TELANGANA JUDGES ASSOCIATION & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. on 3 October 2018

176

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2018] 13 S.C.R.

ATELANGANA JUDGES ASSOCIATION & ANR.

v.

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

(Writ Petition (C) No. 85 of 2015)

B

OCTOBER 03, 2018

[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]

Judiciary: Subordinate judiciary – Recruitment process –Allocation of subordinate judicial officers to the different cadres intwo States-State of Andhra Pradesh and State of Telangana – DraftCguidelines by respondent no. 1 whereby allocation shall be done inthe order of seniority as available on 02.06.2014 and preferenceshall be given first to those who have applied for the State in whichthe District declared by them at the time of entering service falls –After consideration, submission of modified guidelines by the HighDCourt – Approval of the principles of allocation and officers to beconsidered for allocation in the following order, those who haveopted and are senior; those who have opted for the State in whichthe district declared by them at the time of entering service falls;and if allocable posts still remain then allocation to be done in thereverse order of seniority – Petitioners’ case that draft framed byErespondent no. 1 protected the interest of Judicial Officers ofTelangana whereas modified guidelines by the High Court areprejudicial to the rights of the Judicial Officers of the State ofTelangana – Held: When for entering into Judicial Service, nocondition can be put regarding residence of particular area forFallocation of a State, consequent to Act, 2014, nativity cannot besole basis – Judicial Officers belonging to Telangana territorialarea may have desired or expectation to choose or to opt for theircadre in Telangana area, which is a legitimate aspiration, but givingpre-dominance to nativity only is not spelled from any statutoryprovision or scheme – Aspiration of petitioners that no seniorGofficer, should come to State of Telangana, which may mar theirprospect of promotion is neither in accord with the constitutionalscheme nor as per ethos of culture of this country – High Courtwhile formulating the guidelines has tried to balance the right ofoption of each Judicial Officer – All the Judicial Officers belongingHto Telangana State have opted and allocated the Telangana State –

Thus, the Modified guidelines does not suffer from any illegality orerror – Said guidelines is to be accepted and approved – Authoritiesdirected to finalise options of all the Judicial Officers as per themodified guidelines and complete the process of allocation withinthe stipulated period – Andhra Pradesh Re-organisation Act, 2014– ss. 77 and 80 – Constitution of India – Art. 371D.

Disposing of the matters, the Court

HELD: 1.1 For preparing guidelines for allocation of theJudicial officers, the views of the High Court are not to be ignoredand the Union of India, Department of Personnel & Training, hasrightly given due weight to the views of the High Court forallocation. However, the scheme of the Andhra Pradesh Re–organisation Act, 2014 indicates that final allocation Order is tobe issued as per the statutory provisions, by the CentralGovernment. The coverage of Section 77 is “Every person whoimmediately before the appointed day is serving on substantivebasis in connection with the affairs of the existing State of AndhraPradesh...”The coverage of Section 77 is in very wide term whichincludes every person who is serving in connection with the affairsof the existing State. There can be no denial that Judicial Officersworking in the Sub-ordinate Judiciary are serving in connectionwith the affairs of the existing State. Thus, there cannot be anydenial that Section 77 also clearly covers the sub-ordinatejudiciary of the State and final allocation Order has to be issuedby the Central Government after due consultation with the HighCourt. [Para 39][203-D-F]

1.2 The High Court in preparing draft guidelines andthereafter issuing modified guidelines for allocation of cadre ofJudicial Officers was well within its jurisdiction and its viewsrequired due weight in giving effect to the provisions of Section77 of the Act. Section 80 expressly indicates that in carryingexercise by the Central Government as contemplated underSection 77, there has to be fair and equal treatment to all personsaffected by the provisions of Part VIII of the Act. The guidelinesfor allocation of cadre should ensure fair and equal treatmentto all persons affected and they should also conform theequality clause as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.[Para 40, 42][203-G; 204-A, B]

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A1.3 Special provisions were introduced by way of Article371D of the Constitution. Now, by virtue of Act, 2014 in place ofthe State of Andhra Pradesh “the State of Andhra Pradesh or theState of Telangana” has been substituted. The basis for Article371D is to provide equal opportunity to the people of AndhraPradesh by introducing domicile as the basis for appointment toBservices and admissions in educational institutions, however,Article 371D has no application in respect of the appointment tothe posts of District Judges and Judges Subordinate thereto, inview of the constitutional scheme of separation of powers andexpress provisions having been made by the Constitution.C[Para 44, 46][204-H; 205-A; 206-H; 207-A-B]

Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. v. L.V.A. Dixitulu& Others (1979) 2 SCC 34 : [1979] 1 SCR 26 –referred to.

1.4 Petitioners have referred to guideline No. 18(f) of theDKamalanathan Committee determining principles guidingallocations read with guideline No. 18(n), which also read withthe Andhra Pradesh Public Employment Order, 1975 givespreference in allocation to those who have opted and who arelocal candidates to be allocated to that State in which they areElocal candidates. The said order dated 29.10.1975 issued underArticle 371D has been relied. The guidelines formulated byKamalanathan Committee in context of other Civil Services arenot relevant nor any support can be taken on the basis of saidguidelines. [Paras 48, 49][209-F-H]F1.5 The nativity for public employment runs counter to thefundamental right guaranteed under Article 16(2) except when itis provided by a Parliamentary Law as per exception carved outin Article 16(3) of the Constitution. In Act, 2014, there is noprovision, which expressly provides for allotment of the State onthe basis of place of birth or residence. Sections 77, 78 and 79 ofGthe Act do not refer to allotment on the basis of place of birth.When for entering into Judicial Service, no condition can be putregarding residence of particular area for allocation of a State,consequent to Act, 2014, nativity cannot be sole basis, as iscontended by the petitioner. It is true that the State of TelanganaHstand formed to realise the democratic aspirations of the people of Telangana. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of Act, 2014,which clearly establish that the creation of a separate State ofTelangana is for the betterment of the social, economic, politicaland other aspirations of the people of that region, whichcontemplated allocation of separate State of Telangana. The entireStatement of Objects and Reasons does not indicate that withrespect to public employment, nativity is to play a dominant role.It is true that Judicial Officers belonging to Telangana territorialarea may have desired or expectation to choose or to opt fortheir cadre in Telangana area, which is a legitimate aspiration,but giving pre–dominance to nativity only is not spelled from anystatutory provision or scheme. [Para 51][210-G-H; 211-A-D]

J. Panduranga Rao v. Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission [1963] 1 SCR 707 – referred to.

1.6 When a Judicial Officer has been given a right of optionto choose either of the successor State, right of option has to begiven same meaning and content. Right of option can be defeatedonly when there is some impediment in accepting the option.The seniority of a Judicial Officer is a first criteria for acceptingthe option. The seniority in a service is a valuable right of anemployee or officer. In service jurisprudence, several benefitsand perquisites are attached to the seniority. The petitioners areasking that option be accepted not on the basis of seniority butonly on the basis of nativity, i.e. those who are senior even if theyopt the State option, their option should not be selected and optionof those should be first accepted, who are natives of Telangana.The petitioner’s apprehension is that in event option of seniorofficers are accepted and they are posted in State of Telangana,the future prospects of promotion of the petitioners shall bemarred. Whether the officers, who in the seniority list, which wasprevalent on the date of formation of new State, i.e. on 02.06.2014where senior should loose their seniority or their seniority cannotbe said to play any role on account of formation of two successorStates is the question to be answered. The aspiration of petitionersthat no senior officer, should come to State of Telangana, whichmay mar their prospect of promotion is neither in accord with theconstitutional scheme nor as per ethos of culture of this country.The modified guidelines submitted by the High Court and A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aaccepted by the DoPT itself at second place give preference tonativity. Thus, the High Court while formulating the guidelineshas tried to balance the right of option of each Judicial Officer.[Para 54][212-B-F]

The State of Mysore and another v. G.N. Purohit andBothers (1967) SLR 753; Mohammad Shujat Ali andOthers v. Union of India [1975] SCR (1) 449 – referredto.

Black’s Law Dictionary Tenth Edn. P 1268; AdvancedLaw Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar – referred to.C1.7 The draft guidelines, which were initially circulated bythe High Court on 26.02.2016 has in the first sentence stated“the allocation shall be done in the order of seniority as availableon 02.06.2014.” The second sentence read “Preference shall begiven first to those who have applied for the State in which theDDistrict declared by them at the time of entering service falls”.The above draft guidelines has only been amplified retaining theinitial concept of accepting option on the basis of seniority. Boththe concept are now reflected in modified guidelines as guidelineNo. 5(1) and 5(2). Thus, the submission that guidelines have beensubstantially changed by the High Court without there being anyEreason cannot be accepted. The substance of the guidelines aresame, which were initially contained in the draft guidelines andmodified guidelines. It was the DoPT, which has proposedguidelines, where content clause 5.2 was 5.1 of modifiedguidelines were proposed as 5.1 was 5.2, which was notFaccepted by the High Court and Full Court reiterated their earlierprinciple, which was initially encapsuled in draft guidelines.[Para 56][214-G-H; 215-A-B]

1.8 Chart indicating the details of options and showingdetails of Judicial Officers working in both the States of AndhraGPradesh and Telangana from 02.06.2014 and the acceptanceposition of their option has been submitted by the High Court,which indicate that all Judicial Officers belonging to territorialarea of Telangana region have been allocated Telangana Stateand the option of all the Judicial Officers, who have opted forTelangana State have been accepted. [Para 57][215-C-D]H

1.9 All the Judicial Officers belonging to Telangana Statehaving opted and allocated the Telangana State, practically, thereis no error in the operation of guidelines finalised by the HighCourt. Modified guidelines as submitted by the High Court videletter dated 08.07.2017, which has been accepted by DoPT doesnot suffer from any illegality or error. The said guidelines is to beaccepted and approved. The respondents are directed to finaliseoptions of all the Judicial Officers as per the above guideline andcomplete the process of allocation within the stipulated period.[Para 58, 59][215-E-G]

1.10 In the Civil Appeals, appellants have not pressed thequashing of Recruitment 2014 and 2015. Further, Andhra PradeshJudicial Service Rules, 2007 as adopted by State of Telangana,which was quashed by the High Court is now substituted by freshRules namely, Telangana State Judicial Service Rules, 2017. Allthe issues raised in the Civil Appeals have become academicand needs no consideration. [Para 60][216-A]

State of U.P. v. Batuk deo Pati Tripathi (1978) 2 SCC102; State of Bihar and Another v. Bal Mukund sahand Others (2000) 4 SCC 640 : [ 2000] 2 SCR 299;Mangal Singh v. Union of India (1967) 2 SCR 109 –referred to.

Case Law Reference

A

B

C

D

E

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.85 of 2015

Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

H

AManinder Singh, Ms. Pinky Anand, ASGs, Salman Khurshid,Huzefa Ahmadi, Harin P. Raval, R. Venkatramani, V. V. S. Rao,B. Adinarayana Rao, Sr. Advs., Ms. Bina Madhavan, T. Sudhakar Reddy,Krishna K. Singh, Rohan Sharma, Ms. Alisha Panda, Ms. Ayesha Jamal,Mrs. Elizabeth Antony, M. P. Shorawala, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar,Mrityunjai Singh, Ms. Divya Anand, Aditya P. Arora, Ms. Anitha Shenoy,BMs. Srishti Agnihotri, Yashraj B, Praveen Vignesh, Ms. Remya Raj, R.Balasubramanian, Ms. Vimla Sinha, A. K. Sharma, Ms. Aarti Sharma,Prabhas Bajaj, Ms. Kanika S., Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Ms. PrernaSingh, Prashant Mathur, Guntur Prabhakar, Ms. Saudamini Sharma,Nishant Katneshwarkar, Y. Raja Gopala Rao, Ms. Y. Vismai Rao, K.CSharat Kumar, Ms. M. Yesasvi, C. S. N. Mohan Rao, Advs. for theappearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. 1. Leave granted.2. The bifurcation of lower judiciary by State wise strength ofDcombined State of Andhra Pradesh, consequent to the Andhra PradeshReorgnisation Act, 2014 is the issue which has arisen in these two caseswhich have been heard together and are being decided by this commonjudgment.

Facts: Writ Petition (C) No.85 of 2015E

Facts

E3. The writ petition has been filed by the Telangana JudgesAssociation, a registered forum, formed to protect the interest of theJudicial Officers of State of Telangana. The petitioner has challengedthe recruitment process initiated by the High court of the Judicature atHyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra PradeshF(hereinafter referred to as ‘the High Court’) for filling up the post ofCivil Judge (Junior Division). The petitioner’s case is that consequent tothe Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014(hereinafter referred toas ‘Act, 2014’) with effect from 02.06.2014 a new State has been formed,namely, State of Telangana without permitting the option envisaged inSection 77(2) of the Act, 2014 and without bifurcation of subordinateGjudiciary the recruitment process has been initiated which is not inaccordance with law. Petitioner’s case is that from the establishment ofthe High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the year 1956, there has beeninadequate representation of Telangana Judges in the cadres of JuniorCivil Judges, Senior Civil Judges, District Judges and even Judges ofthe High Court. The impugned notification issued by respondent No.2H

without constituting Telangana State Judicial Service and withoutpreparing State wise cadre strength of respective States would affectthe seniority as well as promotion of the Telangana State Judicial Officerswhose strength is at present 25% only in comparison with Andhra PradeshState Judicial Officers.

4. An advertisement dated 01.02.2014 for recruitment for 97vacancies of Civil Judges (Junior Division) was published. The preliminarywritten examination was notified for 27.04.2014. The State of Telanganawas created as the 29[th] State of the Union of India by the Act, 2014 on01.03.2014. A representation was submitted to stop the recruitmentprocess as the Central Government had announced, 02.06.2014, the datefor the formation of Telangana State. The High Court put on hold theselection process till a clarification is obtained from this Court. Anapplication was filed by the High Court in C.A. No.1867 of 2006 (MalikMazhar Sultan & Ors. vs. Union Public Service Commission & Ors.) onwhich this Court on 07.07.2014 passed an order permitting the statusquo. However, this Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan passed an order on20.01.2015 clarifying that the process already initiated for recruitmentof Judicial Officers in the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana bythe High Court be proceeded with. The Chief Justice of the High Courthad constituted a Committee of Judges, which Committee decided toask the Judicial Officers in the State of Andhra Pradesh to exerciseoption with respect to the newly formed States. Writ Petition(C)No.403of 2014(Dumpala Dharma Rao vs. High Court of Andhra Pradesh &Ors.) was also filed in this Court challenging the proposed action of theHigh Court calling for the option of Judicial Officers. An application forimpleadment by Telangana Judges Association has been allowed in WritPetition No.403 of 2014. Petitioners have also submitted suggestions forthe purpose of final guidelines for allocation of States services to thePrincipal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh. Petitioners alsosubmitted representation to the Joint Secretary, Department of Personnel& Training, Government of India dated 02.12.2014 requesting that theguidelines issued by the Government of India may be made applicable tothe Personnel of Subordinate Judiciary and to take necessary expeditioussteps for allocation of members of Subordinate Judiciary.

5. In the writ petition petitioner has made the following prayers:

5. In the writ petition petitioner has made the following prayers:

“(i) Issue writ/writs including a writ in the nature of Mandamusdirecting the respondents to bifurcate the Lower Judiciary from A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service and toconstitute the Telangana Judicial Service under Articles 233 and234 of the Constitution of India and fix the cadre strength of eachState;

(ii) Issue writ/writs including a writ in the nature of certiorariBquashing the Notification dated 05.02.2015 and Notification No.54/2015-RC dated 09.02.2015 issued by the Hon’ble High Court ofJudicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the Stateof Andhra Pradesh; and

(iii) pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit andnecessary in the interest of justice.”

C

Civil Appeal Nos...............of 2018 (arising out ofSLP(C)Nos.18787-18790 of 2018

6. These appeals have been filed by the State of Telangana againstthe Division Bench judgment dated 29.04.2016 of the High Court ofJudicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State ofDAndhra Pradesh (herein after referred to as ‘the High Court’) decidingPublic Interest Litigation No.31 of 2015 with three other Writ Petitions.In the Public Interest Litigation filed before the High Court followingprayer was made:

“I therefore pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased toEissue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the natureof a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in notbifurcating the Subordinate Judicial Officers and other JudicialOfficers of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh as per Section77of Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 and not distributingFSubordinate Judicial Officers and other employees to the State ofTelangana and to the State of Andhra Pradesh and issuance ofimpugned notification No.15/2014-RC dated 01.02.2014 andconsequential notification No.54/2014-RC dated 05.02.2014 of thesecond respondent as null and void, arbirary, illegal and violativeof Articles 233 and 234 of Constitution of India and Part VIII ofGA.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014 and consequently direct respondentsto distribute the subordinate judicial officers and other judicialemployees to both the States and only thereafter makerecruitments to the Subordinate Higher Judicial Service and JudicialService and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble CourtHmay deem fit and proper.”

H

7. The High Court after elaborately considering all the issuesdismissed all the writ petitions. The State of Telangana has by a notificationadopted Andhra Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2007 without makingany consultation with the High Court. The recruitment process initiatedby the notification in the year 2014 for 97 posts of Civil Judges andrecruitment process for 34 posts in pursuance of 2015 notification werecompleted. After completing the entire process of selection duringpendency of the writ petitions, the High Court noticed in the judgmentthat the ratio of Judicial Officers selected are in the ratio of 60 : 40 percent. While dismissing the Public Interest Litigation and Writ Petitions,the High Court in paragraph 18 held:

“18. In the result, the Public Interest Litigation and the Writ Petitionsare dismissed. The respondent – High Court shall compete theprocess of recruitment initiated in pursuance of 2014 and 2015Notifications. The respondent – State Governments are directedto take all necessary steps for appointments of the selectedcandidates, recommended by the High Court at the earliest. 2015Rules shall not be acted upon and shall not operate since theywere not made in consultation with the High Court as providedfor under Article 234 of the Constitution. It is open to the State ofTelangana to take steps to adapt 2007 Rules afresh, in exercise ofthe powers under Section 101 of the Act, in consultation with theHigh Court.”

8. When these appeals(SLPs) were filed against the judgment ofthe High Court dated 29.04.2016, this Court on 15.07.2016 directed theseappeals to be listed along with Writ Petition (C)No.85 of 2015.

This Court on 18.07.2016 took up both, the writ petitions and theseappeals and after hearing learned counsel for the parties passed a detailedorder on 28.04.2017 where this Court issued following directions:

“....In the background of the above mentioned suggestion, wedeem it appropriate to direct that the guidelines issued by theexisting High Court be treated as the draft guidelines for the purposeof allotment of the judicial officers to the different cadres in two 4states. Telangana Judges Association and the State of Telanganaas well as the State of Andhra Pradesh and any one of the judicialofficers subject to the control of the existing High Court and notbelonging to Telangana Judges Association either individually orin their representative capacity may make suggestions within a A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

A

period of four weeks from today. Any representation made byanyone of the above mentioned bodies shall be made both to theGovernment of India and the existing High Court and also thecopies of the same shall be furnished simultaneously to all theparties before this Court in these two matters.

B The Union of India shall thereafter examine the varioussuggestions made by anyone of the above mentioned bodies andprepare the draft guidelines in consultation with the existing HighCourt on or before the 17th of June, 2017 and place the draftguidelines before this Court on the next date of hearing forappropriate further orders.”C

9. Consequent upon the above order dated 28.04.2017 an affidavitof compliance has been filed by the Union of India. In pursuance of theorder of this Court dated 28.04.2017 respondent No.1 prepared a draftguidelines for allocation of Subordinate Judicial Officers which wassubmitted to the High Court. The High Court after consideration of theDdraft guidelines and other inputs decided to submit a revised guidelines.The revised guidelines as suggested by the High Court have been broughton record as Encl.E to the affidavit of the Union of India filed incompliance of order dated 28.04.2017. For the purposes of this case, weneed only to notice the modified guidelines submitted by the High CourtEin reference to which submissions have been made by the learned counselfor the petitioners. The draft sent by the Department of Personnel &Training and as modified by the High Court and final decision taken bythe respondent has been filed in the Tabular form. Relevant part ofparagraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the affidavit of Union of India may also benoticed which are as follows:F

“7. It is humbly submitted that the Ld. Registrar General of theHon’ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, vide letter dated8.7.2017, had forwarded the modified guidelines and the optionform as approved by the Hon’ble High Court, for further necessaryaction. The Draft Guidelines, thus duly modified by the Hon’bleGthe High Court, as stated above, is annexed as ANNEXURE-D.

8. It is respectfully submitted that while the Hon’ble High Courthas accepted most of the Principles for allocation as incorporatedby the Central Government in the Draft Guidelines, a fewmodifications have been made by the Hon’ble High Court. TheHsignificant modification(s) inter-alia include as under:- c. Modification in descending order of Priority of theprinciples to be adopted for allocation of empoloyee bythe Full Court.

B

The Hon’ble existing High Court of Judicature atHyderabad has modified the Central Government guidelinesand approved the principles of allocation as under:

(a) those who have opted and are senior; (b) those who have opted for the State in which the districtdeclared by them at the time ofentering service falls; C

(c) if allocable posts still remain, then allocation would bedone in the reverse order of seniority.

The above modifications have been approved by the Full Courtof the Hon’ble existing High Court. The DoPT, Govt. of Indiaaccepts the above-mentioned modifications which have beenapproved by the Hon’ble existing High Court.

D

9. The draft guidelines as modified by the Hon’ble High Courtand received by the DoPT [vide letter dated 8/7/2017] alongwiththe Department’s proposed modification as mentioned in para 8(a)above, is submitted for consideration of this Hon’ble Court, incompliance with this Hon’ble Court’s order dated 28/4/2017. ThisAffidavit is submitted on behalf of the DoPT, Govt. of India incompliance with the order dated 28.04.2017 for kind considerationby this Hon’ble Court towards finalization of the Guidelines forallocation/ distribution of judicial officers between the two States.”

EF

10. Shri Salman Khurshid and Shri Huzefa Ahmadi, learned seniorcounsel have appeared for the writ petitioners. Shri R. Venkatramanihas appeared for the High Court. Shri Maninder Singh, learned AdditionalSolicitor General of India has appeared for Union of India. Shri V.V.S.Rao, learned senior counsel has appeared for the State of AndhraPradesh. Shri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned senior counsel has appearedfor the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Officers Association. We have alsoheard learned counsel for the State of Telangana.

G

11. Learned counsel for the parties have confined their submissionsonly to the guidelines for allocation as modified by the High Court.

H

A12. Shri Salman Khurshid and Shri Huzefa Ahmadi learned seniorcounsel appearing for the petitioners contends that modified guidelinesissued by the High Court whereunder option of those who are senior hasto be first accepted, causes prejudice to officers of Telangana. It issubmitted that the ratio of Judicial Officers from Telangana as comparedto those from State of Andhra Pradesh has always been less. The mainBobject of bifurcation of existing State of Andhra Pradesh and formationof Telangana State is for betterment of socio-economic conditions andto fulfill the political and other aspirations of the people of Telanganaand to do the justice to the people of Telangana on various fronts. TheHigh Court by modifying the guidelines for accepting the option hadCwatered down the enactment of Act, 2014. The guidelines proposed byDoPT for option were fully acceptable to the petitioners where initiallyin accepting the option preference was to be given to those who hadopted to the State in which District declared at the time of service falls,which has been subsequently modified by the High Court. He submittedthat by permitting seniors to opt for State of Telangana, there being largeDnumber of senior Judicial Officers from Andhra Pradesh, the prospectsof promotion of Officers who belong to Telangana region is being marredwhich will be nothing but perpetuating the injustice meted out to them.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also come up with asubmission that Judicial Officers belonging to State of Andhra PradeshEmay be accommodated in the State of Telangana on deputation basis.The Officers who have opted State/District of Telangana can be sentback in the native State of Andhra Pradesh. It is submitted that by thesaid suggestion no prejudice will be caused to either of the parties. Thepetitioner has also relied on proviso to Section 77(2) of the Act, 2014 inFsupport of their submission.

14. The petitioners have also relied on Article 371D of theConstitution which according to the petitioners was inserted to giverecognition to the aspirations of the people of Andhra Pradesh. Article371D permits domicile as the basis for appointment to the services.

G15. Shri Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General ofIndia submits that Union of India has already filed compliance affidavitin pursuance of the order dated 28.04.2017 and the Union of India willimplement the guidelines for allocation which may be approved by thisCourt. Although, Department of Personnel & Training has accepted therevised guidelines submitted by the High Court submitted with the approvalHof the full Court as has been indicated in the compliance affidavit.

16. Shri R.Venkatramani, learned senior counsel appearing forthe High Court submits that it is the High Court which has control overthe Subordinate Judiciary as per the constitutional scheme which has tolay down the guidelines for allocation of State. The High Court whilefinalising the guidelines has taken a fair and equitable decision for allJudicial Officers. It is submitted that domicile has not been provided asany special factor for allocation and the emphasis on domicile as exclusivecriterion to allocation cannot be sustained. The declaration given by theOfficers at the time of entering into the service relating to home Districtin the context of service requirement cannot be exhorted to the status ofcriteria or norm.

17. It is further submitted that submission of the petitioner thatJudicial Officers pertaining to State of Telangana are much less ascompared to State of Andhra Pradesh, is not fully correct. It is submittedthat recruitment of Judicial Officers is on all India basis, Officers fromother States including Karnataka, Orissa, Bihar, Tamil Nadu are also inthe service and in allocation of State, thus nativity or home Districtdeclared cannot serve any substantial basis. Shri Venkatramani submitsthat in effect there is no difference in allocation of cadre in respect tothose who had declared District in the State of Telangana as there homeDistrict and under both, the guidelines that is unrevised and revised theresult is same. During the course of submission, Shri Venkatramani waspermitted to submit a chart reflecting the position of allocation of allJudicial Officers as per their options. The above chart has also beensubmitted by the learned counsel for the respondent.

18. Shri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned senior counsel appearingfor Andhra Pradesh Judicial Officers Association submits that the HighCourt has exclusive power and jurisdiction over District Courts andSubordinate Courts thereto. In the Constitutional scheme as delineatedby Article 235, it is the High Court who has control over Judicial Service.In allocation of the Judicial Officers, it is the High Court which iscompetent to finalise guidelines and the revised guidelines submitted bythe High Court are perfectly in accordance with law. The due weightageto the seniority of the Judicial Officers have to be given which senioritycannot be taken away to prejudice the Judicial Officers. Those Officerswho had been senior in the combined seniority list cannot be made juniorby accepting guidelines for accepting options as contended by thepetitioners. He further submitted that there is no relevance of place ofbirth in public employment. He submits that appointment for Judicial A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AService is made on all India basis, hence, petitioners cannot claim anyspecial privilege and right in the service only on the ground that they arenative of District which now falls in newly created State of Telangana.Shri Rao further submits that scheme of allotment as envisaged by PartVIII of Act, 2014 has no application for the allotment of Judicial Officersof the District Courts and Courts Subordinate thereto. He submits thatBpower under Article 2, 3 and 4 of the Constitution of India is not absolute.He submits that revised guidelines approved by the full Court of theHigh Court are fully in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of theConstitution and protect the rights of Judicial Officers which need nointerference in these writ petitions.

C

19. The submission on behalf of State of Telangana is thatexpression “Affairs of the State” featuring in Section 77 of the Act,2014 necessarily have to be construed to mean all the three organs ofthe State including judiciary. In order to render justice to the servicepersonnel allotted to the two States and to completely eliminate theDpossibility of discrimination it may be prudent to entrust the powersmentioned in Section 77 to the Central Government because the saidpower is in nature of a special power contemplated to meet the exigencies.The criterion of Domicile is in consonance with the Legislative intentand the Constitutional spirit embedded in principle of territoriality whichis the heart and soul of any State Reorganisation Act.E

20. It has also been brought to our notice that the State ofTelangana has already framed new set of Rules, The Telangana StateJudicial Service Rules, 2017. In view of the framing of the Rules, 2017and further on completion of recruitment in pursuance of order of thisCourt which was challenged in the writ petition before the High Court,Fwhich has been dismissed, nothing survives in the SLP to decide.

21. We have considered the submissions of the learned counselfor the parties and perused the records.

22. The issue which needs to be considered in the writ petitionGlies in the very narrow compass, i.e., whether the revised guidelines assubmitted by the High Court to respondent No.1 for allocation deserveto be accepted or not. It is useful to notice the guidelines proposed bythe High Court that is initially proposed and modified guidelines.

23. The High Court’s guidelines which were initially proposed on26.02.2016 are as follows:H

“1. The allocation shall be done in the order of seniority as availableon June 02, 2014.Preference shall be given first to those whohave applied for the State in which the District declared by themat the time of entering service falls.”

24. The guidelines dated 26.02.2016 were sent to the Departmentof Personnel & Training. Representation and objections were alsosubmitted to the draft guidelines dated 26.02.2016 proposed by the HighCourt. The DoPT after considering the objections and representation tothe proposed guidelines sent proposed guidelines by letter dated 29.06.2017to the High Court. The High Court deliberated on the proposed guidelinessent by DoPT and vide its letter dated 08.07.2017 communicated themodified guidelines. The Union of India in its affidavit filed in compliancewith the order dated 28.07.2017 has brought on record the draft guidelinesas proposed by DoPT, modified guidelines by the High Court and thedecision taken by DoPT in a Tabular Chart filed in Annexure-E to theaffidavit.

25. We may first notice the relevant provisions of Andhra PradeshRe-organization Act, 2014 assented by the President of India and gazettedon 01.03.2014. By Section 3 of the Act, Telangana State was formedcomprising of territories of existing State of Andhra Pradesh of severaldistricts as enumerated therein. Section 30 provided that on and fromappointed day, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad shall be thecommon High Court for the State of Telangana and the State of AndhraPradesh till a separate High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh isconstituted. Part VIII of the Act dealt with provisions as to Services.Section 76 dealt with All India Services. Section 77 dealt with otherservices and Section 78 contains other provisions related to services.Section 77 and Section 78 which are relevant are extracted as below:- “77. Provisions related to other services:(1) Every personwho immediately before the appointed day is serving onsubstantive basis in connection with the affairs of the existingState of Andhra Pradesh shall, on and from that dayprovisionally continue to serve in connection with the affairsof the State of Andhra Pradesh unless he is required, bygeneral or special order of the Central Government to serveprovisionally in connection with the affairs of the State ofTelangana:

A

B

C

DEF

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Provided that every direction under this sub-section issuedafter the expiry of a period of one year from the appointedday shall be issued with the consultation of the Governmentsof the successor States.

(2) As soon as may be after the appointed day, the CentralGovernment shall, by general or special order, determine thesuccessor State to which every person referred to in sub-section (1) shall be finally allotted for service, afterconsideration of option received by seeking option from theemployees, and the date with effect from which such allotmentshall take effect or be deemed to have taken effect:

Provided that even after the allocation has been made,the Central Government may, in order to meet any deficiencyin the service, depute officers of other State services fromone successor State to the other:

Provided further that as far as local, district, zonal andmulti-zonal cadres are concerned, the employees shallcontinue to serve, on or after the appointed day, in that cadre:

Provided also that the employees of local, district, zonaland multi-zonal cadres which fall entirely in one of thesuccessor States, shall be deemed to be allotted to thatsuccessor State:

Provided also that if a particular zone or multi-zone fallsin both the successor States, then the employees of such zonalor multi-zonal cadre shall be finally allotted to one or theother successor States in terms of the provisions of this sub-section.

(3) Every person who is finally allotted under theprovisions of sub-section (2) to a successor State shall, if heis not already serving therein, be made available for servingin the successor State from such date as may be agreed uponbetween the Governments of the successor States or, in defaultof such agreement, as may be determined by the CentralGovernment:

Provided that the Central Government shall have thepower to review any of its orders issued under this section.

78. Other Provisions relating to services:-(1) Nothing inthis section or in section 77 shall be deemed to affect, on orafter the appointed day, the operation of the provisions ofChapter I of Part XIV of the Constitution in relation todetermination of the conditions of service of persons servingin connection with the affairs of the Union or any State:

Provided that the conditions of service applicableimmediately before the appointed day in the case of any persondeemed to have been allocated to the State of Andhra Pradeshor to the State of Telangana under section 77 shall not bevaried to his disadvantage except with the previous approvalof the Central Government.

(2) All services prior to the appointed day rendered bya person,—

(a) if he is deemed to have beenallocated to anyState under section 77, shall be deemed to have been renderedin connection with the affairs of that State; (b) if he is deemed to have been allocated to the Union inconnection with the administration of the successor State ofTelangana, shall be deemed to have been rendered inconnection with the affairs of the Union, for the purposes of the rules regulating his conditions ofservice.

(3) The provisions of section 77 shall not apply in relationto members of any All-India Service.”

26. Section 80 contemplated establishment of Advisory Committeesto assist the Government. Section 80 is as follows:

“80. Advisory Committees:(1) The Central Government may,by order, establish one or more Advisory Committees, withina period of thirty days from the date of enactment of the AndhraPradesh Re-organisation Act, 2014, for the purpose ofassisting it in regard to––

(a) the discharge of any of its functions under this Part;and (b) the ensuring of fair and equitable treatment to allpersons affected by the provisions of this Part and the A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

proper consideration of any representations made by suchpersons.

(2) The allocation guidelines shall be issued by the CentralGovernment on or after the date of enactment of the AndhraPradesh Re-organisation Act, 2014 and the actual allocationBof individual employees shall be made by the CentralGovernment on the recommendations of the AdvisoryCommittee:

Provided that in case of disagreement or conflict of opinion,the decision of the Central Government shall be final:Provided further that necessary guidelines as and whenrequired shall be framed by the Central Government or asthe case may be, by the State Advisory Committee which shallbe approved by the Central Government before suchguidelines are issued.

C

27. The Central Government constituted two Advisory Committees,(i) for the allocation of All India Services officers born on undividedcadre of the State of Andhra Pradesh under the chairmanship of ShriPratyusha Sinha, and, (ii) for other State cadre employees under thechairmanship of Shri Kamlanathan. Kamlanathan Committee submittedrecommendations for allocation of other State Services.

D

E

28. The High Court issued guidelines dated 26.02.2016 providingfor procedure of allocation alongwith revised option form. The relevantprovisions for allocation as contained in the guidelines in paragraph 1provided, as follows:

“1. The allocation shall be done in the order of seniority asFavailable on June 02, 2014. Preference shall be given first tothose who have applied for the State in which the Districtdeclared by them at the time of entering service falls.”

29. On basis of aforesaid communication, Officers submitted theiroption which were compiled and send by the High Court. As noted above,Gin the mean time, Writ Petition No.403 of 2014 was filed by DumpalaDharmarao, where he had challenged the action of the High Court incalling for option of the Judicial Officers in the State of Andhra Pradesh.This Court had passed an Order for status quo on 07.07.2014. WritPetition was subsequently dismissed as have been becoming infructuousHafter retirement of Dumpala Dharmarao. As noted above, in pursuance

of the Order dated 28.04.2017 passed by this Court in W.P.No.85 of2015, the guidelines framed by the High Court were treated as draftguidelines and Union of India was directed to examine the varioussuggestions made through representations and place the draft guidelinesbefore this Court. As noted above, the Compliance Affidavit has beenfiled by the Union of India. The Union of India has in its complianceaffidavit noted the suggestions on guidelines issued by the High Court,Telangana State Government, different associations, individuals andproposed guidelines of Department of Personnel and Training.

30. The High Court vide its letter dated 08.07.2017 againforwarded modified guidelines for allocation of Judicial Officer in categoryof District Judge, Senior Civil Judge and Junior Civil Judge. High Courtgave suggestions regarding constitution of Advisory Committee whichmay include Senior most Judges among the nominated Judges of theHigh Court being the Chairman of the Committee. Paragraph 5 of thedraft guidelines contains principles for allocation. Paragraph 5 (i) & (ii)which are relevant are quoted below:- “5. The allocation shall be done keeping in view thefollowing principles;

(i) The allocation shall be done in the order of seniorityas available on June 01,2014 for each category ofposts.

(ii) Officers will be considered for allocation in thefollowing order (a) those who have opted and aresenior; (b) those who have opted for the State in whichthe district declared by them at the time of enteringservice falls; (c) if allocable posts still remain thenallocation would be done in the reverseorder of seniority.”

31. The Government of India has brought on record draft guidelinesframed by the Department of Personnel and Training and modifiedguidelines as sent by the High Court on 08.07.2017 and the decision ofDepartment of Personnel and Training. The draft guidelines as forwardedby the High Court in Paragraph 5 (i) & (ii) as extracted above havebeen accepted by Department of Personnel & Training, which is clearfrom Enclosure-E, filed alongwith the compliance affidavit. It is usefulto extract relevant part of Annexure-E containing principles forallocations. Relevant part of the guidelines are as follows:

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A“DRAFT GUIDELINES FOR ALLOCATION OF SUB-ORDINATE JUDICIAL OFFICERSS.No.Draft framed by DO PTAs modified by Rem arks/O bserva H igh Co urt-tion of DO PT reference Col. (3)B1..........2..........3..........4..........5.The allocation shall be Cdone keeping in view th e following principles:i. The allocation sh all be No ChangeAccepteddone in the order of seni ority as available on June 01, 201 4 for each Dcategory of posts .ii. Officers will be Officers will be Since the considered for allocation cons idered for modifications have in the following order(a) allocation in the been approved b y those who have opted for following order the full court we Ethe State in which the (a) those who may accept as dis trict declared by them have opted and appro ved by the at th e tim e of entering are senior; (b) High C ourt. service falls, failing those who have which as determ ined as opted for he per para 5(vii); (b) tho se S tate in which who have op ted and are the district Fseni or; (c) if allo cable declared by posts st ill remain then them at the time allocation wo uld be done of entering in the reverse order of service falls; (c) seni ority.if allocable posts s till remain th en Gallocation would be do ne in the reverse order of seniority.H........

32. Now, we come to the challenges which have been raised bythe petitioners to the guidelines as modified by the High Court andaccepted by the Department of Personnel & Training. Petitioners’grievance is that draft framed by the Department of Personnel & Trainingprotected the interest of Judicial Officers of Telangana whereasmodification of the guidelines made by the High Court are prejudicial tothe Rights of the Judicial Officers of the State of Telangana. The firstground of challenge which has been raised by the petitioner is that it isthe Central Government which is competent to issue guidelines as perSection 77 read with Section 80. The Petitioner submits that the guidelineswhich were prepared by the Advisory Committee i.e. KamalanathanCommittee, ought to have been applied for the Judicial officers also.The Parliamentary legislation i.e. Act, 2014, ought to have beenimplemented by the High Court by accepting the guidelines ofKamalanathan Committee. We need to examine the provisions of Act,2014, in the above context. In the constitutional scheme, Sub-ordinateCourts, Judicial Officers working therein are under control of the HighCourt by virtue of Article 235 of the Constitution. The Constitution Benchof this Court in (1979) 2 SCC 34, Chief Justice of Andhra Pradeshand other versus L.V.A Dixitulu and others, had occasion to considernature of control of the High Court on judicial services. Article 371D aswell as Article 229 and Article 235 of the Constitution of India came forconsideration. Dealing with Article 235, Constitution Bench said thatcontrol over the sub-ordinate judiciary is vested in the High Court underArticle 235 is exclusive in nature, comprehensive in extent and effectivein operation. Paragraph 39 and 40 of the judgment is as follows:

“39. Article 235 is the pivot around which the entire schemeof the Chapter revolves. Under it, “the control over districtcourts and courts subordinate thereto including the postingand promotions of, and the grant of leave to personsbelonging to the judicial service of a State” is vested in theHigh Court.

40. The interpretation and scope of Article 235 has been thesubject of several decisions of this Court. The positioncrystalised by these decisions is that the control over thesubordinate judiciary vested in the High Court under Article235 is exclusive in nature, comprehensive in extent andeffective in operation. It comprehends a wide variety ofmatters. Among others, it includes:

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

(a) (i) Disciplinary jurisdiction and a complete controlsubject only to the power of the Governor in the matter ofappointment, dismissal, removal, reduction in rank of DistrictJudges, and initial posting and promotion to the cadre ofDistrict Judges. In the exercise of this control, the High Courtcan hold inquiries against a member of the subordinatejudiciary, impose punishment other than dismissal or removal,subject, however, to the condition of service, and a right ofappeal, if any, granted thereby and to the giving of anopportunity of showing cause as required by Article 311(2).

(ii) In Article 235, the word ‘control’ is accompanied bythe word “vest” which shows that the High Court alone ismade the sole custodian of the control over the Judiciary.The control vested in the High Court being exclusive, and notdual, an inquiry into the conduct of a member of the judiciarycan be held by the High Court alone and no other authority,(State of West Bengal Vs. Nripendra Nath Bagchi; ShamsherSingh V. State of Punjab and Punjab and Haryana High CourtVs. State of Haryana(sub nom Narendra Singh Rao).

(iii) Suspension from service of a member of the judiciarywith a view to hold a disciplinary inquiry.

(b) Transfers, promotions and confirmation of suchpromotions, of persons holding posts in the judicial service,inferior to that of District Judge.(State of Assam Vs. S.N.Senand State of Assam Vs. Kuseswar Saikia).

(c) Transfers of District Judges.(State of Assam Vs. RangaMahammad and Chandramouleshwar Vs. Patna High Court.)

(d) Recall of District Judges posted on ex-cadre posts oron deputation on administrative posts. (State of Orissa V.Sudhansu Sekhar Misra)

(e) Award of selection grade to the members of the judicialservice, including District Judges, being their furtherpromotion after their initial appointment to the cadre.(Stateof Assam v. Kuseswar Saikia)

(f) Confirmation of District Judges, who have been onprobation or are officiating, after their initial appointment or promotion by the Governor to the cadre of District Judgesunder Article 233.(Punjab and Haryana High Court Vs. Stateof Haryana)

(g) Premature or compulsory retirement of Judges of theDistrict Courts and of Subordinate Courts.(State of U.P. Vs.Batuk Deo Pati Tripathi)”

33. The constitutional scheme for vesting the control of the HighCourt over the sub-ordinate judiciary was with object and purpose. Themain object was to ensure that judiciary should be independent of theexecutive which is constitutional objective and also a Directive Principleof State Policy as contained in Article 50. Referring of judgment ofState of U.P. vs. Batuk deo Pati Tripathi, (1978) 2 SCC 102,Constitution Bench quoted with approval the law laid down by this Courtin Batuk Deo Pati Tripathi in paragraph 43 which is as follows:- “43. Recently, in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Batuk Deo PatiTripathi(Supra), this Court succinctly summed up the wholeposition as follows:[(1978) 2 SCC 102, 112(para 14]

The ideal which inspired the provision that the controlover District Courts and courts subordinate thereto shall bestin the High Courts is that those wings of the judiciary shouldbe independent of the executive...It is an order to effectuatethat high purpose that Article 235 as construed by the Courtin various decisions requires that all matters relating to thesubordinate judiciary including compulsory retirement anddisciplinary proceedings but excluding the imposition ofpunishments falling within the scope of Article 311 and thefirst appointments and promotions, should be dealt with anddecided upon by the High Courts in the exercise of the controlvested in them.”

34. The nature of control of the High Courts over the judiciaryagain was elaborately considered by Constitution Bench of this Court inState of Bihar and Another Versus Bal Mukund sah and Others,(2000) 4 SCC 640. The Constitution Bench again reiterated that theJudicial independence is the very essence and basic structure of theConstitution. In paragraph 34 and 35, following has been held:- “34. It has also to be kept in view that judicial independenceis the very essence and basic structure of the Constitution.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

We may also usefully refer to the latest decision of theConstitution Bench of this Court in Registrar(Admn.), HighCourt of Orissa v. Sisir Kanta Satapathy whereinK.Venkataswami, J., speaking for the Constitution Bench,made the following pertinent observations in the very firsttwo paras regarding Articles 233 to 235 of the Constitutionof India; “An independent Judiciary is one of the basic features of theConstitution of the Republic. Indian Constitution has zealouslyguarded independence of Judiciary is doubtless a basic structureof the Constitution but the said concept of independence has to beconfined within the four corners of the Constitution and cannot gobeyond the Constitution.”

The Constitution Bench in the aforesaid decision also reliedupon the observations of this Court in All India Judges Assn.wherein on the topic of regulating the service conditions of theJudiciary as permitted by Article 235 read with Article 309, it hadbeen observed as under; (SCC p.297, para 10)

“The mere fact that Article 309 gives power to the Executiveand the Legislature to prescribe the service conditions of theJudiciary, does not mean that the Judiciary should have no say inthe matter. It would be against the spirit of the Constitution todeny any role to the Judiciary in that behalf, for theoretically itwould not be impossible for the Executive or the Legislature toturn and twist the tail of the Judiciary by using the said power.Such a consequence would be against one of the seminal mandatesof the Constitution, namely, to maintain the independence of theJudiciary.”

In view of this settled legal position, therefore, even whileoperating in the permissible field of regulating other conditions ofservice of already-recruited judicial officers by exercising powerunder Article 309, the authorities concerned have to keep in viewthe opinion of the High Court of the State concerned and thesame cannot be whisked away.

35. In order to fructify this constitutional intention of preservingthe independence of the Judiciary and for fructifying this basicrequirement, the process of recruitment and appointment to the District Judiciary with which we are concerned in the presentcase, is insulated from outside legislative interference by theConstitution-makers by enacting a complete code for that purpose,as laid down by Articles 233 and 234, Consultation with the HighCourt is therefore, an inevitable essential feature of the exercisecontemplated under these two articles. If any outside independentinterference was envisaged by them, nothing prevented theFounding Fathers from making Articles 233 and 234 subject tothe law enacted by the Legislature of States or Parliament aswas done in the case of other articles as seen earlier.....”

35. The Andhra Pradesh Re-organisation Act, 2014, is aparliamentary enactment for the re-organisation of existing State asreferred to in Article 2, Article 3 and Article 4 of the Constitution ofIndia. Article 4 of the Constitution is as follows:- “4. (1) Any law referred to in article 2 or article 3 shallcontain such provisions for the amendment of the FirstSchedule and the Fourth Schedule as may be necessary togive effect to the provisions of the law and may also containsuch supplemental, incidental and consequential provisions(including provisions as to representation in Parliament andin the Legislature or Legislatures of the State or States affectedby such law) as Parliament may deem necessary.

(2) No such law as aforesaid shall be deemed to be anamendment of this Constitution for the purposes of article368.”

36. The power under Articles 2 & 3 is subject to other provisionsof the Constitution and is not unfettered. This position of law has beenconsidered and elucidated by a Constitution Bench judgment of this Courtin the case of Mangal Singh Vs. Union of India, (1967)2 SCR 109,at page 112, in the following words:

“..........On the plain words of Article 4, there is no warrantfor the contention advanced by counsel for the appellantsthat the supplemental, incidental and consequentialprovisions, which by virtue of Article 4 the Parliament iscompetent to make, must be supplemental, incidental orconsequential to the amendment of the First or the FourthSchedule. The argument that if it be assumed that the A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

AParliament is invested with this wide power it may conceivablyexercise power to abolish the legislative and judicial organsof the State altogether is also without substance. We do notthink that any such power is contemplated by Article 4. Powerwith which the Parliament is invested by Articles 2 & 3, ispower to admit, establish, or form new States which conformBto the democratic pattern envisaged by the Constitution; andthe power which the Parliament may exercise by law issupplemental, incidental or consequential to the admission,establishment or formation of a State as contemplated by theConstitution, and is not power to override the ConstitutionalCscheme.........”(Emphasis supplied)

37. Article 4 sub-clause (1) contemplates that any law referredto in Article 2 or Article 3 shall contain provisions which may also containsuch supplemental, incidental and consequential provisions as Parliamentmay deem necessary.The supplemental, incidental and consequentialDprovisions are contemplated to effectuate the reorganisation of existingState or formation of a new State in accordance with the ConstitutionalScheme as contained in the Constitution. Sub-clause (2) of Article 4clarifies that no such law as referred to in Article 2 and Article 3 shall bedeemed to be an amendment of this Constitution for the purposes ofArticle 368. Thus the provision of Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act,E2014, has to be interpreted in the manner so that any provisions of theAct, 2014, does not run contrary to the existing Constitutional Scheme.

38. It is true that Section 77 contemplates allotment of State afterconsideration of option received by an officer but for interpreting Section77 and Section 80, the existing constitutional scheme that control of JudicialFOfficer is vested in the High Court can neither be ignored nor given a goby. From the facts on record, it does appear that Department of Personneland Training has understood the provisions in such manner and hascommunicated to the High Court to submit a list after taking optionsfrom the officers. The reply affidavit filed by Union of India also clearlyGindicates that stand taken by Union of India is that allocation/distributionof District Judges and Judicial Officers belonging to sub-ordinate judiciaryhad been carried out under the aegis and supervision of the respectiveHigh Courts, on earlier occasions when the reorganisation enactmentwas passed. Paragraph 10 of the reply affidavit filed by the Union ofIndia is extracted as follows:-H

“10. It is most humbly submitted that in so far as the allocationof subordinate judicial officers between the two States inquestion are concerned, it is necessary to set out factualposition and background facts. It is submitted that even onearlier occasions of passing of Reorganisation enactments,the task of allocation/distribution of District Judges andjudicial officers belonging to the subordinate judiciary – hadbeen carried out under the aegis and supervision of therespective High Courts. For example, in the case ofReorganization of the State of Madhya Pradesh, State of UttarPradesh as well as State of Bihar, such process had beenfollowed for the allocation/distribution of District Judges andjudicial officers belonging to the subordinate judiciary.”

39. We thus are of the view that for preparing guidelines forallocation of the Judicial officers, the views of the High Court are not tobe ignored and the Union of India, Department of Personnel & Training,has rightly given due weight to the views of the High Court for allocation.However, the scheme of Act, 2014 indicates that final allocation Orderis to be issued as per the statutory provisions, by the Central Government.The coverage of Section 77 is “Every person who immediately beforethe appointed day is serving on substantive basis in connection with theaffairs of the existing State of Andhra Pradesh...”The coverage ofSection 77 is in very wide term which includes every person who isserving in connection with the affairs of the existing State. There can beno denial that Judicial Officers working in the Sub-ordinate Judiciary areserving in connection with the affairs of the existing State. Thus, therecannot be any denial that Section 77 also clearly covers the sub-ordinatejudiciary of the State and final allocation Order has to be issued by theCentral Government after due consultation with the High Court.

40. We are thus of the view that High Court in preparing draftguidelines and thereafter issuing modified guidelines for allocation ofcadre of Judicial Officers was well within its jurisdiction and its viewsrequired due weight in giving effect to the provisions of Section 77 of theAct.

41. The guidelines as modified by the High Court are challengedby the petitioner on several grounds including violation of their rightsunder Article 14 and as to whether the guidelines are fair and equitableto persons affected by the guidelines.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A42. Section 80 expressly indicates that in carrying excise by theCentral Government as contemplated under Section 77, there has to befair and equal treatment to all persons affected by the provisions of PartVIII of the Act. The guidelines for allocation of cadre should ensure fairand equal treatment to all persons affected and they should also conformthe equality clause as enshrined in Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.BWe have thus to scrutinize the guidelines in this context so as to enableus to come to a decision that whether guidelines are to be implementedor not.

43. Now, we come to the core issue raised by the petitioner. Thepetitioner submits that Act 6 of 2014 was enacted to redress a historicCdiscrimination faced by the residents of State of Telangana of beingdenied their fair share of representation in the matter of public services,education and in the matters of governance and in all other matters suchas Legislative and Executive powers which are normally attributes ofany State. The petitioners have also referred to Statement of Objects ofDthe Act, 2014. Statement of Objects of the Act notices:- “1. The creation of a separate State of Telangana for thebetterment of the social, economic, political and other aspirationsof the people of that region has been a long standing demand.Pursuant thereto, the Government of India on 9th December, 2009Eannounced that the process for formation of a separate State ofTelangana would be initiated. After wide-ranging consultationson 3rd October, 2013, the Government of India decided to bifurcatethe existing State of Andhra Pradesh.

2. The Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Bill, 2014 seeks to giveFeffect to the aforesaid decision. It aims at reconstituting the existingState of Andhra Pradesh into two separate States, namely theState of Andhra Pradesh and the State of Telangana. The proposedreorganisation will meet the democratic aspirations of the peopleof Telangana region and ensure peace, goodwill, progress andprosperity among all the sections of the people of both successorGStates.”

44. One more article of the Constitution, which has been relied bythe petitioners needs to be noted is Article 371D. Article 371D wasinserted in the Constitution by Constitution (Thirty-second Amendment)Act, 1973. Article 371D contains a special provision with respect toH

State of Andhra Pradesh. Now, by virtue of Act, 2014 in place of theState of Andhra Pradesh “the State of Andhra Pradesh or the State ofTelangana” has been substituted. Article 371D sub-clause(1), sub-clause(2) and sub-clause(3) provides:- “371D. Special provisions with respect to the State of AndhraPradesh or the State of Telangana.— (1) The President mayby order made with respect to the State of Andhra Pradesh or theState of Telangana, provide, having regard to the requirement ofeach State, for equitable opportunities and facilities for the peoplebelonging to different parts of such State, in the matter of publicemployment and in the matter of education, and different provisionsmay be made for various parts of the States.

(2) An order made under clause (1) may, in particular,—

(a) require the State Government to organise any class orclasses of posts in a civil service of, or any class or classes ofcivil posts under, the State into different local cadres for differentparts of the State and allot in accordance with such principlesand procedure as may be specified in the order the personsholding such posts to the local cadres so organised; (b) specify any part or parts of the State which shall be regardedas the local area—

(i) for direct recruitment to posts in any local cadre (whetherorganised in pursuance of an order under this article orconstituted otherwise) under the State Government;

(ii) for direct recruitment to posts in any cadre under anylocal authority within the State; and

(iii) for the purposes of admission to any University withinthe State or to any other educational institution which issubject to the control of the State Government;

(c) specify the extent to which, the manner in which and theconditions subject to which, preference or reservation shall begiven or made—

(i) in the matter of direct recruitment to posts in any suchcadre referred to in sub-clause (b) as may be specified inthis behalf in the order; A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

(ii) in the matter of admission to any such University orother educational institution referred to in sub-clause (b) asmay be specified in this behalf in the order, to or in favour of candidates who have resided or studied forany period specified in the order in the local area in respect ofsuch cadre, University or other educational institution, as thecase may be.

B

(3) The President may, by order, provide for the constitution of anAdministrative Tribunal for the State of Andhra Pradesh and forthe State of Telangana to exercise such jurisdiction, powers andauthority [including any jurisdiction, power and authority whichimmediately before the commencement of the Constitution (Thirty-second Amendment) Act, 1973, was exercisable by any court(other than the Supreme Court) or by any tribunal or other authority]as may be specified in the order with respect to the followingmatters, namely:—

C

D

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx”

C

D

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx”

45. Special provisions were introduced by way of Article 371D ofthe Constitution of India. This amendment was made in order to providefor equitable distribution of opportunities and facilities to the peopleEbelonging to the different parts of the State of Andhra Pradesh in mattersof public employment, education etc. The President is empowered toissue an order to organise the civil posts, create local areas, provide forpreference or reservation in the matter of direct recruitment to servicesand in admission into educational institutions. In exercise of the powerunder Article 371D the President had issued Andhra Pradesh PublicFEmployment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of DirectRecruitment) Order, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as “Presidential Order”for brevity). The said Presidential Order provided for organising theclasses of posts in the civil services of the State into various local cadresunder para 3 and para 4 provide for allotment of persons to such cadres.Paras 6 and 7 deal with local cadre and local candidates and Para 8Gprovide for reservation to such local candidates. The said PresidentialOrder thus is limited in its application to the civil posts under the Stateand local bodies and had no application to the Courts subordinate thereto.

46. The basis for Article 371D is to provide equal opportunity tothe people of Andhra Pradesh by introducing domicile as the basis for H

appointment to services and admissions in educational institutions,however, Article 371D has no application in respect of the appointmentto the posts of District Judges and Judges Subordinate thereto, in viewof the constitutional scheme of separation of powers and expressprovisions having been made by the Constitution. The issue wasauthoritatively settled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in ChiefJustice of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. Vs. L.V.A. Dixitulu & Others,(1979) 2 SCC 34.

47. In the above case, one of the questions came for considerationbefore this Court was as to whether members of Judicial Services of theState are amenable to the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal,which was constituted by the President issuing an order under sub-clause(3) of Article 371D. The Administrative Tribunal has passed anorder on an application filed by a member of Judicial services settingaside the order of compulsory retirement passed by High Court. Matterwas taken by the Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh in this Court challengingthe jurisdiction of the Tribunal. It was contended that Judicial Service isnot contemplated to be included in the meaning covered by the expression“any civil service of the State”. This Court held that Statement of Objectsand Reasons of the Bill for insertion of Article 371D does not indicatethat there was any intention on the part of the Parliament to impair orderogate from the scheme of securing independence of the Judiciary asenshrined in Articles 229 and 235 of the Constitution. Court further heldthat amendment or abridgement of this basic scheme was never an issueof debate in Parliament when the Constitution (32nd Amendment) Billwas considered. The Constitution Bench of this Court in Chief Justiceof Andhra Pradesh & Ors. Vs. L.V.A. Dixitulu (supra) laid downfollowing in Paragraph Nos. 76, 77, 78 and 80:- “76. The Statement of Objects and Reasons does not indicatethat there was any intention, whatever, on the part of the legislatureto impair or derogate from the scheme of securing independenceof the judiciary as enshrined in Articles 229 and 235. Indeed, theamendment to abridgment of this basic scheme was never anissue of debate in Parliament when the Constitution (32ndAmendment) Bill was considered.

77. One test which may profitably be applied to ascertain whetherthe High Court staff and the subordinate judiciary were intendedto be included in clause (3) of Article 371-D is: Will the exclusion A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

of the judiciary from the sweep of this clause substantially affectthe scope and utility of the article as an instrument for achievingthe object which the legislature had in view? The answer cannotbut be in the negative. The High Court staff and members of theSubordinate Judiciary constitute only a fraction of the number ofpersons in public employment in the State. Incidentally, it may bementioned that one of the primary purposes of this article viz. tosecure equitable share in public employment to people of certainlocal areas in the State on the basis of the Mulki Rules requiring15 years residence in those areas, could be achieved under thoserules which, as subsequently clarified by this Court in State ofAndhra Pradesh v. V. Reddy[, 1973 (1) SCC 99,] continued to bein force as valid law in the territories of the former State ofHyderabad even after the constitution of the State of AndhraPradesh.

78. Let us now apply another test which in the circumstances ofthe case will be decisive. In that connection, we have to see whatconsequences will flow if we give this general, undefined andflexible phrase, “civil services of the State” in Article 371-D(3),the wider construction so as to include in it the High Court staffand the members of the subordinate judiciary. The inevitable resultof such an extensive construction will be that the control vested inthe Chief Justice over the staff of the High Court, and in the HighCourt over the Subordinate Judiciary will become shorn of itssubstance, efficacy and exclusiveness, and after being processedthrough the conduit of the Administrative Tribunal, will pass oninto the hands of the Executive Government, which, under Article371-D(5), is the supreme authority, having full power to confirm,not to confirm, modify or annul the orders of the Tribunal. Such aconstruction will lead to internecine conflict and contradiction, robArticles 229 and 235 of their content, make a mockery of theDirective Principle in Article 50 and the fundamental concept ofthe independence of the judiciary, which the Founding Fathershave with such anxious concern built into the basic scheme of theConstitution. Parliament, we are sure, could never have intendedsuch a strange result. In our quest for the true intention ofParliament, therefore, we must eschew this wide liberalinterpretation which will defeat or render otiose the scheme of Chapters IV and V, Part VI particularised in Articles 229 and235, and instead, choose the alternative interpretation accordingto which members of the High Court staff and the subordinatejudiciary will not fall within the purview of the phrase “civil servicesof the State”. Such a restricted construction will ensure smoothworking of the Constitution and harmony amongst its variousprovisions.

80. In our opinion, non-use of the phrases “judicial service of theState” and “District Judges” (which have been specifically definedin Article 236), and “officers and servants of the High Court”which has been designedly adopted in Articles 235 and 229,respectively, to differentiate them in the scheme of the Constitutionfrom the other civil services of the State, gives a clear indicationthat posts held by the High Court staff or by the SubordinateJudiciary were advisedly excluded from the purview of clause (3)of Article 371-D. The scope of the non obstante provision in clause(10) which gives an overriding effect to this article is coterminouswith the ambit of the preceding clauses.”

48. Article 371D having been held by this Court not to be applicableto Judicial Service, arguments based on Article 371D cannot help thepetitioner. In this context, one of the submissions raised by the petitionerswas that Kamalanathan Committee while framing guidelines for allocationof members of Civil Service has taken into consideration the local areaor local cadre etc. No exception can be taken to the guidelines finalisedby Kamalanathan Committee for allocation of cadre of members of CivilServices of the State, other than Judicial Service, taking clue from Article371D. Petitioners have referred to guideline No. 18(f) of theKamalanathan Committee determining principles guiding allocations readwith guideline No. 18(n), which also read with the Andhra Pradesh PublicEmployment Order, 1975 gives preference in allocation to those whohave opted and who are local candidates to be allocated to that State inwhich they are local candidates. The said order dated 29.10.1975 issuedunder Article 371D has been relied.

49. For the reasons already indicated above, the guidelinesformulated by Kamalanathan Committee in context of other Civil Servicesare not relevant nor any support can be taken on the basis of saidguidelines.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A50. It is true that issue of public employment with regard toTelangana region has a long history. During the period of Nizams underMulki Rules, 15 years residential qualification was required for publicemployment. For the purposes of this case, we need not dwell anyfurther with regard to residential requirement of a public employmentsince in the present case, we are concerned with the post of JudicialBService and this court has already held that for appointment to the postof Munsifs, no residential requirement can be prescribed. Parties arenot at variance that recruitment to Judicial Service is on all India basis.This Court has held that prescribing a particular place of practice as aprerequisite for seeking employment into the State Judicial Services asCDistrict Munsifs is unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of theConstitution. In J.Panduranga Rao Vs. Andhra Pradesh PublicService Commission, 1963 (1) SCR 707, this Court laid downfollowing:- “If the basis of the impugned rule is that a person who appliesDfor appointment to the post of a District Munsif, should have beenenrolled as an Advocate of a High Court, that basis can be satisfiedeven if the person is enrolled as an Advocate not of the AndhraHigh Court but of any other High Court. All the High Courts havethe same status; all of them stand for the same high traditions ofthe Bar and the administration of justice, and advocates enrolledEin all of them are presumed to follow the same standards and tosubscribe to the same spirit of serving the cause of theadministration of justice. Therefore, in our opinion, the impugnedrule has introduced classification between one class of Advocatesand the rest and the said classification must be said to be irrationalFinasmuch as there is no nexus between the basis of the saidclassification and the object intended to be achieved by the relevantscheme of rules. That being so, it must be held that the decision ofthe Andhra High Court in the case of Nallanthighal BhaktavatsalamIyengar is not correct.”

G51. The nativity for public employment runs counter to thefundamental right guaranteed under Article 16(2) except when it isprovided by a Parliamentary Law as per exception carved out in Article16(3) of the Constitution of India. No Parliamentary Law is relied bythe petitioner, which provides residence as an eligibility to the employmentin Judicial Service. In Act, 2014, there is no provision, which expresslyH

provides for allotment of the State on the basis of place of birth orresidence. Sections 77, 78 and 79 of the Act do not refer to allotment onthe basis of place of birth. When for entering into Judicial Service, nocondition can be put regarding residence of particular area for allocationof a State, consequent to Act, 2014, nativity cannot be sole basis, as iscontended by the petitioner. It is true that the State of Telangana standformed to realise the democratic aspirations of the people of Telangana.We have noticed the Statement of Objects and Reasons of Act, 2014,which clearly establish that the creation of a separate State of Telanganais for the betterment of the social, economic, political and other aspirationsof the people of that region, which contemplated allocation of separateState of Telangana. The entire Statement of Objects and Reasons doesnot indicate that with respect to public employment, nativity is to play adominant role. It is true that Judicial Officers belonging to Telanganaterritorial area may have desired or expectation to choose or to opt fortheir cadre in Telangana area, which is a legitimate aspiration, but givingpre-dominance to nativity only is not spelled from any statutory provisionor scheme.

52. Section 77 of the Act contemplate a right of giving option ascontemplated by Section 77(2). “Option” has been defined in Black’sLaw Dictionary, Tenth Edition, Page 1268:- “1. The right or power to choose; something that may be chosenthe lawyer was running out of options for settlement, 2. An offerthat is included in a formal or informal contract; esp., a contractualobligation to keep an offer open for a specified period, so that theofferor cannot revoke the offer during that period the option isvalid because it is supported by consideration.”

53. Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar defines“option” in following manner:- “Option. For the purposes of these guidelines—

‘OPTION’ means a right but not an obligation granted to anemployee to apply for shares at a pre-determined price.

The word ‘option’ is a synonym for ‘choice’ or ‘preference’.

OPTION, CHOICE. We speak of option only as regards one’sfreedom from external constraint in the act of choosing : onespeaks of choice only as the simple act itself. The option or the A

B

CD

E

F

G

H

Apower of choosing is given: the choice itself is made : hence wesay a thing is at a person’s option.”

54. When a Judicial Officer has been given a right of option tochoose either of the successor State, right of option has to be givensame meaning and content. Right of option can be defeated only whenBthere is some impediment in accepting the option. The seniority of aJudicial Officer is a first criteria for accepting the option. The seniorityin a service is a valuable right of an employee or officer. In servicejurisprudence, several benefits and perquisites are attached to theseniority. The petitioners are asking that option be accepted not on thebasis of seniority but only on the basis of nativity, i.e. those who areCsenior even if they opt the State option, their option should not be selectedand option of those should be first accepted, who are natives of Telangana.The petitioner’s apprehension is that in event option of senior officersare accepted and they are posted in State of Telangana, the futureprospects of promotion of the petitioners shall be marred. Whether theDofficers, who in the seniority list, which was prevalent on the date offormation of new State, i.e. on 02.06.2014 where senior should loosetheir seniority or their seniority cannot be said to play any role on accountof formation of two successor States is the question to be answered.The aspiration of petitioners that no senior officer, should come to Stateof Telangana, which may mar their prospect of promotion is neither inEaccord with the constitutional scheme nor as per ethos of culture of thiscountry. The modified guidelines submitted by the High Court andaccepted by the DoPT itself at second place give preference to nativity.Thus, the High Court while formulating the guidelines has tried to balancethe right of option of each Judicial Officer. It is relevant to notice thatFthis Court has held in The State of Mysore and another Vs. G.N.Purohit and others, (1967) SLR 753 that although right to beconsidered for promotion is a right, but right to have a chance of promotionis not protected. In the above case, following has been laid down inparagraph 10:- G “10. It is then urged on behalf of the respondents that bychanging the system from district-wise to state-wise therespondents have been very hard hit and have become very junior.It appears from the figures supplied by the respondents that therewere 665 Junior Health Inspectors in the old State of Mysore onNovember 1, 1956 while only 48 Junior Health Inspectors were H

TELANGANA JUDGES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

allotted to the new State of Mysore after the Act. So long as thedistrict-wise system continued these 48 persons would naturallyhave better chances of promotion in their districts but when thecadre was made state-wise, these 48 were likely to go down inthe seniority as the list of 1963 actually shows. It is urged that thishas affected their chances of promotion which were protectedunder the proviso to S.115(7) of the Act, which lays down that theconditions of service applicable immediately before the appointedday to the case of any person allotted to the new State shall notbe varied to his disadvantage except with the previous approvalof the Central Government. It is said on behalf of the respondentsthat as their chance of promotion have been affected their conditionsof service have been changed to their disadvantage. We see noforce in this argument because chances of promotion are notconditions of service. It is enough in this connection to refer to theState of Orissa v. Durga Charan Dass (A.I.R. 1966 SC 1547).”

55. To the similar effect is judgment of this Court in MohammadShujat Ali and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, in which inPara 15, following has been held:- “15. In the first place, it is not correct to say that there was anyvariation in the condition of service in regard to promotionapplicable to non-graduate Supervisors from the erstwhile Stateof Hyderabad immediately prior to November 1, 1956. It is truethat a rule which confers a right of actual promotion or a right tobe considered for promotion is a rule prescribing a condition ofservice. This proposition can no longer be disputed in view ofseveral pronouncements of this Court on the point and particularlythe decision in Mohammad Bhakar v. Y. Krishna Reddy[1]wherethis Court, speaking through Mitter, J., said: “Any rule which affectsthe promotion of a person relates to his condition of service”. Butwhen we speak of a right to be considered for promotion, wemust not confuse it with mere chance of promotion — the latterwould certainly not be a condition of service. This Court pointedout in State of Mysore v. G.B. Purohit, (1967) 1 SLR 753 thatthough a right to be considered for promotion is a condition ofservice, mere chances of promotion are not. A rule which merelyaffects chances of promotion cannot be regarded as varying acondition of service. What happened in State of Mysore v. G.B.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

APurohit was that the district wise seniority of Sanitary Inspectorswas changed to State wise seniority and as a result of this change,the respondents went down in seniority and became very junior.This, it was urged, affected their chances of promotion whichwere protected under the proviso to Section 115 sub-section (7).This contention was negatived and Wanchoo, J. as he then was,Bspeaking on behalf of this Court observed: “It is said on behalf ofthe respondents that as their chances of promotion have beenaffected their conditions of service have been changed to theirdisadvantage. We see no force in this argument because chancesof promotion are not conditions of service”. Now, here in theCpresent case, all that happened as a result of the application of theAndhra Rules and the enactment of the Andhra Pradesh Ruleswas that the number of posts of Assistant Engineers available tonon-graduate Supervisors from the erstwhile Hyderabad Statefor promotion, was reduced: originally it was fifty per cent, then itbecame thirty-three and one-third per cent, then one in eighteenDand ultimately one in twenty-four. The right to be considered forpromotion was not affected but the chances of promotion wereseverely reduced. This did not constitute variation in the conditionof service applicable immediately prior to November 1, 1956 andthe proviso to Section 115 sub-section (7) was not attracted. ThisEview is completely supported by the decision of a ConstitutionBench of this Court in Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar v. TheState of Maharashtra, (1974) 1 SCC 317.”

56. The petitioners submission that High Court has modified theguidelines for accepting option without there being any valid reason andFfurther no valid reasons have been indicated by the High Court formodifying the guidelines. In this context, it is relevant to notice that thedraft guidelines, which were initially circulated by the High Court on26.02.2016 has in the first sentence stated “the allocation shall be donein the order of seniority as available on 02.06.2014.” The second sentenceread “Preference shall be given first to those who have applied for theGState in which the District declared by them at the time of enteringservice falls”. The above draft guidelines has only been amplifiedretaining the initial concept of accepting option on the basis of seniority.Both the concept as noted above are now reflected in modified guidelinesas guideline No. 5(1) and 5(2) as extracted above. Thus, the argument H

H

of the petitioners that guidelines have been substantially changed by theHigh Court without there being any reason cannot be accepted. Thesubstance of the guidelines are same, which were initially contained inthe draft guidelines and modified guidelines. It was the DoPT, whichhas proposed guidelines, where content clause 5.2 was 5.1 of modifiedguidelines were proposed as 5.1 was 5.2, which was not accepted bythe High Court and Full Court reiterated their earlier principle, whichwas initially encapsuled in draft guidelines.

57. We, during course of the submissions, had asked ShriVenkatramani, learned senior counsel appearing for the High Court togive a chart indicating the details of options and chart showing details ofJudicial Officers working in both the States of Andhra Pradesh andTelangana from 02.06.2014 and the acceptance position of their option.Detailed chart has been submitted by the High Court, which indicatethat all Judicial Officers belonging to territorial area of Telangana regionhave been allocated Telangana State and the option of all the JudicialOfficers, who have opted for Telangana State have been accepted. Alist of all officers belonging to District Judge Cadre; Civil Judge SeniorDivision cadre and Civil Judge, Junior Division cadre has been submitted,which indicate all officers, who have opted for Telangana State havebeen allocated Telangana State.

58. All the Judicial Officers belonging to Telangana State havingopted and allocated the Telangana State, practically, we do not find anyerror in the operation of guidelines finalised by the High Court.

59. In view of foregoing discussions, we are of the view thatmodified guidelines as submitted by the High Court vide letter dated08.07.2017, which has been accepted by DoPT does not suffer fromany illegality or error. The above guidelines is to be accepted andapproved. In view of the foregoing discussions, we dispose of the writpetition with direction to respondents to finalise options of all the JudicialOfficers as per the above guideline and complete the process of allocationwithin a period of two months from today.

60. Now, coming to the Civil Appeals arising out of S.L.P. (C)No. 18787-18790 of 2016, the appellants themselves in their submissionshave not pressed the quashing of Recruitment 2014 and 2015. Further,Andhra Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2007 as adopted by State ofTelangana, which was quashed by the High Court is now substituted by A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

216SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Afresh Rules namely, Telangana State Judicial Service Rules, 2017. Allthe issues raised in the above Civil Appeals arising out of special leavepetitions have become academic and needs no consideration. The CivilAppeals having become virtually infructuous are dismissed accordingly.The parties shall bear their own costs.

B

Nidhi Jain

Matters disposed of.

C

D

E

F

G

H