October 1993 held that Rule 22 read with Rule 6 of the Special Rules made the appellant eligible for promotion as Deputy Tehsildar because reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes applied to carry forward vacancies. However, due to conflicting decisions, the matter was referred to a Full Bench. The Full Bench by majority on 7 April 1994 held that Rule 22 did not apply to carry forward vacancies for appointment by promotion or transfer and that retrospective relaxation under Rule 47 was illegal, thereby dismissing the original application. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The appellant contended that Rule 22 read with Rule 5 of the Special Rules empowered the State to appoint Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes by promotion or transfer to vacancies, and carry forward arises when qualified candidates are unavailable; relaxation under Rule 47 is inherently retrospective. The State supported the appellant. The contesting respondent argued that although Rule 22 applied to promotions, the exercise of Rule 47 was bad because no injustice or inequality was shown, relaxation should be general not individual, prescribed service condition cannot be relaxed, and affected persons were not given notice. The Supreme Court held that Rule 22(ii) is wide enough to include appointment by promotion or transfer as it refers to appointments otherwise than by direct recruitment, and its object is to avoid lapse of posts when qualified SC/ST candidates are unavailable. This was supported by Article 16(4A) of the Constitution. On Rule 47, the Court relied on Government of A.P. v. D. Janardhana Rao, holding that the Governor can relax the rigour of rules retrospectively to do justice and equity; otherwise the purpose of the rule would be frustrated. The Full Bench's contrary view was illegal. The Court found that although the Government order did not expressly record a finding of injustice or inequality, the conclusion was supported by facts: huge backlog of reserved vacancies due to non-availability of SC/ST candidates, the appellant passed all tests, and only service length was short. The Court noted settled law that basic qualifications cannot be relaxed, but conditions of service can be relaxed in an individual appropriate case. The relaxation was therefore upheld. The appeals were allowed, the Full Bench order was set aside, and the Division Bench order was restored.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Reservation in Promotions - Rule 22 of Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Rules applies to carry forward vacancies for appointment by promotion or transfer - The rule uses the expression 'otherwise than by direct recruitment' and its object is to avoid lapse of posts when qualified SC/ST candidates are unavailable; conjoint reading with Article 16(4A) of Constitution supports reservation in promotions; held that appointment by promotion or transfer is available to carry forward vacancies in the post of Dy. Tehsildar (Paras 5-7). B) Service Law - Retrospective Relaxation - Rule 47 of Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Rules permits Governor to relax rigour of rules with retrospective effect in the interest of justice and equity - Occasions for exercising power may arise after failure of justice; justice can be done only by retrospective exercise; Full Bench finding that retrospective relaxation is illegal set aside (Paras 8-9). C) Service Law - Conditions of Service vs Basic Qualifications - Government can relax conditions of service like length of service in an individual appropriate case to fill backlog vacancies for SC/ST, but cannot relax basic qualifications - Here appellant passed all prescribed tests, only shortfall was service period; relaxation upheld to fulfill constitutional obligation to fill reserved vacancies (Paras 9-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Rule 22(ii)(e) to (g) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Rules applies to appointment by promotion or transfer to carry forward reserved vacancies; whether the Government was justified in exercising power under Rule 47 of the Rules to retrospectively relax the service conditions for the appellant; and whether the Government addressed the real issue of justice or inequality.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the Full Bench order dated 7 April 1994, and restored the Division Bench order dated 26 October 1993. It held that Rule 22 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Rules applies to appointment by promotion or transfer to carry forward reserved vacancies, and that Rule 47 permits retrospective relaxation of service conditions in the interest of justice and equity. The relaxation granted to the appellant for backlog reserved vacancies was upheld.
Law Points
- Rule 22 of Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Rules applies to appointment by promotion or transfer and to carry forward vacancies
- Rule 47 of the same Rules permits retrospective relaxation of service rules in the interest of justice and equity
- Government can relax service conditions such as length of service in individual appropriate cases to fill backlog reserved vacancies
- Basic qualifications cannot be relaxed
- Reservation in promotions is consistent with Articles 14 and 16(1)
- 16(4) and 16(4A) of the Constitution of India
