THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR versus B. SUBBA RAYUDU AND OTHERS on 14 September 2022

[2022] 18 S.C.R. 351

THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR.

v.

B. SUBBA RAYUDU AND OTHERS

(Special Leave Peittion (C) Nos. 1565-66 of 2021)

SEPTEMBER 14, 2022

[INDIRA BANERJEE AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]

Service Law – Bifurcation of the State of Andhra Pradesh –Allocation of the respondent no.1 to the State of Telengana – By anorder dated 14.01.2016, the concerned Ministry, Government ofIndia allotted the respondent to the State of Andhra Pradesh – HighCourt set aside the said order dated 14.01.2016 to allocate therespondent to the State of Telangana with effect from 14.01.2016 –On appeal, held: Admittedly, at the time of bifurcation of the Stateof Andhra Pradesh, the respondent no.1 was posted in an areawhich falls with Telangana – Respondent no.1 was required toexercise an option, which he admittedly did and opted State ofTelangana – As per guidelines, allocable employees were to beconsidered on the basis of seniority as on 01.06.2014 – RespondentNo.1 was senior most of the employees who opted for Telangana –Spouse of respondent no.1 was also a local of Telangana – On apossible interpretation of the Guidelines read with the AndhraPradesh Public Employment Order 1975 and, in particular,paragraph 4 thereof, the High Court found that the RespondentNo.1 was local candidate of the State of Telangana – Admittedly,respondent no.1 is a citizen of this country – As a citizen of India,the respondent has a fundamental right u/Art. 19(1)(e) to resideand settle in any part of the territory of India – The Andhra PradeshState Reorganisation Act, 2014 or any other guidelines framedthereunder, including the guidelines circulated on 30.10.2014cannot take away from citizens, the right to reside and settle in anypart of the country – When a State is divided and the employeesand officers of the State Government have to be allotted to the twostates, such allocation has to be done on the basis of the Rules andRegulations and by guidelines – However, such rules, regulationsand guidelines have to be construed harmoniously with thefundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India –On a liberal interpretation of the guidelines dated 30.10.2014 in

351

A

B

C

DEF

GH

Athe light of the philosophy of the Indian Constitution read withAndhra Pradesh Public Employment Order, 1975, which was in forceat the time of bifurcation is applicable to the respondent, the HighCourt rightly arrived at the conclusion that the respondent was alocal candidate of Telangana and was entitled to allocation as perhis seniority in terms of Paragraph 18(f) of the guidelines – AndhraBPradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 – Andhra Pradesh PublicEmployment Order, 1975 – Constitution of India – Art. 19(1)(e).

Dismissing the Special Leave Petitions, the Court HELD: 1. The Respondent No.1 was however, allocated toCthe State of Andhra Pradesh, ignoring his option for the State ofTelangana and in violation of the Guidelines issued vide G.O.MsNo. 312 dated 30th October 2014. The allocation was also incontravention of the requirement of Clause (f) of Paragraph 18directing that allocation shall be done in order of seniority asavailable. On behalf of the Respondent No.1, it was rightlyDcontended that the spouse of the Respondent No.1 who had beenborn and educated in the State of Telangana had to be treated asa local candidate of the State of Telangana. As a spouse, theRespondent No.1 ought to have been allocated to the State ofTelangana. [Paras 49-50][371-B, D-E]

E

2. Admittedly, at the time of bifurcation of the State ofAndhra Pradesh, the Petitioner was posted in an area which fallswith Telangana. The Petitioner was required to exercise an option,which he admittedly did. It is not in dispute that 9 posts out oftotal 23 posts were allocated to the State of Telangana and 14 toFthe State of Andhra Pradesh. As per guidelines, allocableemployees were to be considered on the basis of seniority as on1[st] June 2014. [Para 56][377-C]

3. As found by the High Court, the Petitioner’s positionwas 4th inseniority in the composite State of Andhra Pradesh asGon 1st June 2014. The 3 people, senior to him, were all localcandidate of Andhra Pradesh, who had opted for Andhra Pradesh.The Respondent No.1 was senior most of the employees whoopted for Telangana. The High Court found that the RespondentNo.1 had denied allocation to Telangana on a “strange H

interpretation of Clause (f) of paragraph 18 of the Guidelines,giving no weight to seniority. The High Court found on facts thatno importance at all had been given to the fact that the spouse ofthe Respondent No.1 was a local of Telangana. [Para 57][377-D-E]

4. On a possible interpretation of the Guidelines read withthe Andhra Pradesh Public Employment Order 1975 and, inparticular, paragraph 4 thereof, the High Court found that theRespondent No.1 was local candidate of the State of Telangana.Admittedly, he studied from Class VIII to X at Khammam whichis in the State of Telangana. He thereafter did his Bachelor ofVeterinary Science and Animal Husbandry and Master ofVeterinary Science at the college of Veterinary Science, AP,Agricultural University at Hyderabad. He studied in thatinstitution for 7 years from 1985 to 1992 being the year in whichhe appeared in the qualifying examination. [Para 58][377-F-G]

5. Under the Constitution, India is a Union of States. Everypart of every State is an integral and inseverable part of India.Admittedly, the Respondent was born in India. He has his domicilein the territory of India. As held by this Court in Dr. Pradeep Jainv. Union of India, under the Indian Constitution, there is onlyone domicile i.e. domicile of the country and there is no separatedomicile for a State. [Para 59][377-H; 378-A]

6. It is not in dispute that the respondent has his domicilein the Territory of India and was born in the territory of India.Admittedly, he is a citizen of this country. As a citizen of India,the respondent has a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(e) toreside and settle in any part of the territory of India. [Para 63][378-E-F]

7. Under Article 13 (2) of the Constitution of India prohibitsthe State from making any law which takes away or infringes therights conferred by Part III of the Constitution of India and anylaw made in contravention of Article 13(2), to the extent of thecontravention would be void. [Para 64][378-F-G]

A

BC

D

EF

G

H

A8. The Andhra Pradesh State Reorganisation Act, 2014 orany other guidelines framed thereunder, including the guidelinescirculated on 30.10.2014 cannot take away from citizens, the rightto reside and settle in any part of the country. [Para 66][379-A]

9. It is true that when a State is divided and the employeesBand officers of the State Government have to be allotted to thetwo states, such allocation has to be done on the basis of theRules and Regulations and by guidelines. [Para 67][379-B]

10. However, such rules, regulations and guidelines haveto be construed harmoniously with the fundamental rightsCguaranteed under the Constitution of India. It is true that therespondent may have been born in an area which now forms partof Andhra Pradesh and may have received a substantial part ofhis education in areas which now form part of the State of AndhraPradesh. However, admittedly, he cleared all Board andUniversity examinations from areas within the State of Telangana.DAt the time of bifurcation, he was posted in Hyderabad, which isnow part of Telangana. [Para 68][379-C-D]

11. The guidelines circulated on 30.10.2014 for allocationof employees and officers to the States of Telangana and AndhraPradesh are directory and not inflexible. On a liberalEinterpretation of the guidelines in the light of the philosophy ofthe Indian Constitution read with Andhra Pradesh PublicEmployment Order, 1975, which was in force at the time ofbifurcation, and is applicable to the respondent even under theGuidelines referred to above, the High Court rightly arrived atFthe conclusion that the respondent was a local candidate ofTelangana and was entitled to allocation as per his seniority interms of Paragraph 18(f) of the guidelines. Furthermore,admittedly, the spouse of the respondent was a local candidate ofTelangana. [Para 69][379-D-F]

GSuriyakala v. A. Mohandoss and Ors (2007) 9 SCC196 : [2007] 2 SCR 419 ; M/s Bengal Chemical andPharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Their Employees AIR 1959

H

SC 633 : [1959] Suppl. SCR 136; Kunhayammed &Ors. v. State of Kerala and Another (2000) 6 SCC 359: [2000] 1 Suppl. SCR 538; State of Bombay v. RusyMistry AIR 1960 SC 391; Municipal Board, Pratabgarhand Another v. Mahendra Singh Chawla and Others(1982) 3 SCC 331; Chandra Singh v. State of RajasthanAIR 2003 SC 2889 : [2003] 1 Suppl. SCR 674; Dr.Pradeep Jain v. Union of India AIR 1984 SC 1420 :[1984] 3 SCR 942 – referred to.

A

B

Case Law Reference

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition(C) Nos. 1565-66 of 2021.

From the Judgment and Order dated 08.12.2020 of the High Courtfor the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in WP (TR) No. 5482 of 2017and WP 24820 of 2017.

E

Aman Lekhi, ASG, P. Venkat Reddy, Prashant Tyagi, Ms. ShikhaSandhu, P. Srinivas Reddy for M/s. Venkat Palwai Law Associates,Advs. for the Petitioners.

Ms. V. Mohana, K. M. Natraj, Sr. Advs., Sadineni Ravi Kumar,Jayendra Balaji, M. V. Rama, Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, Mahfooz AhsanNazki, Polanki Gowtham, Shaik Mohamad Haneef, T. Vijaya BhaskarReddy, Amitabh Sinha, K. V. Girish Chowdary, Ms. Sarupma Chaturvedi,Ms. Neera Keddar Gokhle, Sachin Sharma, Arvind Kumar Sharma,Gurmeet Singh Makker, Advs. for the Respondents.

F

G

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by INDIRA BANERJEE, J.

These Special Leave Petitions are against a final judgment andorder dated 8[th] December 2020 whereby the High Court for the State ofTelangana and for the State of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, allowed H

Athe Writ Petitions filed by the Respondent No.1 being Writ Petition (TR.)No. 5482 of 2017 and Writ Petition No. 24820 of 2017, set aside anorder being F. No. 29/01/2016-SR(S) dated 14[th] January 2016 of theMinistry of Personnel, PG and Pensions and directed the Ministry ofPersonnel, PG and Pensions to allocate the Respondent to the State ofTelangana with effect from 14[th] January 2016. The State of TelanganaBwas directed to give a posting to the Respondent in the cadre of JointDirector-Class A in the Animal Husbandry Department of the State ofTelangana and also pay salary to the Respondent as Joint Director-ClassA in the Animal Husbandry Department within four weeks from thedate of the judgment and order.C

2. The Respondent No.1, a member of a Scheduled Tribe, heldthe State Cadre post of Joint Director-Class A in the Animal HusbandryDepartment of the undivided State of Andhra Pradesh. Smt. B.Shanthabai, wife of the Respondent No.1, was also a State Governmentemployee working as Assistant Registrar in the same State.D[[th]]

3. By a Notification No.S.O.655B dated 4[[th]] March 2014, theCentral Government notified the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act,2014 bifurcating the State of Andhra Pradesh into two States- the newState of Telangana and the residue state of Andhra Pradesh with effectfrom 2[nd] June 2014.E

4. In terms of Section 80 of the Andhra Pradesh ReorganisationAct, 2014, the Central Government issued a Circular being F. No. 27/13/213/SRS dated 29[th] October 2014 laying down guidelines for allocationof employees to the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh,respectively.F5. As per the said Guidelines and in particular Paragraph No. 12Clause (vii) thereof, no allocable posts were to be omitted while distributingthe cadre strength between the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh.

6. By a Circular being G.O. Ms.312 dated 30[th] October 2014, theGovernment of Andhra Pradesh circulated the approved Guidelines forGfinal allocation of State Government Employees to All India Servicesunder the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014. Some of the relevantprovisions of the Guidelines are set out hereinbelow for convenience:

“18. The following principles and procedure shall guide thefinal allocation of personnel:

H

a) Persons who immediately before the appointed day areserving on substantive basis in connection with the affairsof the existing State of Andhra Pradesh shall be consideredfor allocation, Employees holding posts on purely ad hocbasis immediately before the ‘appointed day’ shall beconsidered against substantive posts (or regular) held bythem on the ‘appointed day’ if any.

b) Allocation of employees would be based on finaldistribution of posts including vacant posts proposed bythe Advisory Committee in consultation with the successorStates and after approval of the Central Government.

c) Allocable employees shall be considered for allotmentbetween the successor States on the basis of seniority listas available on June 01, 2014.

d) ….There shall not be any case of an employee not beingallocated to either of the successor States.

e) State service employees who hold allocable posts shallbe allocated after seeking option from the employeesindicating their preference to serve in either of thesuccessor States after taking their option intoconsideration.

f) The allocation shall be done in order of seniority asavailable on June 01, 2014. Those who have opted, whoare ‘local candidate’s’ relatable to the State to which theyhave opted, shall, in order of their seniority, be consideredfor allocation first. If allocable posts in that categoryremain, then others who have opted to the state may beallocated in order of seniority. If still posts remainallocation will be made in reverse order of seniority.

…

h) Employees who are not local in relating to both Stateswill be allocated on the basis of place of birth or homedistrict, as the case may be, after due verification andcertification. Those originally from other States will beallocated on a case by case basis after considering theiroption.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

G

H

i) Employees who are members of the Scheduled Castes orScheduled Tribes shall be considered for allocation on thebasis of their option if they are local candidates. IN theevent an SC or ST employee has not exercised his optionor where he has not been so allocated he/she shall beallocated to the State where his caste or tribe, as the casemay be, is included in the concerned schedule of the State.

…

k) Spouse of an All India Service (AIS) officer who belongsto a State Cadre or is an employee of a State Governmentinstitution shall be allocated, where so desired by thespouse, to the State to which the AIS officer is allocated.

l) Spouses in State Cadre in Government or in the StateGovernment institutions, local bodies and those who aredeemed allocated as per the Act, shall as far as practicable,be allotted to the same State, after considering options madeby them and their local candidature. Spouses who are localcandidates of a State Shall be allocated to that State. Spouseswho belong to different States may be allocated afterconsidering their options.

…

n) Local candidature shall be as defined under the AndhraPradesh Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadresand Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975 ascertified by the competent authority, with strict referenceto the school records. While the committee may take intoconsideration entry made in the service register as primafacie proof of local candidature, it shall be open to eithergovernment or the committee to subject the genuineness ofthe employee’s local candidature status to strict verification.False claim of local candidature or production of falsecertificate with the intent to mislead shall be punishable asa criminal offence and also be subject to major disciplinaryproceedings.

…

s) Employees belonging to allocable categories of onedepartment working in another department or organisationon deputation/tenure basis will be allotted by the parentdepartment of the officer.

x) The actual allocation of personnel to States shall beguided by the public interest and the administrative needsof the posts in the States.

19. The Committee shall follow the procedure hereinaftermentioned for allocation of employees:

i. All employees would be asked to exercise their optionsin the prescribed proforma annexed to these Guidelines,and forward their duly filled option form to the MemberSecretary, Advisory Committee, G A State ReorganisationDepartment. A P Secretariat electronically and through theproper channel indicating their preference for either ofthe States within two weeks from the date of publicnotification calling for options.

ii. Letter calling for options shall be given wide publicitythrough print and electronic media. A copy of the lettershall also be placed in the public domain for wide publicity.

iii. The employees, who are eligible for allocation to eitherof the successor States as specified above, will submit theiroption form addressed to the Member Secretary, AdvisoryCommittee through the respective AdministrativeDepartments of the Government in which they are working,to the Andhra Pradesh State General Administration StateReorganisation Department.

iv. Scrutiny of statements made in the option forms shallbe done and factual accuracy of the statement made thereincertified by the head of the department under whom theemployee is working. The forms so certified shall bedelivered to the GA (SR) Department of the A PGovernment.

v. If no option is received within the prescribed time, orwhere an employee is willing to be allotted to either of thetwo states such person shall be allotted based on the othercriteria.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

G

H

vi. Option once exercised cannot be changed under anycircumstance.

vii. After the distribution of posts is finalised, the AdvisoryCommittee will draw up, with the help of the departmentsconcerned and the G A State Reorganisation Departmentof A P Government, a Tentative Allocation List for allemployees whether they have exercised option or not. TheMember Secretary of the Advisory Committee will circulatethe Tentative Allocation List to the respective successorState Government for information of their employees andfor submission of representations, if any, by suchemployees, within a period of two weeks from the date ofsuch communication. The GA State ReorganisationDepartment of AP is required to issue the TentativeAllocation List on behalf of the Advisory Committee. Thelist shall be widely published and circulated invitingrepresentations of employees against their tentativeallocation.

20. Representations against tentative allocation may bereceived and disposed off in the following manner:

i. An employees who feels aggrieved by his tentativeallocation, as prepared by the Advisory Committee wouldbe at liberty to submit his representations to the ChiefSecretary to the successor State in which he is serving,with a copy to the State Reorganisation Departmentconstituted in the State of Andhra Pradesh.

ii. Representation of an employee should be self-contained,clearly indicating the specific points of grievance andshould be addressed to the Advisory Committee. Theconcerned administrative department will offer its viewson the representation and forward it to the G A StateReorganisation Department of the Government of AP.

iii. The successor State of Andhra Pradesh shall furnishits official comments in the light of the remarks of theadministrative department on the representations receivedkeeping in view of law, rules, and orders, and wouldforward the same for further consideration of the AdvisoryCommittee.

iv. The Advisory Committee will consider the representationof the employees after taking the views of AdministrativeDepartment concerned at a meeting attended by therepresentatives of the two States and the CentralGovernment. The recommendations will thereafter beforwarded to the Central Government with therecommendations of the Advisory committee for taking afinal view in the matter.

v. Based on the recommendations of the AdvisoryCommittee, the Central Government shall issue finalallocation orders under Section 77 of the Act allocatingthe employees to either of the State.

vi. The Central Government shall have the power to reviewany of its orders issued under the Act.

vii. The Member Secretary of the Committee would beresponsible for guiding the Advisory Committee in thisregard.”

7. The sanctioned strength of posts in the cadre of Joint Director-Class A in the Animal Husbandry Department were 23, out of which, 13posts were allotted to Andhra Pradesh and 10 posts were allotted toTelangana. At the time of bifurcation, two out of the 23 posts werevacant.

8. On 7[th] March 2015, the Respondent opted for allocation to theState of Telangana. At the material point of time, the Respondent wasworking as Project Director, ATMA, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabadon deputation. However, by a Notification No. 21105-B/SRI/AI/2014-4dated 12[th] June 2015, the Respondent was allotted to the State of AndhraPradesh tentatively. The Respondent submitted his objection against histentative allocation to the State of Andhra Pradesh on 26[th] June 2015,pursuant to the proceedings being GAD(SR), Department, NotificationNo. 21105/B/SRI/2014-4.

9. On 26[th] June 2015, the Respondent made a representation thathe be considered a local candidate of the State of Telangana. Therepresentation was not considered. By an order No. 5(2)/2016 dated14[th] January 2016 in the proceedings being F. No. 29/01/2016, the Ministryof Personnel, PG and Pensions of the Department of Personnel andTraining, Government of India, allotted the Respondent to the State ofAndhra Pradesh.

AB

C

D

E

F

GH

A10. The Respondent filed an application being O.A No.209/2016before the Central Administrative Tribunal at Andhra Pradesh, challengingthe aforesaid allocation order dated 14[th] January 2016 issued by theGovernment of India. On 29[th] January 2016, the Administrative Tribunalissued notice in the application and passed an interim order to the effectthat the final allocation of the Respondent to the State of Andhra PradeshBwould be subject to the final result of the Original Application.

A

11. By an order 4[th] February 2016, the Animal Husbandry, DairyDevelopment and Fisheries Department of the Government of Telanganarelieved the Respondent. By an order dated 5[th] February 2016, theGovernment of Telangana, Department of Animal Husbandry, directedCthe Respondent No.1 to report to the Head of the Department, AndhraPradesh for further posting.

12. The Respondent filed a Writ Petition being Writ Petition No.4391 of 2016 in the High Court challenging the interim order dated 29[th]January 2016 passed by the Administrative Tribunal. By an order datedD16[th] February 2016, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition No. 4391of 2016 and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for freshconsideration and directed the Tribunal to pass a speaking order, afterhearing both the parties, within two weeks. It was also directed that theRespondent No.1 should not be relieved from his present place of postingEtill disposal of the Interlocutory Application.

13. By an Order being Memo No. 8356/Agri(1)/2016 dated 16[th]January 2017, the Government of Telangana Agriculture and CooperationDepartment, repatriated the Respondent No.1 with instructions to reportto his parent Department with immediate effect.F

14. On 7[th] March 2017, the Respondent informed theCommissioner and Director of Agriculture Department and handed overcomplete charge of the post of Project Director, ATMA, Ranga ReddyDistrict to Shri Y. Sudhakar Reddy.

15. On the same date i.e. 7[th] March 2017, the Respondent wasrelieved from the post of Project Director, ATMA, Ranga Reddy Districtand a certificate of transfer of charge was issued to him.

G

16. In 2017, the Administrative Tribunal for the State of Telanganawas abolished and the case being O.A. No. 209/2016 filed by theRespondent was transferred to the High Court for the State of TelanganaH

and for the State of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad and was renumberedas Writ Petition (TR) No. 5482 of 2017.

17. By the impugned judgment and order dated 18[th] February 2017,the High Court allowed both the Writ Petitions, setting aside theproceedings being F. No. 29/01/2016-SR(S) dated 14[th] January 2016(Final Allocation Order) of the Ministry of Personnel, PG and Pensions,insofar as it concerned the Respondent No.1.

18. The Ministry was directed to allocate the Respondent No.1 tothe State of Telangana with effect from 14[th] January 2016 and the Stateof Telangana was directed to forthwith give posting to the Respondentin the cadre of Joint Director, Class-A in the Animal HusbandryDepartment of the State of Telangana and also to release his salarywithin four weeks.

19. Mr. Aman Lekhi, learned Additional Solicitor General,appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that allocation had beenmade by the Respondent No.5, i.e., the Government of India in the mannerlaid down by law, i.e., as per Sections 77(2) and 80 of the Andhra PradeshReorganization Act, 2014, hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 2014”,read with the Final Allocation Guidelines issued on 29/30[th] December2014.

20. Mr. Lekhi submitted that Section 77(2) of the 2014 Act providesthat as soon as may be, after the appointed day, the Central Governmentshall, by general or special order, determine the successor State to whichevery person referred to in Section 77(1) shall be finally allotted forservice, after consideration of option received from the employees, andthe date with effect from which such allotment shall take effect or bedeemed to have taken effect. The second and third proviso to the saidSection provides that “as far as local, district, zonal and multi-zonalcadres are concerned, the employees shall continue to serve, on orafter the appointed day, in that cadre: provided also that theemployees of local, district, zonal and multi zonal cadres which fallentirely in one of the successor States, shall be deemed to be allottedto that successor State”.

21. Mr. Lekhi further submitted that Section 80 of the 2014 Actprovides for the constitution of Advisory Committee (AC) and for theissue of allocation guidelines by the Central Government. The Governmentof Andhra Pradesh vide GOMs No. 312 dated 29/30[th] December, 2014

AB

C

D

EF

G

H

Anotified the final allocation guidelines prepared under Section 80 of the2014 Act. The allocation of personnel was to be made in the mannerprovided under Guideline 14-17 and the allocation was to be made interms of the principles guiding allocation laid down in Guideline 18 of thefinal allocation guidelines.B22. It is not in dispute that by virtue of Guideline 18(c) of theAllocation Guidelines, the allocation from amongst allocable employeeswas to be made between the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telanganain order of seniority as available on 1[st] June, 2014.

23. Mr. Lekhi, however, submitted that the allocation was not toCbe made solely on the basis of seniority. Local candidates of the Statefor which they opt are to be considered in order of their seniority first. Ifthe allocable posts in that category still remain, then others who haveopted might be allocated in order of seniority.

24. Mr. Lekhi, argued that allocation was to be made first amongstthose local candidates of the State, who had opted for the State in orderDof their seniority and thereafter, if allocable posts still remained, thoseposts were to be filled up in the order of seniority from amongst non-local candidates who had opted for the State.

25. Mr. Lekhi argued that the respondent No.1 had submitted hisoption on the ground that he was a State Cadre employee and his wife aEState Government employee in the State of Telangana. Mr. Lekhisubmitted that a tentative allocation list of the State Cadre employeesbetween the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana was preparedand notified on 12th June, 2015 whereunder the Respondent No.1 wastentatively allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh.F26. The employees were given 14 days for filing representations/objections against the tentative allocation and the Respondent No.1 hadmade a representation to be considered as local candidate of the Stateof Telangana.

27. The representation was considered by the AllocationGCommittee in consultation with the heads of the department at meetingheld on 16[th] November 2015, but the request of the Respondent No.1for allocation to Telangana was not accepted for the following reasons :- “(i)He is a ‘local candidate’ of Andhra Pradesh.

(ii) His request for allocation to Telangana on spouseHground could not be accepted as his spouse was

appointed to a Zonal Cadre, i.e., Zone-II of erstwhileAndhra Pradesh which entirely fell under the SuccessorState of Andhra Pradesh and she was deemed allocatedto Andhra Pradesh as per provisions of Section 77(2)of the 2014 Act.

(iii) There was no vacancy in the State of Telangana toaccommodate him.”

28. Mr. Lekhi further submitted that the High Court erred indescribing the Respondent No.1 as a local candidate in the judgmentand order impugned ignoring the deemed appointment of his wife underSection 77(2) of 2014 Act and disregarding the absence of vacancies.

29. Mr. Lekhi argued that the cadre strength in the category ofJoint director-Class A in Animal Husbandry Department was 23, of which14 posts were allocated to Andhra Pradesh and 9 posts were allocatedto Telangana. However the number of allocable employees in thecategory of Joint Director – Class A was 27 and out of 27 employees, 12employees, who were local to the State of Telangana and had also optedfor the State of Telangana, were finally allocated to the State of Telanganaagainst the 9 posts as per provisions contained in Guideline 18(f).

30. Mr. Lekhi argued that the Respondent No.1 who was ‘localcandidate’ of the State of Andhra Pradesh was finally allocated to theState of Andhra Pradesh on 14[th] January, 2016 by the Ministry ofPersonnel, PG and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training videproceeding F No. 29/01/2016-SR(S).

31 Ms. Mohana appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1submitted that the impugned judgment and order of the High Court iswell reasoned and does not call for interference under Article 136 of theConstitution of India.

32. Ms. Mohana argued that Article 136 of the Constitution ofIndia does not create a regular forum of Appeal. It is only a residualprovision which enables this Court to interfere with the judgment andorder of any Court or Tribunal in India, in its discretion, as observed bythis Court in Suriyakala v. A. Mohandoss and Ors.[1].

A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

A33. Citing M/s Bengal Chemical and Pharmaceutical WorksLtd. v. Their Employees[2], Ms. Mohana argued that since power underArticle 136 of the Constitution of India was discretionary, this Court wasnot bound to set aside an order under Article 136, even if it was not inconformity with law.

B34. Ms. Mohana also cited Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State ofKerala and Another[3], State of Bombay v. Rusy Mistry[4], MunicipalBoard, Pratabgarh and Another v. Mahendra Singh Chawla andOthers[5] and Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan[6].

35. Ms. Mohana argued that the Respondent No.1 was a localCcandidate of the State of Telangana. In any case, his spouse was anative of Telangana and posted in Telangana. As such, the RespondentNo.1 was also eligible under paragraph 18(1) of the said Guidelines dated30[th] October 2014 for allocation to the State of Telangana.

36. Ms. Mohana referred to the definition of ‘Local Candidate’.DIn the definition of local candidate in paragraph 7 of the Andhra PradeshPublic Employment Order, 1975 which reads:

“1 A candidate for direct recruitment to any post shall beregarded as a local candidate in relation to a local area.

(a) in cases where a minimum educational qualification hasEbeen prescribed for recruitment to the post.

(i) if he has studied in an educational institution oreducational institutions in such local area for a period ofnot less then four consecutive academic years ending withthe academic year in which he appeared or, as the caseFmay be, first appeared for the relevant qualifyingexamination; or

(ii) where during the whole or any part of the fourconsecutive academic years ending with the academic yearin which he appeared or as the case may be, first appearedGfor the relevant qualifying examination he has not studied 2 AIR 1959 SC 633 (at 635)

3 (2000) 6 SCC 359

4 AIR 1960 SC 391 (at 395)

5 (1982) 3 SCC 331

H6 AIR 2003 SC 2889

in any educational institution, if he has resided in that localarea for a period of not less than four years immediatelypreceding the date of commencement of the qualifyingexamination in which he appeared or as the case may be,first appeared.

(b) In cases where no minimum educational qualification hasbeen prescribed for recruitment to the post, if he has residedin that local area for a period of not less than resided in thatlocal area for a period of not less than four years immediatelyproceeding the date on which the post in notified forrecruitment.”

37. Ms. Mohana pointed out that the Respondent No.1 had studiedat Khammam in the State of Telangana from Class VIII to X. Thereafterhe did his Bachelor of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry andMaster of Veterinary Science at the college of Veterinary Science, AP,Agricultural University, Rajendernagar, Hyderabad (Telangana) from1985 to 1992. Ms. Mohana argued that having studied in the State ofTelangana for 7 consecutive years ending with the academic year inwhich he appeared for qualifying examination, the Respondent No.1was a local candidate within the meaning ofAndhra Pradesh PublicEmployment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of DirectRecruitment) Order, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as “Andhra PradeshPublic Employment Order, 1975”).

38. Ms. Mohana emphasised that the Respondent No.1 had initiallybeen appointed as Assistant Director in Chevella Ranga Reddy District,Hyderabad in 1993 through an examination conducted in the unified Stateof Andhra Pradesh vide Recruitment Notification issued in 1992 by theAndhra Pradesh Public Service Commission.

39. The Petitioner had studied at educational institutions in theState for a period of not less than 7 consecutive academic years endingwith the academic year in which he first appeared for the relevantqualifying examination and was selected and appointed by directrecruitment. The Respondent No.1 is therefore, to be regarded as alocal candidate to the zone in which the city of Hyderabad falls.

40. Referring to Clause 18(f) of the Andhra Pradesh StateGuidelines issued on 30[th] October 2014, the final allocation of the State A

BC

DEF

G

H

ACadre Employees to the two states of Telangana and Andhra Pradeshshall be done on the basis of seniority as available on 1[st] June 2014.

41. Ms. Mohana also referred to paragraph 18(i) of the StateAllocation Guidelines under which employees who are members of theScheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes are to be considered forBallocation on the basis of their option if they are local candidates. If anSC or ST candidate has not exercised his option or where he has notbeen so allocated, he/she shall be allocated to the State where his casteor tribe, as the case may be, is included in the concerned schedule of theState.C

42. Ms. Mohana emphasized on Clause 18(f) of the Guidelinesdated 30[th] October 2014, which clearly states that allocable employeesshall be considered for allotment between the Successor States on thebasis of seniority list as on 1[st] June 2014. As per the seniority list, theposition of the Respondent No.1 was at Sr. NO.4. All the three employeesDsenior to the Respondent No.1 were allocated State of Andhra Pradeshas per their preference. The Respondent No.1 was thus the senior mostin his cadre to opt for the State of Telangana. Ms. Mohana argued thatthe Union of India gave no weight to seniority of the Respondent No.1and filled up vacancies by persons who are native of Telangana, whichis patently contrary to clause 18 (f) of the Guidelines. Ms. Mohana arguedEthat the High Court had correctly held that denial of posting to theRespondent No.1 from 8[th] March 2017 onwards and denying him salaryfrom that date onwards was illegal. The Respondent No.1 was entitledto be paid salary from 8[th] March 2017 till date of posting by State ofTelangana with interest at the rate of 7% per annum.F

43. Ms. Mohana argued that the wife of the Respondent No.1admittedly being a local candidate of Telangana allocated to Telangana,the Respondent No.1 needs to be allocated to Telangana. Ms. Mohanaargued that in any case the Respondent No.1 ought not have been relievedfrom service in the State of Telangana while order of stay was operatingGin his favour.

44. Ms. Mohana argued that after the Respondent No.1 wasreleased from ATMA, Rangareddy District on 7[th] March 2017, hereported to Animal Husbandry Department Telangana and requestedthat he be given up the posting but to no avail.H

45. The contentions of the Petitioners and the Respondent No.1have carefully and meticulously been dealt with by the High Court in itsimpugned judgment and order. The High Court noted:-

“7. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner gave a representationdt.26.06.2015 stating that though he was born in KadapaDistrict of Andhra Pradesh, he had studied Classes VIII, IXand X at Khammam in the State of Telangana and subsequenteducation including Post Graduation was also in theTelangana State and so he is to be considered as a localcandidate of State of Telangana; he was initially appointedas Assistant Director in Chevella, Ranga Reddy District inTelangana State through an examination conducted by theA.P. Public Service Commission in 1993 and he had onlyworked in Telangana State; his wife was working in the Officeof the Commissioner of Co-operation and Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Telangana State, Hyderabad as AssistantRegistrar; that she was initially appointed as Junior Assistantin Krishna District of the present residuary State of AndhraPradesh against ‘non-local’ category as per the AndhraPradesh Public Employment (Organization of Local Cadresand Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975 issued bythe President of India under Clauses (1) and (2) of Article371-D of the Constitution of India notified videG.O.Ms.No.674, General Administration (SPF-A) Departmentdt.29.10.1975 (also called ‘Presidential Order of1975’);during bifurcation process of the employees between the twoStates, she was allotted to Telangana State by way of an ‘Orderto Serve’ proceeding dt.31.05.2014 of the Director, Ministryof Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India;she was re-allocated to the residuary State of Andhra Pradeshsubsequently; that she gave objection to the same stating thatshe was born, brought up and educated in Telangana Stateand she had rendered service for 16 years in the area coveredby the said State and her reallocation to Andhra Pradesh wasabsurd, illegal; that the same was pending for consideration;that unless his wife’s request is considered or finalized hisallotment ought not to be considered.

He also stated that he had two children born and brought upin Hyderabad, aged 15 years and 12 years respectively, who ABC

DEFG

H

were in Classes 10 and 8 respectively, and if he is allotted tothe State of A.P., their studies would be adversely affected.

A

He also stated that as per the Seniority List in the Cadre ofJoint Director, his position was at Serial No.4 and there areexisting vacancies in the Telangana State since three JointBDirectors from Telangana State were allotted to AndhraPradesh.

At the time of these events, petitioner was working as ProjectDirector, ATMA, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad in theAgriculture Department of the State of Telangana onCdeputation.”

46. The High Court found that notwithstanding the factors notedabove and notwithstanding the fact that the Respondent No.1 was actuallyworking as Project Director, ATMA, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabadin the Agriculture Department of the State of Telangana, at the timeDwhen the State of Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated, the Respondent No.1was allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh.

47. The High Court found that the Respondent No.1 had continuedto work as Project Director, ATMA, Ranga Reddy District in theAgriculture Department on deputation, pursuant to the order dated 16[th]EFebruary 2016 of the High Court referred to hereinabove. The RespondentNo.1 was apparently repatriated from the post of Project Director, ATMA,Ranga Reddy District on 7[th] March, 2017, after which he made severalrepresentations to the Special Chief Secretary, Animal HusbandryDepartment, Government of Telangana that he be given posting. Noposting orders were, however, issued for over four and a half years andFno salary was paid to the Respondent No.1

48. On or about 19[th] October, 2016, Smt. B. Shantabai, wife ofthe Respondent No.1, who had earlier been working in Telangana butlater allocated to Andhra Pradesh in 2017, made a representation fortransfer to Telangana on mutual basis with one B. Geethavani, who wasGnot interested in continuing in Telengana in view of her husband’s conditionof health. In the said representation, she stated that she was willing toforego her seniority and willing to take the last rank below the last regularAssistant Registrar working in Zone-VI in the State of Telangana. Itappears that the State of Andhra Pradesh issued GOMs No. 51Agriculture and Co-operation (COOP.I) Department dated 12[th] June,H

2017 according permission to transfer Smt. B. Shantabai, wife of theRespondent No.1 to the State of Telangana.

49. On and from 14[th] June 2017, Smt. B. Shantabai was posted asAssistant Registrar in the office of the Commissioner for Cooperationand Registrar of Cooperative Societies. The Respondent No.1 washowever, allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh, ignoring his optionfor the State of Telangana and in violation of the Guidelines issued videG.O.Ms No. 312 dated 30[th] October 2014 and, in particular, Clause (1)of Para 18 set out hereinbelow for convenience :- “Spouses in State cadre in Government or in State Governmentinstitutions, local bodies and those who are deemed allocatedas per the Act, shall as far as practicable, be allotted to thesame State, after considering options made by them and theirlocal candidature. Spouses who are local candidates of a Stateshall be allocated to that State. Spouses who belong to differentStates may be allocated after considering their options. “

50. The allocation was also in contravention of the requirement ofClause (f) of Paragraph 18 directing that allocation shall be done inorder of seniority as available. On behalf of the Respondent No.1, it wasrightly contended that the spouse of the Respondent No.1 who had beenborn and educated in the State of Telangana had to be treated as a localcandidate of the State of Telangana. As a spouse, the Respondent No.1ought to have been allocated to the State of Telangana.

51. The High Court considered the Counter Affidavit filed by theState of Telangana at length and found :

“28. The State of Telangana and its Director of AnimalHusbandry who were impleaded as respondent nos.4 and 5in O.A.No.209 of2016 / W.P. (TR) No.5482 of 2017 filedcounter-affidavit /V.M.A.No.205 of 2016 in O.A.No.209 of2016 (re-numbered as WVMP(TR).No.703 of 2017) to vacatethe order dt.29.01.2016granted by it and dismiss the O.A. /W.P.

29. In the said counter-affidavit, it is stated that petitioner’swife had been appointed in Krishna District and promoted asAssistant Registrar in Zone-II (Zonal Cadre Post), that herseniority was also declared in the said Zone which falls in theState of Andhra Pradesh and as per Section 77(2) of the A.P.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Reorganization Act, 2014 she has to work in the said Stateonly.

30. Therefore, it is stated that petitioner cannot claim that hiswife is working in the State of Telangana and claim allotmentto the Telangana State on ‘spouse’ grounds.

31. It is stated that petitioner belongs to the State of AndhraPradesh as per his local candidature and so he has beenallocated to the home State of Andhra Pradesh based onavailability of posts in the said State.

32. It is however stated that petitioner’s representationregarding his provisional allocation to the State of AndhraPradesh and the local status of his wife were referred to theCommissioner of Co-operatives and Registrar of Co-operativeSocieties, Hyderabad and the latter videLr.Roc.No.778/MINC/2014 dt.22.04.2015 informed that as on that date petitioner’swife is working as Assistant Registrar in the Office ofCommissioner &Registrar of Cooperative Societies, AndhraPradesh at Hyderabad.

33. It is admitted that petitioner while working as JointDirector (Animal Husbandry) at District Project Office, RajivVidya Mission had submitted option form to the AnimalHusbandry Department exercising his option for the State ofTelangana as per preferential claim in terms of para 18(i) ofthe option form and also enclosed details of his spouse, buthis request cannot be accepted, and the decision was takenin accordance with the guidelines for final allocation.

34. In W.P.No.24820 of 2017, the State of Telangana and theDirector of Animal Husbandry Department filed a counterstating that as per para no. 18(i) of G.O.Ms.No.312dt.30.10.2014,’employees who are members of the ScheduledCastes or the Scheduled Tribes shall be considered forallocation on the basis of their option if they are localcandidates’; that petitioner is a local candidate of CuddapahDistrict of Andhra Pradesh State; and so, petitioner cannotcontend that his allocation to the State of A.P. is incorrect.

35. It is admitted that petitioner’s wife had joined in the Stateof Telangana in 2017, but it is contended that petitioner falsely

pleaded that his wife was working in Telangana State at thetime of filing of O.A.No.209 of 2016 and the said plea is notcorrect.

36. It is stated that though petitioner obtained order on16.02.2016in W.P.No.4391 of 2016 that he should not berelieved from his present place of work in the post of ProjectDirector, ATMA, Ranga Reddy District in the AgricultureDepartment of the Telangana State,he was relieved becauseat the time of re-organization of Districts in the State ofTelangana, the ATMA Scheme was merged with FarmerTraining Centers, etc. pursuant to a policy decision.”

52. The State of Andhra Pradesh did not file any counter affidavitin the High Court. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of theUnion of India admitting that 14 posts of Joint Directors were allotted tothe State of Andhra Pradesh and 09 posts were allotted to the State ofTelangana. The number of allocable employees in the cadre of JointDirector were 27 more than the sanctioned cadre strength. The excessallocable employees were allocated between successor States onpopulation ratio as per Guidelines. The Respondent No.1 though local tothe State of Andhra Pradesh had opted for Telangana but he was allottedto the State of Andhra Pradesh as per Paragraph 18(f) of the Guidelines,since there was no vacancy within the filled posts in Telangana.

53. The Union of India contended that the request of theRespondent No.1 for allocation to Telangana on the ground of his spousebeing a local of Telangana could also not be accepted as his spousebelonged to the zonal cadre of Andhra Pradesh.

54. The High Court held :-

“46. Para 18 of the said G.O. mentioned the guidelines/principles which would be followed for the purpose ofallocation of employees.

47. Clause (e) of Para 18 stated that ‘State Service employeeswho hold allocable posts shall heallocated afterseeking optionfrom the employees indicating their preference toserve in eitherof the successor States after taking their option intoconsideration.’

ABC

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

48. Admittedly, petitioner gave his option for allocating himto the State of Telangana on 07.03.2015.

49. Admittedly, of the total 23 posts in the Animal HusbandryDepartment of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh, 9 postswere allocated to the State of Telangana and 14 posts wereallocated to the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh.

50. Clause 18(c) of the guidelines states that allocableemployees shall be considered for allotment between thesuccessor State on the basis of seniority listas available on01-06-2014.

xxxxxxxxx

53. The petitioner’s position in the seniority list of JointDirectors(clause-A) in the composite State of Andhra Pradeshas on 02.06.2014wasSl.No.4.

54. The three people who were senior to him by nameTanikonda Damodar Naidu, Koneti Venkata Ramana,M.Srinivasa Rao, who were local candidates of AndhraPradesh, opted for the State of Andhra Pradesh and wereallocated temporarily to the State of Andhra Pradesh as canbe seen from Notification dt. 12.06.2015 issued by theGeneral Administration (SR) Department of the Governmentof Andhra Pradesh and also as per annexure-I to the finalallocation order No.5(2)/2016 dt. 14.1.2016.

55. Therefore, the petitioner is the senior most among personsin the Cadre of Joint Director Class-A to opt for the State ofTelangana.

xxxxxx

57. Thereafter the latter part of sub-Clause (f) of Clause 18which says’ if allocable posts in that category remain, then,others who have opted to the State may be allocated in orderof seniority’ will come to the aid of the petitioner; and becausehe is the senior most available person in the cadre of jointDirector- Class A, his claim for allocation permanently to theState of Telangana, would have primacy over the claims ofall his juniors in the said cadre.

58. Instead of following the above procedure prescribed byClause (f) of Para 18, a strange interpretation was given inpara-6 of its counter is adopted by the Union of India saying‘due to non-availability of vacancy within the filled posts inTelangana’, petitioner, though he had opted for the State ofTelangana, had to be allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh.

59. This suggests that the Union of India gave no weight atall to the seniority of the petitioner or to the fact that he wasthe senior most person in the cadre of Joint Director Class-Ato opt for the State of Telangana, proceeded to fill up thevacancies allocated to the State of Telangana by persons whoare ‘natives of Telangana’, and then took a stand that thereare no vacancies in Telangana State, where the petitioner canbe accommodated. This procedure is patently contrary to Para18(f) of the Guidelines.

xxxxxx

62. In the counter-affidavit filed by the State of AndhraPradesh, inO.A.No.209 of 2016/V.M.A.No,398 of 2016/W.V.M.P.(TR) No.701of 2017 in W.P. (TR) No.5482 of 2017 itis stated in para-6(f) that the Commissioner, Registrar ofCooperative Societies, Hyderabad had stated in Lr.No.778/Misc/2014 dt.22.04.2015 that petitioner’s spouse was workingas Assistant Registrar in his Office at Hyderabad. Admittedly,the petitioner’s spouse was initially appointed in ‘non--local’category in Zone-II falling in the residuary State ofAndhraPradesh, because she was a ‘local candidate’ to theState ofTelangana. She ultimately was posted on mutualtransfer to the State of Telangana in June, 2017.

63. Therefore, the Union of India cannot harp on thepetitioner’s wife’s belonging to the Zonal cadre of the Stateof Andhra Pradesh to deny petitioner’s claiming for postingin the State of Telangana on spouse grounds. The State ofTelangana cannot also contend that the petitioner incorrectlystated that his spouse was working in the State of Telanganaand that she does not ‘belong to the State of Telangana’.

xxx

xxxxxx

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

65. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled to be allocated tothe State of Telangana even on spouse ground and the Unionof India without taking note of the above facts erred inrejecting petitioner’s request for allocation to the State ofTelangana even on spouse ground.

xxx

xxxxxx

68. Also since the petitioner had studied Classes VIII to X inKhammam District in the State of Telangana and he statesthat uptopost-graduation, he studies in the State of Telangana,under Para 7 of the Presidential order, 1975, he is a localcandidate’ of the State of Telangana only, but ignoring thisfact and simply taking note of his place of birth as Cuddapahin Andhra Pradesh State, he was wrongly treated as a ‘localcandidate’ for the State of Andhra Pradesh. So even underClause (i) of para 18, petitioner is eligible to be allotted tothe State of Telangana.

xxx

xxx

75. It is the contention of petitioner that the order No.5 (2) of2016dt.14.01.2016 permanently allocating the petitioner tothe State of Andhra Pradesh itself states in para no.2 thereofthat it would not come into effect in respect of any personwho has obtained ‘stay order’ from a Court of Law againsthis allocation to any of the successor States till the time suchstay order is vacated; and since the order passed by theDivision Bench on 16.02.2016 in Writ PetitionNo.4391 of2016 directing the petitioner not to be disturbed from hiscurrent posting is in the nature of such ‘stay order’, thepetitioner cannot be asked to report to the State of AndhraPradesh.

76. We find force in the petitioner’s contention and agree withit.

77. So the petitioner cannot be denied salary by the State ofTelangana from 8.3.2017 till date on the basis of the saidrelieving order or the permanent allocation order F.No.29/01/2016 - SR(S) dt. 14.01.2016 (Order No.5(2)/2016) Ministryof Personnel, PG &Pensions, Department of Personnel andTraining, Government of India.”

55. There is no infirmity in the well reasoned order of the HighCourt which calls for interference of this Court in exercise of powerunder Article 136 of the Constitution of India. As argued by Ms. Mohana,jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is discretionary.The discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution ofIndian should not ordinarily be exercised to interfere with an otherwisejust and reasonable order by recourse to hyper technicality upon a narrow,rigid and pedantic interpretation of the guidelines.

56. Admittedly, at the time of bifurcation of the State of AndhraPradesh, the Petitioner was posted in an area which falls with Telangana.The Petitioner was required to exercise an option, which he admittedlydid. It is not in dispute that 9 posts out of total 23 posts were allocated tothe State of Telangana and 14 to the State of Andhra Pradesh. As perguidelines, allocable employees were to be considered on the basis ofseniority as on 1[st] June 2014.

57. As found by the High Court, the Petitioner’s position was 4[th]in seniority in the composite State of Andhra Pradesh as on 1[st] June2014. The 3 people, senior to him, were all local candidate of AndhraPradesh, who had opted for Andhra Pradesh. The Respondent No.1was senior most of the employees who opted for Telangana. The HighCourt found that the Respondent No.1 had denied allocation to Telanganaon a “strange interpretation of Clause (f) of paragraph 18 of the Guidelines,giving no weight to seniority. The High Court found on facts that noimportance at all had been given to the fact that the spouse of theRespondent No.1 was a local of Telangana.

58. On a possible interpretation of the Guidelines read with theAndhra Pradesh Public Employment Order 1975 and, in particular,paragraph 4 thereof, the High Court found that the Respondent No.1was local candidate of the State of Telangana. Admittedly, he studiedfrom Class VIII to X at Khammam which is in the State of Telangana.He thereafter did his Bachelor of Veterinary Science and AnimalHusbandry and Master of Veterinary Science at the college of VeterinaryScience, AP, Agricultural University at Hyderabad. He studied in thatinstitution for 7 years from 1985 to 1992 being the year in which heappeared in the qualifying examination.

59. Under the Constitution, India is a Union of States. Every partof every State is an integral and inseverable part of India. Admittedly, AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Athe Respondent was born in India. He has his domicile in the territory ofIndia. As held by this Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India[7],under the Indian Constitution, there is only one domicile i.e. domicile ofthe country and there is no separate domicile for a State.

60. The power to admit and include States into the Union underBArticle 2 of the Constitution, and to form new States and/or reorganizeState, is in its very nature of the power, wide and its exercise necessarilyguided by political issues of considerable complexity, many of whichmay not be judicially manageable.

61. Article 3, empowers Parliament to enact law and form a newCState by separation of territory from any State or by granting two ormore States or parts of States or by uniting any territory to a part of anyState. The principles relating to change of sovereignty in internationallaw are not applicable to re-organisation of the territory of the Stateunder Article 3 of the Constitution of India.

D62. When such an adjustment or reorganisation of territory takesplace, the existing law as well as administrative orders in a particularterritory continue to be in force and continue to be binding upon thesuccessor State so long as they are not governed, changed or repudiatedby the successor State.

E63. It is not in dispute that the respondent has his domicile in theTerritory of India and was born in the territory of India. Admittedly, he isa citizen of this country. As a citizen of India, the respondent has afundamental right under Article 19(1)(e) to reside and settle in any partof the territory of India.

F64. Under Article 13 (2) of the Constitution of India prohibits theState from making any law which takes away or infringes the rightsconferred by Part III of the Constitution of India and any law made incontravention of Article 13(2), to the extent of the contravention wouldbe void.

65. All statutes and all rules, regulations and bye-laws framed byGthe Government, which constitute law have to be construed harmoniouslywith the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part-III of the Constitutionof India.

H7 AIR 1984 SC 1420

66. The Andhra Pradesh State Reorganisation Act, 2014 or anyother guidelines framed thereunder, including the guidelines circulatedon 30.10.2014 cannot take away from citizens, the right to reside andsettle in any part of the country.

67. It is true that when a State is divided and the employees andofficers of the State Government have to be allotted to the two states,such allocation has to be done on the basis of the Rules and Regulationsand by guidelines.

68. However, such rules, regulations and guidelines have to beconstrued harmoniously with the fundamental rights guaranteed underthe Constitution of India. It is true that the respondent may have beenborn in an area which now forms part of Andhra Pradesh and may havereceived a substantial part of his education in areas which now formpart of the State of Andhra Pradesh. However, admittedly, he cleared allBoard and University examinations from areas within the State ofTelangana. At the time of bifurcation, he was posted in Hyderabad, whichis now part of Telangana.

69. The guidelines circulated on 30.10.2014 for allocation ofemployees and officers to the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradeshare directory and not inflexible. On a liberal interpretation of the guidelinesin the light of the philosophy of the Indian Constitution read with AndhraPradesh Public Employment Order, 1975, which was in force at the timeof bifurcation, and is applicable to the respondent even under theGuidelines referred to above, the High Court rightly arrived at theconclusion that the respondent was a local candidate of Telangana andwas entitled to allocation as per his seniority in terms of Paragraph 18(f)of the guidelines. Furthermore, admittedly, the spouse of the respondentwas a local candidate of Telangana.

70. In our considered view, there is no infirmity in the impugnedjudgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court affirmingthe judgment of the Single Bench.

71. The Special Leave Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.

Ankit Gyan

SLPs dismissed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H