Summary
On the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh, the respondent, a Scheduled Tribe officer serving in Hyderabad as Joint Director (Animal Husbandry), opted for Telangana. Born in Kadapa, he had studied from Class VIII onward and completed his veterinary degrees in what is now Telangana. His wife was a native of Telangana. The Centre allotted him to Andhra Pradesh, treating him as a local candidate of that State and finding no vacancy in Telangana. The High Court directed his allocation to Telangana with posting and salary. The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petitions. Under Guideline 18(f), as the seniormost officer opting for Telangana he had primacy after local candidates. Under the 1975 Presidential Order he was a local candidate of Telangana, and the spouse guideline also favoured him. The allocation guidelines are directory and must be read harmoniously with fundamental rights.
Issues
- Whether the respondent was rightly allocated to Andhra Pradesh under the guidelines framed under Section 80 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, despite his option, seniority and spouse's local status in Telangana
- Whether the respondent was a 'local candidate' of Telangana under the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment Order, 1975
- Whether the Supreme Court should interfere under Article 136 with the High Court's order directing his allocation to Telangana
Provisions considered
- Sections 77(2) and 80, Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014Final allocation of State cadre employees by the Centre must follow the guidelines framed under Section 80, including allocation by seniority after considering options. Here it was made contrary to Guideline 18(f) and the spouse guideline. (¶¶ 4, 19, 20, 21, 54, 57)
- Paragraph 7, Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975Having studied for the requisite consecutive years in Telangana up to his qualifying examination, the respondent was a local candidate of Telangana, regardless of his birthplace. (¶¶ 36, 37, 58, 69)
- Articles 19(1)(e) and 136, Constitution of IndiaAllocation rules and guidelines must be construed harmoniously with the right to reside and settle anywhere in India. Discretionary Article 136 jurisdiction will not disturb a just order on a pedantic reading of the guidelines. (¶¶ 55, 59, 63, 65, 66, 68)
Held
- Under Guideline 18(f), allocation follows seniority as on 1 June 2014, with local candidates who opted considered first and then other optees in order of seniority. The three officers senior to the respondent opted for Andhra Pradesh, making him the seniormost optee for Telangana. Filling Telangana's posts with juniors who were natives and then citing absence of vacancies was contrary to the guideline. (¶¶ 42, 54, 56, 57)
- Having studied from Class VIII and completed his degrees in Telangana, the respondent was a local candidate of Telangana under the 1975 Order, notwithstanding his birth in Kadapa. His spouse was also a local of Telangana, so the spouse guideline in paragraph 18 likewise favoured his allocation there. (¶¶ 49, 50, 58, 69)
- India has a single domicile, and every citizen has a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(e) to reside and settle anywhere in India. The Reorganisation Act and the allocation guidelines must be construed harmoniously with Part III. The guidelines are directory, not inflexible, and the High Court's liberal reading was correct. (¶¶ 59, 62, 63, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69)
- Jurisdiction under Article 136 is discretionary and should not be exercised to interfere with a just and reasonable order on a narrow, rigid and pedantic interpretation of the guidelines. (¶ 55)
Result
Special leave petitions dismissed. The High Court's direction to allocate the respondent to Telangana and give him posting and salary as Joint Director was upheld.