Case Note & Summary
The case arose from a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Andhra Pradesh High Court by certain clerks in the Registration and Stamps Department challenging the vires of Rule 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Registration Subordinate Service Special Rules and the recruitment of Grade-II Sub-Registrars made in March 1965. The petitioners and some respondents were serving as clerks, either in the Upper Division (UDC) or Lower Division (LDC), in the Registration and Stamps Department including the office of the Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages and the Office of the Registrar of Firms. Some respondents had been recruited by the Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Andhra Pradesh for appointment as Sub-Registrars. The petitioners contended that Rule 5 treated UDCs and LDCs as equals despite UDCs holding superior posts with higher salary and better conditions, thereby violating the equality doctrine under Article 14 of the Constitution. A single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition, but on appeal a Division Bench held Rule 5 ultra vires Article 14 and quashed the recruitments, while rejecting other contentions including that the recruitment was not in accordance with the rules. The recruited candidates, as appellants, then came before the Supreme Court by certificate. The Supreme Court considered two questions: whether Rule 5 was violative of Article 14, and whether the recruitments were made in accordance with Rule 5. The Court noted that UDCs and LDCs belong to a district-wise cadre, whereas Grade-II Sub-Registrars are in a state-wise cadre. Promotion from LDC to UDC is made district-wise, and chances of promotion vary materially from district to district; a LDC in one district may be promoted much earlier than a senior, more efficient LDC in another district. Therefore, if the State had treated UDCs as superior to LDCs for recruitment to a state-wise cadre, it would result in great injustice to a large section of clerks due to the fortuitous circumstance of district-wise promotion. The Court observed that Rule 5 provides for preference to UDCs who had put in service of 5 years or more, thereby mitigating any anomaly. The Court emphasized that the validity of a rule must be judged by assessing its overall effect and not by picking up exceptional cases. It held that the classification was reasonable and did not treat unequals as equals. On the second question, the Court found that the Registrar had considered all qualified clerks and prepared a list of all clerks, UDCs and LDCs, arranging names in order of seniority as LDCs, and then considered each name and rejected the unfit. Those entitled to preference under the rules were considered separately and recruited first. This seniority-cum-merit method was held to be most reasonable, especially for recruitment by transfer from ministerial officials. The Supreme Court concluded that Rule 5 was valid and the recruitment was in accordance with the rules. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the order of the Division Bench was set aside, and the order of the single judge was restored. The parties were directed to bear their own costs in all courts.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Equality Doctrine - Reasonable Classification - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 14 - Andhra Pradesh Registration Subordinate Service Special Rules, Rule 5 - The rule clubbing Upper Division Clerks (UDCs) and Lower Division Clerks (LDCs) for recruitment to the state-wise cadre of Grade-II Sub-Registrars was challenged as treating unequals as equals. The Court held that because clerks belong to district-wise cadres and promotion chances vary by district, pooling both categories is reasonable; the rule also gives preference to UDCs with 5 years' service, and validity must be judged by overall effect, not exceptional anomalies. Held that Rule 5 is not violative of Article 14. B) Service Law - Recruitment - Seniority-cum-Merit - Andhra Pradesh Registration Subordinate Service Special Rules, Rule 5 - The recruitment made by preparing a list of all clerks (UDCs and LDCs) in order of seniority as LDCs and rejecting the unfit, with preference given to UDCs with 5 years' service considered separately at first instance, was in accordance with Rule 5. Held that the method was most reasonable for recruitment by transfer from ministerial officials.
Issue of Consideration
Whether Rule 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Registration Subordinate Service Special Rules violates Article 14 of the Constitution by putting Upper Division Clerks and Lower Division Clerks in one class for recruitment; and whether the recruitments made were in accordance with Rule 5.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; order of the Division Bench of the High Court set aside and order of the single judge restored; parties directed to bear their own costs in all courts.
Law Points
- Equality doctrine under Article 14 not violated by reasonable classification
- validity of rule judged by overall effect
- recruitment by transfer should be on seniority-cum-merit
- preference to UDCs with 5 years service
- treating UDCs and LDCs as one class justified due to district-wise cadre disparity
