Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from appointments to certain posts in the Telengana area of Andhra Pradesh, which were reserved for domiciles of that region under rules made pursuant to the Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Act, 1957. The petitioners, who were non-domiciles, were appointed to such reserved posts but later relieved and transferred to another region, prompting them to file a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. They challenged the validity of the Act, the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Rules, 1959, and the order transferring them, contending that they were ultra vires the Constitution. The core legal issue was whether Article 16(3) of the Constitution, which allows Parliament to prescribe residential requirements for public employment, permitted a residence requirement for only a part of a State. The petitioners argued that the exception under Article 16(3) was narrow and could not extend to sub-state regions, while the State defended the rules as validly made under the Act. The Supreme Court, by a five-judge bench, held that Article 16(3) uses the expression 'a State' and cannot be read to include a district, taluka, town, or village. The provision was an exception to the general rule of equality in public employment and had to be strictly construed. Consequently, the Court declared Section 3 of the Act, insofar as it related to Telengana, and Rule 3 of the Rules ultra vires the Constitution, and quashed the order transferring the petitioners. The decision clarified that any residential qualification for public employment under Article 16(3) must be for the entire State and not a portion of it.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Public Employment - Residential Requirement - Constitution of India, Article 16(3) - Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Act, 1957, Section 3; Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Rules, 1959, Rule 3 - The Court considered whether Parliament could prescribe residence in a part of a State for public employment. Article 16(3) speaks of residence within 'a State', and it is impossible to interpret the provision as permitting residence in districts, talukas, cities, towns or villages. The exception must be narrowly construed. Held, Section 3 of the Act insofar as it related to Telengana and Rule 3 of the Rules were ultra vires the Constitution, and the order relieving the petitioners was quashed. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether Section 3 of the Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Act, 1957 and Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Rules, 1959 are ultra vires Article 16(3) of the Constitution.
Final Decision
Petition allowed; Section 3 of the Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Act, 1957 insofar as it related to Telengana and Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Rules, 1959 were declared ultra vires the Constitution; the order relieving the petitioners was quashed.
Law Points
- residence requirement for public employment under Article 16(3) must be for the whole State
- not a part
- exception must be narrowly construed
