Summary
The Supreme Court approved the revised guidelines for allocating subordinate judicial officers between Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, giving priority to options by seniority rather than exclusive preference based on nativity. The Central Government had to issue final allocation orders under the Reorganisation Act after due consultation with the High Court, whose constitutional control over the judiciary required weight. The writ petition was disposed of with a two-month completion direction. The connected recruitment appeals were dismissed as virtually infructuous, rather than decided on their original merits.
Issues
- Whether the Reorganisation Act covered subordinate judicial officers and how allocation powers fitted the High Court’s constitutional control.
- Whether the modified option guidelines unlawfully preferred seniority over nativity.
- Whether the connected recruitment appeals required determination after completed recruitment and new service rules.
Provisions considered
- Sections 77 and 80, Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014The allocation provisions covered subordinate judicial officers, but operated consistently with the High Court’s constitutional control. Final allocation orders were for the Central Government after due consultation, and the guidelines had to ensure fair and equitable treatment. (¶¶ 25, 26, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42)
- Article 4, Constitution of IndiaSupplemental provisions for State reorganisation did not authorise overriding the constitutional scheme; the Reorganisation Act had to be interpreted consistently with judicial independence and High Court control. (¶¶ 35, 36, 37)
- Paragraph 5(i) and (ii), Modified guidelines communicated by the High Court on 8 July 2017The approved order of consideration prioritised those opting by seniority, followed by those opting for the State containing their declared district, with remaining allocation in reverse seniority. (¶¶ 30, 31, 54, 56, 59)
Held
- Section 77’s wide reference to persons serving in connection with State affairs included subordinate judicial officers. The Central Government was to issue final allocation orders after due consultation with the High Court; its constitutional supervisory role could not be disregarded in framing the guidelines. (¶¶ 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40)
- Article 371D and the Presidential local-cadre arrangements did not supply the claimed basis for allocating judicial officers by nativity. Guidelines applicable to other civil services could not simply be transplanted to the judicial service. (¶¶ 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49)
- Judicial recruitment was on an all-India basis, and no relied-on Parliamentary law or provision of the Reorganisation Act made nativity the sole allocation criterion. Regional aspirations did not create an entitlement to exclude senior officers who opted for Telangana. (¶¶ 50, 51, 54)
- Seniority was a valuable service right; a right to consideration for promotion was distinct from an expectation of better promotion chances. The guidelines balanced options and seniority while retaining the declared district as a secondary preference, and substantially maintained the original approach. (¶¶ 52, 53, 54, 55, 56)
- The material submitted showed that officers belonging to the Telangana region had received Telangana and that options for Telangana had been accepted. The revised guidelines accepted by DoPT disclosed no illegality; respondents were directed to finalise options and complete allocation within two months. (¶¶ 57, 58, 59)
- The recruitment challenges were no longer pressed and fresh Telangana Judicial Service Rules, 2017 had replaced the disputed adopted rules. The connected appeals had become academic and virtually infructuous and were dismissed, with parties bearing their own costs. (¶¶ 20, 60)
Result
Writ petition disposed of approving the modified guidelines and directing completion of judicial-officer allocation within two months. Connected civil appeals dismissed as virtually infructuous. Parties to bear their own costs.