Telangana High Court
Dr.A.Swetha, vs The Union Of India on 21 March, 2022
Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, Abhinand Kumar Shavili
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT PETITION Nos.38658 and 42109 of 2016, 996, 1197, 3055,
3056, 3295, 3296, 3298, 3299, 3300, 3301, 3302, 3544, 4560,
4561, 4586, 4588, 6857, 6890, 6902, 6904, 7052, 7146, 7148,
7150, 7154, 7156, 7157, 7159, 7160, 7161, 7215, 7342, 7355,
7514, 7573, 7642, 7646, 7677, 7907, 7942, 8315, 8347, 8523,
8558, 8664, 9358, 9364, 9393, 9621, 9660, 10264, 10924, 11067,
11089, 11642, 14560, 18118 and 18138 of 2017 and
19616 of 2019
COMMON ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy
involved in the present cases, the writ petitions were
analogously heard and by a common order, they are being
disposed of by this Court.
2. The facts of the W.P.No.14560 of 2017 are as follows:-
The petitioner, who is a Doctor and has been allocated
to the State of Andhra Pradesh, has filed this present petition
challenging the legality and validity of the executive
instructions issued by the General Administration
Department, dated 30.10.2014, in respect of the allocation of
employees to the State of Telangana and to the State of
2
Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner has also challenged the
allocation of the petitioner vide order dated 22.02.2017,
23.02.2017 and 25.02.2017. Meaning thereby, the petitioner
has challenged the allocation and rejection of the
representation. The facts of the case further reveal that the
petitioner was appointed as Civil Assistant Surgeon in the
year 2011. The petitioner has stated that she has obtained
M.B.B.S., from Narayana Medical College, Nellore and post
graduation degree from Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Medical
Sciences, Kadapa. She has also stated that she has studied
upto Class X in the State of Andhra Pradesh and her
subsequent education is also in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
The petitioner further stated that options were invited for
allocation of employees and the petitioner submitted her
option for allotment to the State of Telangana, however, in
the tentative list of allotment, she was allocated to the State
of Andhra Pradesh and therefore, she again submitted an
option against tentative allocation, however, final allocation
was issued on 22.02.2017 on the ground that she studied
upto Class X in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
3
3. The petitioner's contention is that as per the guidelines
issued by the respondents in the matter of allocation,
persons have to be allocated as per the seniority and the
allocation has been done contrary to the statutory provisions
as contained under the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act,
2014 (for short, "the Reorganisation Act"). The petitioner's
contention is that she is a member of State Level Cadre and
could not have been allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh
and therefore, order passed by the respondents is bad in law.
The petitioner has prayed for the following relief:-
"It is therefore prayed that the Hon'ble High Court
may be pleased to grant appropriate relief more in the
nature of Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India declaring the instructions issued by
the 1st respondent in F.No.27/1/201-SRS, dated
29.10.2014 which was re-issued by the 6th respondent in
G.O.Ms.No.312, General Administration (SR) Department,
dated 30.10.2014 as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional
violating Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India
and set aside the same in so far as it relates to applying
local status of the State level post and applying local status
at the State level post and applying local status definition
prescribed in the Presidential Order, while making
allotments in pursuance of the AP Re-organisation Act,
2014 is concerned and also further declare the proceedings
in F.No.29/01/2017-SR (S), dated 22.02.2017 and all other
consequential proceedings including Memo
4
No.625/SRI/A1/2015, dated 23.02.2017, G.O.Ms.No.26,
dated 23.02.2017 issued by the 6th respondent and Memo
No.10132/E6/2014-2016, dated 25.02.2017 issued by the
4th respondent in so far as allotting the petitioner to the
State of Andhra Pradesh instead of State of Telangana is
concerned as equally arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional
violating Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India
and also contrary to Section 77 of A.P.Re-organisation Act,
2014 and set aside the same and issue consequential
direction, directing the respondents, more particularly, the
1st and 6th respondents to allot the petitioner to the State of
Telangana instead of State of Andhra Pradesh and pass
such other order or orders."
4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents
6 and 7 in the matter and the respondents have admitted
that the petitioner was appointed as Civil Assistant
Surgeon on 30th March, 2011 and the respondents have
categorically stated that the petitioner did not submit any
certificate in support of her claim that she studied upto
Class X in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The respondents
have further stated that as per the record of the petitioner,
she has been recruited on the post of Civil Assistant
Surgeon and her local status is Zone III of State of Andhra
Pradesh. The respondents have further stated that the
allocation of employee has been done as per the statutory
5
provisions as contained in the Reorganisation Act and the
guidelines framed on the subject and approved by the
Government of India. The respondents have further stated
that as per the guidelines framed by the Government of
India, options were called for from the employees holding
the State cadre posts vide Notifications dated 10.08.2015,
19.12.2015, 25.01.2016 and 18.02.2016 to submit their
preference online and the petitioner did submit her option
online claiming as non-local by furnishing Kurnool as
place of birth and Ranga Reddy as Home District for opting
for allotment to the State of Telangana. The Director of
Health, Andhra Pradesh has corrected her local
candidature as Residuary State of Andhra Pradesh by
virtue of study in Form III, duly uploading local status
certificate showing that the local status of the petitioner is
recorded in the recruitment records as per her study
details and as per the said records, her local status is
Zone-III of State of Andhra Pradesh and as such the local
status of the petitioner is the State of Andhra Pradesh. The
seniority rank assigned to the petitioner is 3438.
6
5. The respondents further stated that the posts of Civil
Assistant Surgeons are Territorial posts and as such they
stand allotted to the Successor States concerned, based on
the geographical location keeping in view paras 8 and 9 (i)
of the approved guidelines. It has been further stated that
the sanctioned cadre strength of the Category of Civil
Assistant Surgeons of the Director of Health is 3142. 2966
posts were filled up and 176 posts were lying vacant. 1899
filled up posts and 51 vacant posts were allocated to the
State of Andhra Pradesh and the remaining 1067 filled up
posts and 125 vacant posts were allocated to the State of
Telangana. The respondents further stated that the posts
of Civil Assistant Surgeons are available in other
Departments like Director of Medical Education, Telangana
Special Police Battalions, Commissioner of Family Welfare,
etc., for which the Director of Health is the cadre
controlling authority and the said posts are filled up by the
Director of Health. Thus, the total sanctioned strength of
the posts of Civil Assistant Surgeons for the purpose of
allocation of allocable employees in the category is 5210,
out of which 4637 are filled up and 573 are vacant. 2920
7
filled up posts and 277 vacant posts have been allocated to
the State of Andhra Pradesh. The number of allocable
persons in the category as reported by the Directors of
Health jointly is 4852. Among the 4852 allocable persons,
1751 are locals of the State of Telangana. Among the 1751
locals of the State of Telangana, 1575 are local optees to
the State of Telangana, which include 8 preferential
allotments to the State of Telangana on account of
widowed female employee/physical disability and medical
hardship keeping in view para 18 (m) of the guidelines.
Among the remaining 176 locals of State of Telangana, 96
opted for allotment to the State of Andhra Pradesh and 80
candidates did not exercise option/opted for either of the
States. Apart from the 1575 local optees to the State of
Telangana, 61 locals of the State of Andhra Pradesh and 8
non-locals opted for preferential allotment to the State of
Telangana on spouse criteria. As per para 18 (f) of the
guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.312, dated 30.10.2014
read with the prioritization (order of priority) in the
allocation of different categories of personnel between the
successor States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana as
8
indicated in Circular Memo, dated 25.02.2015 approved
jointly by both the Governments, allocation of SC/ST
employees is made to the respective States where they are
notified if they have opted so or even in case of
absence/non-exercising of their options or even if they
have opted for either of the States and then employees who
claimed preferential allotment under Para 18 (m) are
allocated as per their option to the respective States and
then the employees who are local to the State to which
they have opted are allotted to the State as per their option
to the full extent of sanctioned posts in that State under
Para 18 (f)-Part 1 of the guidelines. Thereafter the
employees, who claimed preferential allotment on spouse
criteria, are considered. If allocable posts in that category
remain, then, others who have opted to the State are
allocated in order of seniority. If still posts remain,
allocation is made in reverse order of seniority.
6. In the present case, there are 1575 local optees to
the State of Telangana, which include 8 preferential
allotments to the State of Telangana on account of
9
widowed female employee/physical disability/medical
hardship under Para 18 (m) of the guidelines and all the
1575 persons have been considered for tentative allotment
to the State of Telangana as per their options under Para
18 (m) / 18 (f) of the guidelines; thereafter 61 locals of the
State of Andhra Pradesh and 8 non-locals who claimed
preferential allotment to the State of Telangana have been
considered for tentative allotment to the State of Telangana
as per their option. After exhausting the local optees and
preferential claims on spouse criteria, 80 locals of the
State of Telangana, who did not exercise option/opted for
either of the States have been considered for tentative
allotment to the State of Telangana as per their option
under Para 3 (v)/3(vi) of the Circular dated 25.02.2015
approved jointly by both the Governments. After
exhausting the locals of the State of Telangana, 70 locals
of the State of Andhra Pradesh and 30 non-locals who
have opted for the State of Telangana have also been
considered for allotment to the State of Telangana as per
their options under Para 18 (f) of the guidelines. In
addition, 2 locals of the State of Andhra Pradesh, who have
10
opted for the State of Andhra Pradesh and 4 locals of the
State of Telangana, who opted for the State of Andhra
Pradesh have been tentatively allotted to the State of
Telangana in the reverse order of seniority under para 18
(f) and 2 non-locals who did not exercise option have also
been tentatively allotted to the State of Telangana. Thus,
totally 1832 employees have been tentatively allotted to the
State of Telangana against the posts allocated to the State
of Telangana. The petitioner with Seniority Rank 3438,
who is the local to the State of Andhra Pradesh and opted
for allotment to the State of Telangana, could not be
considered for allotment to the State of Telangana for want
of vacancies within the number of filled posts allocated to
the State of Telangana and was considered for tentative
allotment to the State of Andhra Pradesh against her
option vide Notification dated 14.07.2016. The tentative
allotment of the petitioner to the State of Andhra Pradesh
in the category of Civil Assistant Surgeon is, therefore,
correct and as per the guidelines only.
11
7. The respondents have further stated that aggrieved
by the said allocation, the petitioner submitted
representation online against her tentative allocation. In
her representation, the petitioner stated that she has been
allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh whereas her
family is settled in the State of Telangana and her father-
in-law is a heart patient. The reasons, stated by the
petitioner, requesting for allocating her to the State of
Telangana are as under:-
1. She got married to TS State resident in the year 2007
(i.e., T. Vamsi Mohan, H/o. Dr. Amritha Meduri) who is
resident of Telangana State since last 35 years.
2. Her husband is working in Information Technology (IT)
companies which are located in Hyderabad & he does
not have option to relocate to AP State.
3. She has been blessed by baby boy in the year 2008 &
baby girl in the year 2015 who are residents of TS
State.
4. Being mother, she needs to take care of her baby girl
who is just one year old.
5. Being woman, she needs to stay with her family &
needs to take care of her 2 children, her husband &
her in-law who is a heart patient.
8. The respondents further stated that the Sub-
Committee in their Meeting held on 24.08.2016/05.11.2016
considered the representation of the petitioner submitted
12
online and recommended to the Government of India for
rejection of her request, as she is local to the State of Andhra
Pradesh and there is no vacancy for adjustment within the
number of filled posts allocated to the State of Telangana and
recommended for her allotment to the State of Andhra
Pradesh. None of her juniors, who are local to the State of
Andhra Pradesh and opted for the State of Telangana have
been considered for tentative allotment to the State of
Telangana by ignoring her case. The recommendations of the
Sub-Committee on the representations received from the
employees on their tentative allocations were approved by the
Chief Secretaries of both the States. In pursuance of the
approval, necessary proposals relating to the final allocation
of the State Cadre employees of the Director of Health were
sent to the Government of India, Department of Personnel
and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and
Pensions, New Delhi vide Letter dated 22.12.2016. The
Government of India has examined the said proposals and
issued the final allocation list of State cadre employees of the
Director of Health vide Order dated 22.02.2017. As per the
final allocation list issued by the Government of India, the
13
petitioner is allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh in the
category of Civil Assistant Surgeon. The contention of the
petitioner is that the authorities have allocated her to the
State of Andhra Pradesh instead of State of Telangana
without considering the objections raised by her and also on
the sole ground that she studied upto Class X in the State of
Andhra Pradesh.
9. The Government of India has also filed a detailed
reply in the matter as well as in all the connected matters.
The Government of India has also stated in its counter
affidavit that a transparent process was adopted in the
matter of allocation of employees keeping in view the
Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act read with the
Executive Instructions.
10. The aforesaid counter affidavit makes it very clear that
each and every case was scrutinized minutely by the
respondents and the cases which were falling within the
Executive Instructions for accommodating the employees to
the State of their choice have been considered subject to the
conditions mentioned in the Guidelines and there is no
14
deviation in respect of allocation of the employees in any
case from the statutory provisions.
11. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and
perused the record. The matter is being disposed of with the
consent of the parties at motion hearing stage itself.
12. The petitioner before this Court, a doctor, who has
been allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh, has filed this
writ petition i.e., W.P.No.14560 of 2017 claiming allocation to
the State of Telangana. The petitioner has challenged the
constitutional validity of the executive instructions issued by
the Government of India in F.No.27/1/201-SRS, dated
29.10.2014, which was re-issued by the respondent No.6 in
G.O.Ms.No.312, dated 30.10.2014. The petitioner has also
sought for quashment of orders dated 22.02.2017,
23.02.2017 and 25.02.2017 which are the orders allocating
the petitioner finally to the State of Andhra Pradesh.
13. The Reorganization Act came into force with effect from
02.06.2014 and Section 77 of the Reorganization Act
provides for allocation of employees serving in the erstwhile
15
State of Andhra Pradesh. The State of Andhra Pradesh was
reorganized under the Reorganization Act and the State of
Telangana was carved out of State of Andhra Pradesh and
two separate States came into existence and therefore, the
necessity arose to allocate the employees to the two States.
Section 77 of the Reorganization Act, which is material for
deciding these writ petitions, is reproduced as under:-
"77. Provisions relating to other services: (1) Every
person who immediately before the appointed day is
serving on substantive basis in connection with the affairs
of the existing State of Andhra Pradesh shall, on and from
that day provisionally continue to serve in connection with
the affairs of the State of Andhra Pradesh unless he is
required, by general or special order of the Central
Government to serve provisionally in connection with the
affairs of the State of Telangana:
Provided that every direction under this sub-section
issued after the expiry of a period of one year from the
appointed day shall be issued with the consultation of the
Governments of the successor States.
(2) As soon as may be after the appointed day, the
Central Government shall, by general or special order,
determine the successor State to which every person
referred to in sub-section (1) shall be finally allotted for
service, after consideration of option received by seeking
option from the employees, and the date with effect from
which such allotment shall take effect or be deemed to
have taken effect:
16
Provided that even after the allocation has been
made, the Central Government may, in order to meet any
deficiency in the service, depute officers of other State
services from one successor State to the other:
Provided further that as far as local, district, zonal
and multi-zonal cadres are concerned, the employees shall
continue to serve, on or after the appointed day, in that
cadre:
Provided also that the employees of local, district,
zonal and multi-zonal cadres which fall entirely in one of
the successor States, shall be deemed to be allotted to that
successor State:
Provided also that if a particular zone or multi-zone
falls in both the successor States, then the employees of
such zonal or multi-zonal cadre shall be finally allotted to
one or the other successor States in terms of the
provisions of this sub-section.
(3) Every person who is finally allotted under the
provisions of sub-section (2) to a successor State shall, if
he is not already serving therein, be made available for
serving in the successor State from such date as may be
agreed upon between the Governments of the successor
States or, in default of such agreement, as may be
determined by the Central Government:
Provided that the Central Government shall have
the power to review any of its orders issued under this
section."
14. The Reorganization Act provides for division of various
cadres in the service of the undivided State of Andhra
Pradesh and executive instructions have been issued by the
17
Union of India in the matter of allocation of the employees.
The petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of
the executive instructions on the basis of which employees
have been allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh. The
Guidelines Relating to Allocation of State Services Employees
as contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 18 and 19 are
reproduced as under:-
"Introduction
1. The Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 was
notified on the first of March, 2014. The Central
Government has, in its notification S.O.655 E dated 4th
March, 2014, specified the second day of June 2014, as
the appointed day for the purposes of the Act, when the
new State of Telangana and the residuary State of Andhra
Pradesh came into existence.
Provisions as to Services
2. By virtue of the provisions of Section 97 of the Act,
Article 371D of the Constitution will continue to remain in
force in relation to the States of Telangana and Andhra
Pradesh. Part VIII of the Act comprising Sections 76 to 83
relates to 'Provisions as to Services', Section 76 being on
All India Services and Section 83 on the Andhra Pradesh
Public Service Commission. Sections 77 to 82 are the
provisions on the strength of which persons borne on the
Andhra Pradesh State cadres shall be allocated to the
Successor States.
18
3. Section 80 of the Act provides for constitution of
Advisory Committee (AC) and for issue of allocation
guidelines by the Central Government. Accordingly, the
Central Government has in its order dated 29th March,
2014 constituted an Advisory Committee for the State
Government Employees, to delineate objective and
transparent criteria for the allocation of personnel
belonging to the State Government borne on the existing
cadres of different services of Andhra Pradesh between the
two States viz., Andhra Pradesh and Telangana; to
determine the cadre strength; to recommend specific
individual allocation of State Government employees; and
to consider any representation made by a State
Government employee(s) affected by such allocation, in
order to ensure fair and equitable treatment to all and to
make appropriate recommendations.
Functions of State Reorganization Department (SRD)
4. There shall be a State Reorganization Department
(SRD), within the General Administration Department,
functioning in the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh
under the overall guidance of the Chief Secretary to
Government. The SRD will be the nodal office for
coordinating all matters relating to implementation of the
Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014. A State
Coordination Committee comprising the Chief Secretaries
of the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, and the
Secretaries in charge of SRD of Andhra Pradesh and
Telangana, with the Secretary SR of Andhra Pradesh as
the Member-Secretary, who shall not be less than the rank
of a Secretary to the State Government, will provide
effective support to the Advisory Committee set up under
Section 80 of the Act in the discharge of its functions. The
19
Department may have officers of both States to discharge
the duties under part viii of the Act. Arrangement will be
made by the Chief Secretary, Telangana to provide
accommodation to the GA SR Department of AP to enable
Telangana officers to interact on and submit SR related
papers, like options, representations etc in the Telangana
Secretariat premises.
Principles guiding Allocation
18. The following principles and procedure shall guide
the final allocation of personnel:
a) Persons who immediately before the
appointed day are serving on substantive
basis in connection with the affairs of the
existing State of Andhra Pradesh shall be
considered for allocation. Employees holding
posts on purely ad-hoc basis immediately
before the 'appointed day' shall be considered
against substantive posts (or regular) held by
them on the 'appointed day' if any.
b) Allocation of employees would be based on
final distribution of posts including vacant
posts proposed by the Advisory Committee in
consultation with the successor States and
after approval of the Central Government.
c) Allocable employees shall be considered for
allotment between the successor States on
the basis of seniority list as available on June
01, 2014.
20
d) The employees to be allocated would include
persons who are absconding, long absentees,
those on leave preparatory to retirement or
other kinds of leave, those under suspension,
persons undergoing training and employees
on deputation, including foreign service
deputation. There shall not be any case of an
employee not being allocated to either of the
successor States.
e) State service employees who hold allocable
posts shall be allocated after seeking option
from the employees indicating their
preference to serve in either of the successor
States after taking their option into
consideration.
f) The allocation shall be done in order of
seniority as available on June 01, 2014.
Those who have opted, who are 'local
candidates' relatable to the State to which
they have opted, shall, in order of their
seniority, be considered for allocation first. If
allocable posts in that category remain, then,
others who have opted to the State may be
allocated in order of seniority. If still posts
remain allocation will be made in reverse
order of seniority.
g) Vacant posts or posts created subsequent to
the appointed day by either State
Governments will be reckoned, if so desired
21
by that State, for the purposes of final
allotment of State Services employees.
h) Employees who are not local in relating to
both States will be allocated on the basis of
place of birth or home district, as the case
may be, after due verification and
certification. Those originally from other
States will be allocated on a case by case
basis after considering their option.
i) Employees who are members of the
Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes
shall be considered for allocation on the basis
of their option if they are local candidates. In
the event an SC or ST employee has not
exercised his option or where he has not been
so allocated he/she shall be allocated to the
State where his caste or tribe, as the case
may be, is included in the concerned
schedule of the State.
j) Last grade employees and Light Vehicle
Drivers shall be allocated on the basis of
option or local candidature, as far as
possible. Vacant posts and posts created.
subsequent to the appointed day in these
categories will be reckoned, if so desired by
the concerned State, for the purposes of final
allotment of these employees.
k) Spouse of an All India Service (AIS) officer
who belongs to a State cadre or is an
22
employee of a State Government institution
shall be allocated, where so desired by the
spouse, to the State to which the AIS officer is
allocated.
l) Spouses in State cadre in Government or in
State Government institutions, local bodies
and those who are deemed allocated as per
the Act, shall as far as practicable, be allotted
to the same State, after considering options
made by them and their local candidature.
Spouses who are local candidates of a State
shall be allocated to that State. Spouses who
belong to different States may be allocated
after considering their options.
m) Cases of alleviation of extreme personal
hardship of State Government employees will
be exceptions to the principle:
i) Widowed female employees may
be considered for allocation to
the State to which option is
exercised.
ii) Handicapped persons of more
than 60% disability, may be
allocated on the basis of option,
subject to the procedure
prescribed by the State
Government.
23
iii) An employee or whose spouse or
child is known to be facing
serious medical hardship, in
cases of Cancer, Open Heart/
Bye-pass surgery, and Kidney
Transplantation / Kidney failure
and continuing on dialysis shall
be considered for allotment on
special grounds on priority on
the basis of option, subject to
strict proof of verification as per
the procedure prescribed by the
State Government. This clause
is applicable to only those
employees who are working
outside the common capital.
n) Local candidature shall be as defined under
the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment
(Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation
of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975 as
certified by the competent authority, with
strict reference to the school records. While
the committee may take into consideration
entry made in the service register as prima
facie proof of local candidature, it shall be
open to either government or the committee
to subject the genuineness of the employee's
local candidature status to strict verification.
False claim of local candidature or production
of false certificate with the intent to mislead
shall be punishable as a criminal offence and
24
also be subject to major disciplinary
proceedings.
o) Cadre composition with reference to direct
recruits/promotees and recruitments by
transfer, and reserved categories of persons
as on the appointed day (observed percentage
of reservations for different groups) may, as
far as practicable, be kept in view while
allotting personnel to the two cadres.
p) There are certain departments in which the
number of posts in a category in the
department is limited, but there are many
more persons holding posts in the category
on tenure in other departments or on foreign-
service deputation. In cases where the posts
of the category are in other departments such
posts could be treated as part of the cadre
strength of that department whose personnel
are posted to work in them. Personnel who
are in excess of the sanctioned strength in
the department working on foreign service
posts may be distributed between the States
duly reckoning the foreign-service posts of
the category in the respective States without
their being formally added to the cadre
strength, for the purpose of allocation of
personnel between the states.
q) Where personnel in the seniority list of a
category of post is appointed based on
subject specialization like in the case of
25
teaching jobs or medical specializations,
allotment of posts and personnel in such
cases should be subject specialization wise.
r) Officers who have retired/died after the
appointed day but before allocation will also
be allotted.
s) Employees belonging to allocable categories of
one department working in another
department or organization on
deputation/tenure basis will be allotted by
the parent department of the officer.
t) Local cadre personnel, who are deemed
allotted to the State in which the local cadre
is situated, working on tenure basis in the
Secretariat, Offices of Heads of Department,
State Level institutions and Special offices
and Establishments and Major Development
Projects, as declared under the Presidential
Order, will be repatriated to the parent local
cadre.
u) An employee 'on other duty' in a State
allocated to the other State will be repatriated
to the State to which the employee is allotted.
v) Candidates who stand allotted by the APPSC
or other recruiting agency before the
appointed date will be asked to indicate their
preference to a State. They will be liable to
26
serve the State to which they are allocated on
the basis of the guidelines.
w) The Advisory Committee will also consider
allocation of State Services Employees in the
Corporations, Institutions, etc., included in
Schedule IX and X of the A.P.Reorganisation
Act, 2014 and other similar entities other
than those Constitutional and Statutory
authorities as on 1 June 2014 while making
allocation of employees between the two
States.
x) The actual allocation of personnel to States
shall be guided by the public interest and the
administrative needs of the posts in the
States.
y) Notwithstanding the guidelines indicated
above the Advisory Committee would be at
liberty to consider any principle/factor which
may become crucial in deciding the allocation
of employees to the successor States subject
to approval of the Central Government.
Process of Allocation of Employees
19. The Committee shall follow the procedure herein
after mentioned for allocation of employees:
i. All employees would be asked to exercise
their options in the prescribed proforma
annexed to these Guidelines, and forward
27
their duly filled option forms to the Member
Secretary, Advisory Committee, G A State
Reorganisation Department, A P Secretariat
electronically and through the proper channel
indicating their preference for either of the
States within two weeks from the date of
public notification calling for options.
ii. Letter calling for options shall be given wide
publicity through print and electronic media.
A copy of the letter shall also be placed in the
public domain for wide publicity.
iii. The employees, who are eligible for allocation
to either of the successor States as specified
above, will submit their option form
addressed to the Member Secretary, Advisory
Committee through the respective
Administrative Departments of the
government in which they are working, to the
Andhra Pradesh State General Administration
State Reorganization Department.
iv. Scrutiny of statements made in the option
forms shall be done and factual accuracy of
the statements made therein certified by the
head of the department under whom the
employee is working. The forms so certified
shall be delivered to the GA (SR) Department
of the A P Government.
v. If no option is received within the prescribed
time, or where an employee is willing to be
28
allotted to either of the two States such
person shall be allotted based on the other
criteria.
vi. Option once exercised cannot be changed
under any circumstance.
vii. After the distribution of posts is finalized, the
Advisory Committee will draw up, with the
help of the departments concerned and the G
A State Reorganization Department of A P
Government, a Tentative Allocation List all
employees whether they have exercised
option or not. The Member Secretary of the
Advisory Committee will circulate the
Tentative Allocation List to the respective
successor State Governments for information
of their employees and for submission of
representations, if any, by such employees
within a period of two weeks from the date of
such communication. The GA State
Reorganization Department of AP is required
to issue the Tentative Allocation List on
behalf of the Advisory Committee. The list
shall be widely published and circulated
inviting representations of employees against
their tentative allocation."
15. The guidelines provide for a detailed process of
allocation. It provides for receiving objections and the
Advisory Committee draws a tentative allocation list of all the
29
employees, whether they have exercised their option or not,
and after issuance of tentative allocation list, the employees
are having liberty to submit their representations within a
period of two weeks from the date of such communication.
As per Clause 20, the representations are decided by the
Advisory Committee and thereafter, the final allocation of the
employees is done.
16. In the present case, keeping in view Section 77 of the
Reorganization Act read with paragraphs 18 and 19 of the
Guidelines approved by the Union of India, options were
invited vide Notifications dated 10.08.2015, 19.12.2015,
15.01.2016 and 8.02.2016. Two weeks time was granted to
the employees to submit their options and the petitioner
submitted option online claiming as non-local by furnishing
Kurnool as place of birth and Ranga Reddy as Home District.
She opted for allotment to State of Telangana. It is pertinent
to note that the Director of Health, Andhra Pradesh has
corrected her local candidature as Residuary State of Andhra
Pradesh by virtue of her study in Form III, duly uploaded
local status certificate showing the local status of the
30
petitioner as recorded in the recruitment records as per her
study details and as per the said records, her local status is
Zone - III of State of Andhra Pradesh and as such, local
status of the petitioner is State of Andhra Pradesh. Her
seniority rank is 3438.
17. It is an undisputed fact that the posts of Civil
Assistant Surgeons are Territorial posts and as such they
stand allotted to the Successor States concerned, based on
the geographical location under paras 8 and 9 (i) of the
approved guidelines. The sanctioned cadre strength of the
Category of Civil Assistant Surgeons of the Director of
Health is 3142 (2966 - filled and 176 - vacant), out of
which 1899 filled up posts and 51 vacant posts were
allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh and the
remaining 1067 filled up posts and 125 vacant posts were
allocated to the State of Telangana. The posts of Civil
Assistant Surgeons are available in other Departments like
Director of Medical Education, Telangana Special Police
Battalions, Commissioner of Family Welfare, etc., for which
the Director of Health is the cadre controlling
31
authority and the said posts are filled up by the Director of
Health. The aforesaid details establish that the total
sanctioned strength of the post of Civil Assistant Surgeons
for the purpose of allocation of allocable employees in the
category is 5210 (4637 - filled and 573 - vacant), of which
2920 filled up posts and 277 vacant posts were allocated
to the State of Andhra Pradesh and the remaining 1717
filled up posts and 296 vacant posts were allocated to the
State of Telangana. The number of allocable persons in the
category as reported by the Director of Health jointly is
4852. Among the allocable persons, 1751 are Telangana
State locals, 1575 are local optees to Telangana State,
which include 8 preferential allotments to the State of
Telangana on account of widowed female employees/
physically disabled employees/employees facing medical
hardship under para 18 (m) of the executive instructions.
Among the remaining 176 Telangana State locals, 96 opted
for allotment to the State of Andhra Pradesh and 80
candidates did not exercise option/opted for either of the
States. Apart from 1575 local optees to the State of
Telangana, 61 locals of the State of Andhra Pradesh and 8
32
non-locals opted for preferential allotment to the State of
Telangana on spouse criteria. The facts further reveal that
as per para 18 (f) of the guidelines issued vide
G.O.Ms.No.312, dated 30.10.2014 read with the
prioritization (order of priority) in the allocation of different
categories of personnel between the successor States of
Andhra Pradesh and Telangana as indicated in Circular
Memo, dated 25.02.2015 approved jointly by both the
Governments, allocation of SC/ST employees is made to
the respective States where they are notified if they have
opted so or even in cases of absence/non-exercising of
their options or even if they have opted for either of the
States and then employees, who claimed preferential
allotment under Para 18 (m), are allocated as per their
options to their respective States and the criteria provided
under Para 18 (f)-Part 1 of the guidelines was followed.
After conducting the aforesaid exercise for the remaining
posts, allocation was made in the reverse order of
seniority.
33
18. In the present case, there are 1575 local optees,
which include 8 preferential allotment to the State of
Telangana on account of widowed female employees/
persons facing medical hardship. The facts further reveal
that 61 Andhra Pradesh locals and 8 non-locals who
claimed preferential allotment have been considered for
tentative allotment to the State of Telangana as per their
option. After exhausting the local optees and preferential
claims on spouse criteria, 80 Telangana State locals did
not exercise their options and therefore, they have been
considered for tentative allotment to the State of Telangana
keeping in view the executive instructions dated
25.02.2015. The facts further reveal that after exhausting
the Telangana State locals, 70 Andhra Pradesh locals and
30 non-locals who have opted for the State of Telangana
have also been considered for allotment to the State of
Telangana as per their options under Para 18 of the
Guidelines. In addition to the above, 2 Andhra Pradesh
locals who have opted for the State of Andhra Pradesh and
4 Telangana locals who have opted for the State of Andhra
Pradesh have been tentatively allocated to the State of
34
Telangana in the reverse order of seniority under Para 18(f)
and 2 non-locals who did not exercise options have also
been tentatively allocated to the State of Telangana. Thus,
in total 1832 employees have been allocated tentatively to
the State of Telangana against the posts allocated to the
State of Telangana. The petitioner's seniority rank is 3438
and her local cadre is the State of Andhra Pradesh. She
opted for allotment to the State of Telangana, however, for
want of vacancies, she has not been allocated to the State
of Telangana and she was allocated to the State of Andhra
Pradesh vide Notification dated 14.07.2016. The petitioner
did submit a representation stating family reasons and the
Sub-committee in the Meeting dated 24.08.2016/
05.11.2016 considered the representation of the petitioner
and forwarded the same to the Government of India,
however keeping in view the vacancies and allotment, the
representation of the petitioner was rejected and after
getting approval by the Chief Secretaries of both the
States, the matter was forwarded for final allocation to the
Government of India. The Government of India has
examined the said proposals and has issued a final
35
allocation list on 22.02.2017 and the petitioner has been
allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh. The contention of
the petitioner that her objections have not been considered
is therefore incorrect.
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Indradeo Paswan v Union of India1, while dealing with the
Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000, in paragraph 12 has held
as under:-
"12. We see no reason not to accept the principle adopted
in Prakash Chandra Sinha v. Union of India [(2003) 4 JCR
165] by the High Court that the allocation should not be
interfered with on individual grievances relating to non-
acceptance of options exercised, unless clear illegality or
Wednesbury unreasonableness is established. The State
was reorganised with effect from 20-11-2000. We are in
the year 2007. It had taken almost five years for the Union
of India to publish the final list of allocation regarding this
Department. In the absence of any clear ground for
interference found in the case, merely on the ground that
the appellant had opted for going to the State of
Jharkhand but had been allocated to the State of Bihar, it
does not appear to be necessary or proper to interfere with
the order of allocation. It is brought to our notice that the
State of Bihar had subsequently informed the appellant
that he had been given regular promotion to the post of
Additional Director of Mines by the Department of Mines
1
(2007) 7 SCC 250
36
and Geology and that he could join that post. There is
therefore no subsisting reason for the appellant to
complain even as regards the post to be held by him in the
reorganised State of Bihar. It is not necessary for us to
deal with or comment on the consequences of the
appellant, in spite of being relieved from the State of
Jharkhand on 10-5-2005 pursuant to the final allocation,
not joining the service in the reorganised State of Bihar.
Suffice it to say that in this appeal we see no ground to
interfere with the decision of the High Court."
20. In the light of the aforesaid judgment, as the
allocation has been done keeping in view the executive
instructions framed on the subject, merely because the
petitioner wants to be allocated to the State of Telangana,
the question of interference does not arise.
21. The petitioner wants her allocation to be changed to
the State of Telangana. The claim of the petitioner cannot
be considered by superseding the claim of the other
employees who are much senior to the petitioner. The
allocation of the petitioner to the State of Andhra Pradesh
has been done strictly in consonance with the statutory
provisions as contained under Section 77 of the
Reorganisation Act read with paragraphs 18 and 19 of the
37
Executive Instructions issued by the Government of India,
dated 10.08.2015.
22. The petitioner has challenged the constitutional
validity of executive instructions issued by the Government
of Andhra Pradesh, dated 30.10.2014 in respect of
allocation of employees to the State of Telangana and the
State of Andhra Pradesh. The executive instructions which
are under challenge have been issued in exercise of powers
conferred under section 77 of the A.P. Reorganisation Act,
2014 and having statutory force. The constitutional
validity of an Act, the Rules or statutory executive
instructions can certainly be challenged under Article 32
of the Constitution of India as well as under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.
23. In Shayara Bano v. Union of India2, the Supreme Court
had examined the question of law that a legislation, be it
plenary or subordinate, can be challenged on the ground
of arbitrariness with regards to the practice of Triple Talaq
and the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act,
2
(22017) 9 SCC 1
38
1937. The Apex Court, per Nariman and Lalit, JJ, held
that:
"82. It is, therefore, clear from a reading of even the
aforesaid two Constitution Bench judgments in Mithu
case [Mithu v. State of Punjab, (1983) 2 SCC 277 : 1983
SCC (Cri) 405] and Sunil Batra case [Sunil Batra v. Delhi
Admn., (1978) 4 SCC 494 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 155] that
Article 14 has been referred to in the context of the
constitutional invalidity of statutory law to show that such
statutory law will be struck down if it is found to be
"arbitrary".
83. However, the three-Judge Bench
in McDowell [State of A.P. v. McDowell and Co., (1996) 3
SCC 709] dealt with the binding Constitution Bench
decision in Mithu [Mithu v. State of Punjab, (1983) 2 SCC
277 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 405] as follows : (McDowell
case [State of A.P. v. McDowell and Co., (1996) 3 SCC 709]
, SCC p. 739, para 45)
"45. Reference was then made by Shri G.
Ramaswamy to the decision in Mithu v. State of
Punjab [Mithu v. State of Punjab, (1983) 2 SCC 277 :
1983 SCC (Cri) 405] wherein Section 303 of the Penal
Code, 1860 was struck down. But that decision turned
mainly on Article 21though Article 14 is also referred to
along with Article 21. Not only did the offending
provision exclude any scope for application of judicial
discretion, it also deprived the accused of the procedural
safeguards contained in Sections 235(2) and 354(3) of
the Criminal Procedure Code. The ratio of the said
decision is thus of no assistance to the petitioners
herein."
A binding judgment of five learned Judges of this Court
cannot be said to be of "no assistance" by stating that the
decision turned mainly on Article 21, though Article 14
was also referred to. It is clear that the ratio of the said
39
Constitution Bench was based both on Article 14 and
Article 21 as is clear from the judgment of the four learned
Judges in paras 19 and 23 set out supra. [ It is clear that
one judgment can have more than one ratio decidendi.
This was recognised early on by the Privy Council in an
appeal from the Supreme Court of New South Wales,
in Commissioners of Taxation for the State of New South
Wales v. Palmer, 1907 AC 179 (PC). Lord Macnaghten put
it thus: (AC p. 184)"... But it is impossible to treat a
proposition which the court declares to be a distinct and
sufficient ground for its decision as a mere dictum, simply
because there is also another ground stated upon which,
standing alone, the case might have been determined."
In Jacobs v. London County Council, 1950 AC 361 : (1950)
1 All ER 737, the House of Lords, after referring to some
earlier decisions held, as follows : (AC p. 369 : All ER p.
741) "... However, this may be, there is, in my opinion, no
justification for regarding as obiter dictum a reason given
by a Judge for his decision, because he has given another
reason also. If it were a proper test to ask whether the
decision would have been the same apart from the
proposition alleged to be obiter, then a case which ex facie
decided two things would decide nothing. A good
illustration will be found in London Jewellers
Ltd. v. Attenborough, (1934) 2 KB 206 (CA). In that case
the determination of one of the issues depended on how
far the Court of Appeal was bound by its previous decision
in Folkes v. R., (1923) 1 KB 282 (CA), [in which] the court
had given two grounds for its decision, the second of
which [as stated by Greer, L.J., in Attenborough case,
(1934) 2 KB 206] was that : (KB p. 222) '... where a man
obtains possession with authority to sell, or to become the
owner himself, and then sells, he cannot be treated as
40
having obtained the goods by larceny by a trick.'
"In Attenborough case, (1934) 2 KB 206 it was contended
that, since there was another reason given for the decision
in Folkes case, (1923) 1 KB 282, the second reason was
obiter, but Greer, L.J., said in reference to the argument of
counsel : (Attenborough case, KB p. 222)"I cannot help
feeling that if we were unhampered by authority there is
much to be said for this proposition which commended
itself to Swift, J., and which commended itself to me
in Folkes v. R., (1923) 1 KB 282, but that view is not open
to us in view of the decision of the Court of Appeal
in Folkes v. R., (1923) 1 KB 282. In that case two reasons
were given by all the members of the Court of Appeal for
their decision and we are not entitled to pick out the first
reason as the ratio decidendi and neglect the second, or to
pick out the second reason as the ratio decidendi and
neglect the first; we must take both as forming the ground
of the judgment." So, also, in Cheater v. Cater, (1918) 1 KB
247 (CA) Pickford, L.J., after citing a passage from the
judgment of Mellish, L.J., in Erskine v. Adeane, (1873) LR
8 Ch App 756, said : (Cheater case, KB p. 252)"... That is a
distinct statement of the law and not a dictum. It is the
second ground given by the Lord Justice for his judgment.
If a Judge states two grounds for his judgment and bases
his decision upon both, neither of those grounds is a
dictum."] A three-Judge Bench in the teeth of this ratio
cannot, therefore, be said to be good law. Also, the binding
Constitution Bench decision in Sunil Batra [Sunil
Batra v. Delhi Admn., (1978) 4 SCC 494 : 1979 SCC (Cri)
155] , which held arbitrariness as a ground for striking
down a legislative provision, is not at all referred to in the
three-Judge Bench decision in McDowell [State of
A.P. v. McDowell and Co., (1996) 3 SCC 709] .
41
84. The second reason given is that a challenge under
Article 14 has to be viewed separately from a challenge
under Article 19, which is a reiteration of the point of view
of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras [A.K. Gopalan v. State of
Madras, 1950 SCR 88 : AIR 1950 SC 27 : (1950) 51 Cri LJ
1383] that fundamental rights must be seen in watertight
compartments. We have seen how this view was upset by
an eleven-Judge Bench of this Court in Rustom Cavasjee
Cooper v. Union of India [Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union
of India, (1970) 1 SCC 248] and followed in Maneka
Gandhi [Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC
248] . Arbitrariness in legislation is very much a facet of
unreasonableness in Articles 19(2) to (6), as has been laid
down in several judgments of this Court, some of which
are referred to in Om Kumar [Om Kumar v. Union of India,
(2001) 2 SCC 386 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 1039] and, therefore,
there is no reason why arbitrariness cannot be used in the
aforesaid sense to strike down legislation under Article 14
as well.
85. The third reason given is that the courts cannot sit
in judgment over parliamentary wisdom. Our law reports
are replete with instance after instance where
parliamentary wisdom has been successfully set at naught
by this Court because such laws did not pass muster on
account of their being "unreasonable", which is referred to
in Om Kumar [Om Kumar v. Union of India, (2001) 2 SCC
386 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 1039] . We must never forget the
admonition given by Khanna, J. in State of Punjab v. Khan
Chand [State of Punjab v. Khan Chand, (1974) 1 SCC 549]
. He said : (SCC p. 558, para 12)
"12. It would be wrong to assume that there is an
element of judicial arrogance in the act of the courts in
42
striking down an enactment. The Constitution has
assigned to the courts the function of determining as to
whether the laws made by the legislature are in
conformity with the provisions of the Constitution. In
adjudicating the constitutional validity of statutes, the
courts discharge an obligation which has been imposed
upon them by the Constitution. The courts would be
shirking their responsibility if they hesitate to declare
the provisions of a statute to be unconstitutional, even
though those provisions are found to be violative of the
Articles of the Constitution. Articles 32 and 226 are an
integral part of the Constitution and provide remedies
for enforcement of fundamental rights and other rights
conferred by the Constitution. Hesitation or refusal on
the part of the courts to declare the provisions of an
enactment to be unconstitutional, even though they are
found to infringe the Constitution because of any notion
of judicial humility would in a large number of cases
have the effect of taking away or in any case eroding the
remedy provided to the aggrieved parties by the
Constitution. Abnegation in matters affecting one's own
interest may sometimes be commendable but
abnegation in a matter where power is conferred to
protect the interest of others against measures which
are violative of the Constitution is fraught with serious
consequences. It is as much the duty of the courts to
declare a provision of an enactment to be
unconstitutional if it contravenes any article of the
Constitution as it is theirs to uphold its validity in case
it is found to suffer from no such infirmity."
This again cannot detain us.
86. One more reason given is that the proportionality
doctrine, doubtful of application even in administrative
law, should not, therefore, apply to this facet of Article 14
in constitutional law. Proportionality as a constitutional
doctrine has been highlighted in Om Kumar v. Union of
India [Om Kumar v. Union of India, (2001) 2 SCC 386 :
2001 SCC (L&S) 1039] , as follows : (SCC pp. 400-01,
paras 30-32)
"30. On account of a Chapter on Fundamental
Rights in Part III of our Constitution right from 1950,
Indian courts did not suffer from the disability similar to
the one experienced by English courts for declaring as
unconstitutional legislation on the principle of
proportionality or reading them in a manner consistent
with the charter of rights. Ever since 1950, the principle
of "proportionality" has indeed been applied vigorously
43
to legislative (and administrative) action in India. While
dealing with the validity of legislation infringing
fundamental freedoms enumerated in Article 19(1) of the
Constitution of India--such as freedom of speech and
expression, freedom to assemble peaceably, freedom to
form associations and unions, freedom to move freely
throughout the territory of India, freedom to reside and
settle in any part of India--this Court has occasion to
consider whether the restrictions imposed by legislation
were disproportionate to the situation and were not the
least restrictive of the choices. The burden of proof to
show that the restriction was reasonable lay on the
State. "Reasonable restrictions" under Articles 19(2) to
(6) could be imposed on these freedoms only by
legislation and courts had occasion throughout to
consider the proportionality of the restrictions. In
numerous judgments of this Court, the extent to which
"reasonable restrictions" could be imposed was
considered. In Chintamanrao v. State of M.P.
[Chintamanrao v. State of M.P., AIR 1951 SC 118 : 1950
SCR 759] Mahajan, J. (as he then was) observed that
(AIR p. 119, para 7) "reasonable restrictions" which the
State could impose on the fundamental rights "should
not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature, beyond what
is required in the interests of the public". "Reasonable"
implied intelligent care and deliberation, that is,
the choice of a course which reason dictated. Legislation
which arbitrarily or excessively invaded the right could
not be said to contain the quality of reasonableness
unless it struck a proper balance between the rights
guaranteed and the control permissible under Articles
19(2) to (6). Otherwise, it must be held to be wanting in
that quality. Patanjali Sastri, C.J. in State of
Madras v. V.G. Row [State of Madras v. V.G. Row, 1952
SCR 597 : AIR 1952 SC 196 : 1952 Cri LJ 966] ,
observed that the Court must keep in mind the 'nature
of the right alleged to have been infringed, the
underlying purpose of the restrictions imposed, the
extent and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied
thereby, the disproportion of the imposition, the
prevailing conditions at the time'. (AIR p. 200, para 15)
This principle of proportionality vis-à-vis legislation was
referred to by Jeevan Reddy, J. in State of
A.P. v. McDowell & Co. [State of A.P. v. McDowell and
Co., (1996) 3 SCC 709] recently. This level of scrutiny
has been a common feature in the High Court and the
Supreme Court in the last fifty years. Decided cases run
into thousands.
31. Article 21 guarantees liberty and has also been
subjected to principles of "proportionality". Provisions of
the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and the Penal Code,
1860 came up for consideration in Bachan
Singh v. State of Punjab [Bachan Singh v. State of
44
Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 580] the
majority upholding the legislation. The dissenting
judgment of Bhagwati, J. (see Bachan Singh v. State of
Punjab [Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1982) 3 SCC
24 : 1982 SCC (Cri) 535] ) dealt elaborately with
"proportionality" and held that the punishment provided
by the statute was disproportionate.
32. So far as Article 14 is concerned, the courts in
India examined whether the classification was based on
intelligible differentia and whether the differentia had a
reasonable nexus with the object of the legislation.
Obviously, when the courts considered the question
whether the classification was based on intelligible
differentia, the courts were examining the validity of the
differences and the adequacy of the differences. This is
again nothing but the principle of proportionality. There
are also cases where legislation or rules have been
struck down as being arbitrary in the sense of being
unreasonable [see Air India v. Nergesh Meerza [Air
India v. Nergesh Meerza, (1981) 4 SCC 335 : 1981 SCC
(L&S) 599] (SCC at pp. 372-73)]. But this latter aspect of
striking down legislation only on the basis of
"arbitrariness" has been doubted in State of
A.P. v. McDowell and Co. [State of A.P. v. McDowell and
Co., (1996) 3 SCC 709] "
87. The thread of reasonableness runs through the
entire fundamental rights chapter. What is manifestly
arbitrary is obviously unreasonable and being contrary to
the rule of law, would violate Article 14. Further, there is
an apparent contradiction in the three-Judge Bench
decision in McDowell [State of A.P. v. McDowell and Co.,
(1996) 3 SCC 709] when it is said that a constitutional
challenge can succeed on the ground that a law is
"disproportionate, excessive or unreasonable", yet such
challenge would fail on the very ground of the law being
"unreasonable, unnecessary or unwarranted". The
arbitrariness doctrine when applied to legislation
obviously would not involve the latter challenge but would
only involve a law being disproportionate, excessive or
otherwise being manifestly unreasonable. All the aforesaid
grounds, therefore, do not seek to differentiate between
45
State action in its various forms, all of which are
interdicted if they fall foul of the fundamental rights
guaranteed to persons and citizens in Part III of the
Constitution.
88. We only need to point out that even
after McDowell [State of A.P. v. McDowell and Co., (1996) 3
SCC 709] , this Court has in fact negated statutory law on
the ground of it being arbitrary and therefore violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In Malpe
Vishwanath Acharya v. State of Maharashtra [Malpe
Vishwanath Acharya v. State of Maharashtra, (1998) 2
SCC 1] , this Court held that after passage of time, a law
can become arbitrary, and, therefore, the freezing of rents
at a 1940 market value under the Bombay Rent Act would
be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
of India (see paras 8 to 15 and 31).
89. Similarly in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of
India [Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India, (2004) 4
SCC 311] , this Court struck down Section 17(2) of the
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, as follows :
(SCC p. 354, para 64)
"64. The condition of pre-deposit in the present case
is bad rendering the remedy illusory on the grounds
that : (i) it is imposed while approaching the
adjudicating authority of the first instance, not in
appeal, (ii) there is no determination of the amount due
as yet, (iii) the secured assets or their management with
transferable interest is already taken over and under
control of the secured creditor, (iv) no special reason for
double security in respect of an amount yet to be
determined and settled, (v) 75% of the amount claimed
by no means would be a meagre amount, and (vi) it will
leave the borrower in a position where it would not be
possible for him to raise any funds to make deposit of
75% of the undetermined demand. Such conditions are
not only onerous and oppressive but also unreasonable
46
and arbitrary. Therefore, in our view, sub-section (2) of
Section 17 of the Act is unreasonable, arbitrary and
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution."
90. In two other fairly recent judgments, namely, State
of T.N. v. K. Shyam Sunder [State of T.N. v. K. Shyam
Sunder, (2011) 8 SCC 737 : 6 SCEC 65] , SCC at paras 50
to 53, and A.P. Dairy Development Corpn. Federation v. B.
Narasimha Reddy [A.P. Dairy Development Corpn.
Federation v. B. Narasimha Reddy, (2011) 9 SCC 286] ,
SCC at para 29, this Court reiterated the position of law
that a legislation can be struck down on the ground that it
is arbitrary and therefore violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution.
xxx xxx xxx
101. It will be noticed that a Constitution Bench of this
Court in Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P)
Ltd. v. Union of India [Indian Express Newspapers
(Bombay) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (1985) 1 SCC 641 :
1985 SCC (Tax) 121] stated that it was settled law that
subordinate legislation can be challenged on any of the
grounds available for challenge against plenary legislation.
This being the case, there is no rational distinction
between the two types of legislation when it comes to this
ground of challenge under Article 14. The test of manifest
arbitrariness, therefore, as laid down in the aforesaid
judgments would apply to invalidate legislation as well as
subordinate legislation under Article 14. Manifest
arbitrariness, therefore, must be something done by the
legislature capriciously, irrationally and/or without
adequate determining principle. Also, when something is
done which is excessive and disproportionate, such
legislation would be manifestly arbitrary. We are,
47
therefore, of the view that arbitrariness in the sense of
manifest arbitrariness as pointed out by us above would
apply to negate legislation as well under Article 14.
24. In the present case, the executive instructions issued
on the subject have been issued to provided transparency
in the matter of allocation of employees and by no stretch
of imagination, it can be said that the executive
instructions are arbitrary in nature and therefore, in the
light of the aforesaid Judgment, the question of declaring
the executive instructions as arbitrary, illegal and
unconstitutional, violative of Articles 14, 16 and 20 of the
Constitution of India and also contrary to Section 77 of the
A.P.Reorganisation Act, 2014 does not arise.
25. In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. McDowell &
Co.,3 the liquor manufacturers of Andhra Pradesh had
challenged the vires of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition
(Amendment) Act, 1995 before the Supreme Court under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court in
the aforesaid case in paragraph 43 has held as under: -
"43. Shri Rohinton Nariman submitted that inasmuch
as a large number of persons falling within the exempted
3
(1996) 3 SCC 709
48
categories are allowed to consume intoxicating liquors in
the State of Andhra Pradesh, the total prohibition of
manufacture and production of these liquors is 'arbitrary'
and the amending Act is liable to be struck down on this
ground alone. Support for this proposition is sought from
a judgment of this Court in State of T.N. v. Ananthi
Ammal [(1995) 1 SCC 519] . Before, however, we refer to
the holding in the said decision, it would be appropriate to
remind ourselves of certain basic propositions in this
behalf. In the United Kingdom, Parliament is supreme.
There are no limitations upon the power of Parliament. No
court in the United Kingdom can strike down an Act made
by Parliament on any ground. As against this, the United
States of America has a Federal Constitution where the
power of the Congress and the State Legislatures to make
laws is limited in two ways, viz., the division of legislative
powers between the States and the Federal Government
and the fundamental rights (Bill of Rights) incorporated in
the Constitution. In India, the position is similar to the
United States of America. The power of Parliament or for
that matter, the State Legislatures is restricted in two
ways. A law made by Parliament or the legislature can be
struck down by courts on two grounds and two grounds
alone, viz., (1) lack of legislative competence and (2)
violation of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed in
Part III of the Constitution or of any other constitutional
provision. There is no third ground. We do not wish to
enter into a discussion of the concepts of procedural
unreasonableness and substantive unreasonableness --
concepts inspired by the decisions of United States
Supreme Court. Even in U.S.A., these concepts and in
particular the concept of substantive due process have
proved to be of unending controversy, the latest thinking
49
tending towards a severe curtailment of this ground
(substantive due process). The main criticism against the
ground of substantive due process being that it seeks to
set up the courts as arbiters of the wisdom of the
legislature in enacting the particular piece of legislation. It
is enough for us to say that by whatever name it is
characterised, the ground of invalidation must fall within
the four corners of the two grounds mentioned above. In
other words, say, if an enactment is challenged as violative
of Article 14, it can be struck down only if it is found that
it is violative of the equality clause/equal protection clause
enshrined therein. Similarly, if an enactment is challenged
as violative of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed by
clauses (a) to (g) of Article 19(1), it can be struck down
only if it is found not saved by any of the clauses (2) to (6)
of Article 19 and so on. No enactment can be struck down
by just saying that it is arbitrary [An expression used
widely and rather indiscriminately -- an expression of
inherently imprecise import. The extensive use of this
expression in India reminds one of what Frankfurter, J.
said in Hattie Mae Tiller v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co.,
87 L Ed 610 : 318 US 54 (1943). "The phrase begins life as
a literary expression; its felicity leads to its lazy repetition
and repetition soon establishes it as a legal formula,
undiscriminatingly used to express different and
sometimes contradictory ideas", said the learned Judge.]
or unreasonable. Some or other constitutional infirmity
has to be found before invalidating an Act. An enactment
cannot be struck down on the ground that court thinks it
unjustified. Parliament and the legislatures, composed as
they are of the representatives of the people, are supposed
to know and be aware of the needs of the people and what
is good and bad for them. The court cannot sit in
judgment over their wisdom. In this connection, it should
be remembered that even in the case of administrative
action, the scope of judicial review is limited to three
grounds, viz., (i) unreasonableness, which can more
appropriately be called irrationality, (ii) illegality and (iii)
procedural impropriety (see Council of Civil Service
Unions v. Minister for Civil Service [1985 AC 374 : (1984) 3
All ER 935 : (1984) 3 WLR 1174] which decision has been
accepted by this Court as well). The applicability of
doctrine of proportionality even in administrative law
sphere is yet a debatable issue. (See the opinions of Lords
Lowry and Ackner in R. v. Secy. of State for Home Deptt.,
ex p Brind [1991 AC 696 : (1991) 1 All ER 720] AC at 766-
67 and 762.) It would be rather odd if an enactment were
to be struck down by applying the said principle when its
applicability even in administrative law sphere is not fully
and finally settled. It is one thing to say that a restriction
imposed upon a fundamental right can be struck down if
it is disproportionate, excessive or unreasonable and quite
another thing to say that the court can strike down
enactment if it thinks it unreasonable, unnecessary or
unwarranted. Now, coming to the decision in Ananthi
Ammal [(1995) 1 SCC 519] , we are of the opinion that it
does not lay down a different proposition. It was an appeal
from the decision of the Madras High Court striking down
the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare
Schemes Act, 1978 as violative of Articles 14, 19 and 300-
A of the Constitution. On a review of the provisions of the
Actthis Court found that it provided a procedure which
was substantially unfair to the owners of the land as
compared to the procedure prescribed by the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, insofar as Section 11 of the Act
provided for payment of compensation in instalments if it
exceeded rupees two thousand. After noticing the several
features of the Act including the one mentioned above,
this Court observed: (SCC p. 526, para 7)
"7. When a statute is impugned under Article 14
what the court has to decide is whether the statute is so
arbitrary or unreasonable that it must be struck down.
At best, a statute upon a similar subject which derives
its authority from another source can be referred to, if
its provisions have been held to be reasonable or have
stood the test of time, only for the purpose of indicating
what may be said to be reasonable in the context. We
proceed to examine the provisions of the said Act upon
this basis."
26. In the light of the aforesaid judgment, the executive
instructions cannot be said to be arbitrary and
unreasonable and a transparent mechanism has been
devised for allocating the employees and after examination
of the executive instructions, this Court is of the
considered opinion that they cannot be declared as
unconstitutional as prayed for on account of alleged
arbitrariness.
27. In the case of Namit Sharma v. Union of India4, there
was a challenge to the vires of certain provisions of the
Right to Information Act, 2005 concerning criterion for
appointment of persons for adjudication of disputes under
the Act. The Apex Court noticed the following:-
(2013) 1 SCC 745
"11. An enacted law may be constitutional or
unconstitutional. Traditionally, this Court had provided
very limited grounds on which an enacted law could be
declared unconstitutional. They were legislative
competence, violation of Part III of the Constitution and
reasonableness of the law. The first two were definite in
their scope and application while the cases falling in the
third category remained in a state of uncertainty. With the
passage of time, the law developed and the grounds for
unconstitutionality also widened. D.D. Basu in Shorter
Constitution of India (14th Edn., 2009) has detailed, with
reference to various judgments of this Court, the grounds
on which the law could be invalidated or could not be
invalidated. Reference to them can be made as follows:
"Grounds of unconstitutionality.-- A law may be
unconstitutional on a number of grounds:
(i) Contravention of any fundamental right, specified
in Part III of the Constitution. (Ref. Under Article
143: Special Reference No. 1 of 1964, In re [AIR 1965 SC
745 : (1965) 1 SCR 413] .)
(ii) Legislating on a subject which is not assigned to
the relevant legislature by the distribution of powers
made by the Seventh Schedule, read with the connected
articles. (Ref. Special Reference No. 1 of 1964, In re [AIR
1965 SC 745 : (1965) 1 SCR 413] .)
(iii) Contravention of any of the mandatory
provisions of the Constitution which impose limitations
upon the powers of a legislature e.g. Article 301.
(Ref. Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam [AIR 1961
SC 232] .)
(iv) In the case of a State law, it will be invalid
insofar as it seeks to operate beyond the boundaries of
the State. (State of Bombay v. R.M.D.
Chamarbaugwala [AIR 1957 SC 699] .)
(v) That the legislature concerned has abdicated its
essential legislative function as assigned to it by the
Constitution or has made an excessive delegation of that
power to some other body. (Hamdard
Dawakhana v. Union of India [AIR 1960 SC 554 : 1960
Cri LJ 735] .")
12. On the other hand, a law cannot be invalidated on
the following grounds:
"(a) That in making the law (including an Ordinance),
the law-making body did not apply its mind (even though
it may be a valid ground for challenging an executive act),
(Ref. Nagaraj K. v. State of A.P. [(1985) 1 SCC 523 : 1985
SCC (L&S) 280] ) or was prompted by some improper
motive. (Ref. Rehman Shagoo v. State of J&K [AIR 1960 SC
1 : 1960 Cri LJ 126 : (1960) 1 SCR 680] .)
(b) That the law contravenes some constitutional
limitation which did not exist at the time of enactment of
the law in question. (Ref. STO v. Ajit Mills Ltd. [(1977) 4
SCC 98 : 1977 SCC (Tax) 536] )
(c) That the law contravened any of the directive
contained in Part IV of the Constitution. (Ref. Deep
Chand v. State of U.P. [AIR 1959 SC 648] )"
28. The executive instructions under challenge does not
contravene any fundamental right and does not contravene
any mandatory provision of the Constitution of India and
therefore, the question of quashing the executive
instructions as prayed for does not arise.
29. In Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v.
Union of India5, the constitutional validity of the
Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014 and the
(2016) 5 SCC 1
National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014
were challenged before the Supreme Court. The
Constitutional Bench held as under:-
"853. The accepted view is that a parliamentary
statute can be struck down only if it is beyond legislative
competence or violates Article 13 or the fundamental
rights. The basic structure doctrine is not available for
striking down a statute. It was held in State of
A.P. v. McDowell & Co. [State of A.P. v. McDowell & Co.,
(1996) 3 SCC 709, para 43] that: (SCC pp. 737-38)
"43. ... The power of Parliament or for that matter,
the State Legislatures is restricted in two ways. A law
made by Parliament or the legislature can be struck
down by courts on two grounds and two grounds alone
viz. (1) lack of legislative competence and (2) violation of
any of the fundamental rights guaranteed in Part III of
the Constitution or of any other constitutional provision.
There is no third ground."
854. This view was followed in Public Services Tribunal
Bar Assn. v. State of U.P. [Public Services Tribunal Bar
Assn. v. State of U.P., (2003) 4 SCC 104 : 2003 SCC (L&S)
400, para 26] in the following words: (SCC p. 120)
"26. The constitutional validity of an Act can be
challenged only on two grounds viz. (i) lack of legislative
competence; and (ii) violation of any of the fundamental
rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution or of any
other constitutional provisions. In State of
A.P. v. McDowell & Co. [State of A.P. v. McDowell & Co.,
(1996) 3 SCC 709, para 43] this Court has opined that
except the above two grounds there is no third ground
on the basis of which the law made by the competent
legislature can be invalidated and that the ground of
invalidation must necessarily fall within the four corners
of the aforementioned two grounds."
857. Strictly speaking, therefore, an amendment to the
Constitution can be challenged only if it alters the basic
structure of the Constitution and a law can be challenged
if:
(1) It is beyond the competence of the Legislature;
(2) It violates Article 13 of the Constitution;
(3) It is enacted contrary to a prohibition in the
Constitution; and
(4) It is enacted without following the procedure laid
down in the Constitution."
30. Keeping in view the aforesaid judgment, it can never
be said that the executive instructions are violative of
Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, nor can
it be said that the executive instructions have been framed
contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of India, nor
can the executive instructions be termed as arbitrary and
therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid judgments, the
question of interference does not arise.
31. The general notion pertaining to challenging the
constitutional validity of a law, as noted in Mc.Dowell
case, recognized two grounds. These are:-
(a) Lack of legislative competence;
(b) Violation of any of the fundamental rights
guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution or of
any other constitutional provision.
32. Subsequently, "arbitrariness" has also been
considered as a ground to challenge the constitutional
validity of a law in the Shayara Bano case, after
re-examining the legal position in McDowell case.
33. This Court, in the light of the aforesaid judgment, is
of the view that the petitioner has challenged the executive
instructions without there being any ground to challenge
the same and in respect of allocation, which was made in
the year 2017 on account of interim order, the petitioner is
continuing in the State of Telangana. This Court is of the
opinion that the petitioner has not been able to make out
any case for interference in a transparent process of
allocation and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed
and is accordingly dismissed.
W.P.No.38658 of 2016
34. The petitioner before this Court, Dr. Machiraju
Vasudeva Murali, who is working as Professor of
Paediatrics, Government Medical College, Nizamabad, has
filed the present writ petition aggrieved by his allocation to
the State of Andhra Pradesh.
35. The facts of the record reveal that the petitioner was
born on 03.06.1959 in Sangareddy, Medak District. He
has passed 1st and 2nd classes from Primary School in
Hyderabad and 3rd to 5th classes in Nizamabad, 6th to 10th
classes in Nellore and thereafter, he has completed First
Year Intermediate in Nellore and Second Year Intermediate
in Rajahmundry and therefore, keeping in view the
executive instructions, dated 30.10.2014, he has been
treated as local candidate of Andhra Pradesh. The
petitioner has also challenged the constitutional validity of
the executive instructions, dated 30.10.2014 only on the
ground that he has been allocated to the State of Andhra
Pradesh. He has not been able to point out a single
example discriminating the petitioner vis-à-vis other
employees. This Court does not find any reason to interfere
with the allocation of the petitioner.
W.P.No.42109 of 2016
36. The petitioner before this Court, Dr. I.Sreelakshmi,
who is an Associate Professor (Pathology), has challenged
the constitutional validity of executive instructions issued
by General Administration Department, dated 30.10.2014
as well as allocation to the State of Andhra Pradesh. She
has prayed for quashment of Notification dated 25.01.2016
allocating her to the State of Andhra Pradesh as well as a
prayer has been made for continuing her in the State of
Telangana.
37. The petitioner has stated in the writ petition that she
has studied from elementary school to Class X at St.
Joseph School, Nandyal, Kurnool District and therefore,
she has prosecuted her studies in the united State of
Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner's local status is State of
Andhra Pradesh keeping in view the executive instructions
framed on the subject and the petitioner's allocation has
been made in reverse order of seniority.
38. In the considered opinion of this Court, after careful
consideration of the entire record, as the petitioner's local
status is Andhra Pradesh merely because she was posted
at the time of allocation in Hyderabad does not entitle her
to continue in the State of Telangana.
39. The petitioner has not been able to point out a single
example in the writ petition which establishes that she has
been discriminated in the matter of allocation done in the
year 2016, which is strictly in consonance with the
statutory provisions as contained under Section 77 of the
Reorganisation Act and the executive instructions framed
thereunder does not warrant interference by this Court.
W.P.No.996 of 2017
40. The petitioners, Dr. G.Triveni and Dr. M.Praveen,
who are serving as Civil Assistant Surgeons, are aggrieved
by their allocation to the State of Andhra Pradesh. The
facts of the case reveal that the petitioner No.1 is the wife
of the petitioner No.2. Petitioner No.1 has studied from
1988 to 1993 in Guntur which falls under the State of
Andhra Pradesh and petitioner No.2 has studied from
1986 to 1992 in SPSR Nellore and Visakhapatnam
Districts which also fall in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
Therefore, they have rightly been allocated to the State of
Andhra Pradesh. The petitioners' representations have
been considered by the authorities and therefore, as the
petitioners have been allocated to the State of Andhra
Pradesh strictly in consonance with the statutory
provisions as contained under Section 77 of the
Reorganisation Act as well as the executive instructions
dated 30.10.2014, no case for interference is made out in
the matter.
W.P.No.1197 of 2017
41. The petitioner, Dr. Ratnam Andalu, who is serving as
Associate Professor in Obstetrics & Gynaecology, is
aggrieved by her allocation to the State of Andhra Pradesh.
The facts of the case reveal that the petitioner has studied
from 1971 to 1987 in Waltair, Visakhapatnam District,
which falls under the State of Andhra Pradesh and
therefore, she has rightly been allocated to the State of
Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner's representation has been
considered by the authorities and therefore, as the
petitioner has been allocated to the State of Andhra
Pradesh strictly in consonance with the statutory
provisions as contained under Section 77 of the
Reorganisation Act as well as the executive instructions
dated 30.10.2014, no case for interference is made out in
the matter.
W.P.No.3055 of 2017
42. The petitioner, Dr.Kamatham Madhusudhan, is
working as Associate Professor in Paediatrics, Gandhi
Medical College, Hyderabad. He has studied from 1974 to
1981 in Anantapur District, which falls under the State of
Andhra Pradesh and therefore, his local status is Andhra
Pradesh. Keeping in view the executive instructions dated
30.10.2014, he has been allocated to the State of Andhra
Pradesh. The petitioner has not able to point out a single
case in which the respondents have deviated from the
guidelines dated 30.10.2014 and therefore, no case for
interference is made out in the matter.
W.P.No.3056 of 2017
43. The petitioner, Dr.J.Anunayi, who is an Associate
Professor of Pathology, Osmania Medical College,
Hyderabad, has also challenged the constitutional validity
of executive instructions dated 30.10.2014 issued by the
General Administration Department in the matter of
allocation. The petitioner's local status is the State of
Andhra Pradesh as the petitioner has studied right from
1971 to 1978 in Kurnool and Chittoor Districts, which are
under the State of Andhra Pradesh and therefore, as the
petitioner's local status is Andhra Pradesh, she has rightly
been allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh. The
petitioner has also not been able to point out a single
example, in which deviation has been done by the
respondents contrary to the executive instructions dated
30.10.2014 and no case for interference is made out in the
matter.
W.P.No.3295 of 2017
44. The petitioner, Dr.P.Padmaja, who is serving on the
post of Associate Professor of Dermatology has challenged
the constitutional validity of the executive instructions
dated 30.10.2014 as well as the allocation of the petitioner
to the State of Andhra Pradesh vide order dated
25.01.2017. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that
the petitioner has studied in Visakhapatnam from 1971 to
1978 and by virtue of her study and keeping in view the
executive instructions dated 30.10.2014, she has rightly
been allocated in the reverse order of seniority to the State
of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner wants to continue in the
State of Telangana on one pretext or the other, which is
not at all permissible in the light of the executive
instructions dated 30.10.2014. No case for interference is
made out in the matter.
W.P.No.3296 of 2017
45. The petitioner before this Court, Dr Gurava
Vasireddy, who is serving on the post of Assistant
Professor of Pathology, Osmania Medical College,
Hyderabad, has also challenged the constitutional validity
of the executive instructions, dated 30.10.2014 in the
matter of allocation in exercise of powers conferred under
Section 77 of the Reorganisation Act.
46. In the present case, the petitioner has been allocated
to the State of Andhra Pradesh as per the option submitted
by him. Now, after the entire exercise is over, the petitioner
wants allocation to the State of Telangana.
47. In the considered opinion of this Court, the allocation
has been done keeping in view the executive instructions,
dated 30.10.2014 and this Court does not find any reason
to interfere with the allocation of the petitioner.
W.P.No.3298 of 2017
48. The petitioner before this Court, Dr. N.Padmapriya,
who is serving on the post of Associate Professor of
Microbiology, Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad, has
again challenged the constitutional validity of the executive
instructions, dated 30.10.2014 and the petitioner wants to
continue in the State of Telangana.
49. The petitioner has been allocated to the State of
Andhra Pradesh keeping in view the executive
instructions, dated 30.10.2014 and the allocation has
been done as per the strength in the cadre. The petitioner
has studied from 1974 to 1981 at Bapatla and therefore,
she has rightly been allocated to the State of Andhra
Pradesh. No case for interference is made out in the matter
of allocation done by the respondents.
W.P.No.3299 of 2017
50. The petitioner before this Court, Dr. L.Jayalakshmi,
who is serving on the post of Associate Professor of
Microbiology, Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad, has
challenged the constitutional validity of the executive
instructions, dated 30.10.2014 and also challenged the
proceedings, dated 25.01.2017 allocating her to the State
of Andhra Pradesh.
51. This Court has carefully gone through the record and
the petitioner has been allocated in the order of reverse
seniority to the State of Andhra Pradesh.
52. The petitioner has not been able to point out a single
example wherein any deviation has been done from the
executive instructions dated 30.10.2014 read with Section
77 of the Reorganisation Act and therefore, no case for
interference is made out.
W.P.No.3300 of 2017
53. The petitioner before this Court, Dr.M.Sugatha, who
is working on the post of Associate Professor, Department
of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, Osmania Medical
College/OGH, Hyderabad, has been allocated to the State
of Andhra Pradesh keeping in view the executive
instructions dated 30.10.2014. Aggrieved by her allocation,
she has challenged the constitutional validity of the
executive instructions dated 30.10.2014. The petitioner's
representation has been looked into by the respondents.
54. The petitioner has not able to point out a single
example, in which the respondents have deviated from the
executive instructions, dated 30.10.2014 and therefore,
the question of interference in the matter of allocation
done by the respondents does not arise.
W.P.No.3301 of 2017
55. The petitioner before this Court, Dr. K.Hima Bindu,
who is serving on the post of Associate Professor in
Pharmacology, Kakatiya Medical College, Warangal, has
challenged the constitutional validity of the executive
instructions, dated 30.10.2014 issued by the Government
of India.
56. The petitioner has studied from 1980 to 1987 in
Nellore and therefore, her local status is the State of
Andhra Pradesh and in those circumstances, the petitioner
has rightly been allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh.
The representation of the petitioner was also considered by
the respondents. The petitioner has not been able to point
out a single example, wherein the respondents have
deviated from the executive instructions issued in the
matter and no case for interference is made out in the
matter.
W.P.No.3302 of 2017
57. The petitioner before this Court, Dr. V.Lakshmi
Kameswari, who is serving on the post of Professor and
Head of the Department of Pharmacology, Government
Medical College, Nizamabad, has challenged the
constitutional validity of the executive instructions issued
by the Government of India as well as the proceedings
dated 25.01.2017 allocating her to the State of Andhra
Pradesh and consequential relieving proceedings.
58. The petitioner has stated in the affidavit that she has
studied from 1971 to 1977 in Guntur and therefore, her
local status by virtue of her study is the State of Andhra
Pradesh. The petitioner's representation against the
tentative allotment has already been looked into and she
has been rightly allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh.
The petitioner has not been able to point out a single
example, wherein the respondents have deviated from the
guidelines issued in the matter of allocation of employees
and no case for interference is made out in the matter of
allocation.
W.P.No.3544 of 2017
59. The petitioner before this Court, Dr J.Madhavi Latha,
who is serving on the post of Professor in Biochemistry,
Kakatiya Medical College, Warangal, has challenged the
constitutional validity of the executive instructions, dated
30.10.2014 issued by the Government of India in exercise
of powers conferred under Section 77 of the Reorganisation
Act.
60. The petitioner has studied in the State of Andhra
Pradesh from 1974-1981 and her local status is the State
of Andhra Pradesh and therefore, she has been rightly
allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh vide order dated
25.01.2017 and has been rightly relieved vide proceedings,
dated 27.01.2017. The petitioner has not been able to
point out a single example, wherein the respondents have
deviated from the guidelines issued on the subject
discriminating the petitioner vis-à-vis the other employees
and therefore, the allocation has been done strictly as per
the seniority keeping in view the local status of the
petitioner.
W.P.No.4560 of 2017
61. The petitioner, Dr. C.V.Vijaya Lakshmi, who is
serving on the post of Civil Assistant Surgeon, Rural
Health Centre, Patancheru, Hyderabad, has filed the
present writ petition challenging the constitutional validity
of the executive instructions, dated 29/30.10.2014 issued
by the Government of India and re-issued by the State
Government, dated 30.10.2014 in exercise of powers
conferred under Section 77(2) of the Reorganisation Act.
The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order allocating her
to the State of Andhra Pradesh, dated 14.07.2016 and she
wants to continue in the State of Telangana in spite of the
fact that her local status is the State of Andhra Pradesh.
62. The petitioner has studied from 1983 to 1989 in
Krishna District, which comes under the State of Andhra
Pradesh. The petitioner has not been able to point out a
single example, wherein the respondents have violated the
seniority rules/local status and therefore, no case for
interference is made out in the matter.
W.P.No.4561 of 2017
63. The petitioner before this Court, Dr. N.Armugam,
who is working as Assistant Professor (Radiotherapy),
Institute of Oncology & Regional Cancer Centre,
Hyderabad, has filed the present writ petition challenging
the constitutional validity of the executive instructions,
dated 29/30.10.2014 issued by the Government of India in
exercise of powers conferred under Section 77(2) of the
Reorganisation Act. The petitioner is also aggrieved by his
allocation to the State of Andhra Pradesh, dated
25.01.2017.
64. The petitioner has rightly been allocated to the State
of Andhra Pradesh keeping in view the executive
instructions as well as the seniority rules/local status. The
petitioner has not been able to point out a single example,
wherein the respondents have deviated from the executive
instructions discriminating the petitioner vis-à-vis the
other employees. No case for interference is made out in
the matter.
W.P.No.4586 of 2017
65. The petitioner, Dr. Gollapalli Madhuri, who is serving
on the post of Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre,
Narayanakhed, Sanga Reddy District, has challenged the
constitutional validity of the executive instructions, dated
29/30.10.2014 issued by the Government of India.
66. The petitioner has studied from 1991 to 1994 in
Kakinada, which comes under the State of Andhra Pradesh
and therefore, her local status is the State of Andhra
Pradesh. Hence, the petitioner has rightly been allocated
to the State of Andhra Pradesh, keeping in view her local
status and seniority position. The petitioner has not been
able to point out a single example, wherein the
respondents have deviated from the executive instructions
and no case for interference is made out in the matter.
W.P.No.4588 of 2017
67. The petitioners before this Court, Dr. J.Mayurnatha
Reddy and Dr. S.Nagamani - husband and wife, have
challenged the constitutional validity of the executive
instructions, dated 29.10.2014 issued by the Government
of India and re-issued on 30.10.2014 by the State of
Andhra Pradesh in exercise of powers conferred under
Section 77(2) of the Reorganisation Act.
68. The petitioner No.1 has studied from 1969 to 1976 in
Chittoor District, meaning thereby the local status of the
petitioner No.1 is the State of Andhra Pradesh.
69. Both the petitioners have been allocated, being
husband and wife, to one State, i.e., the State of Andhra
Pradesh and the petitioners have not been able to point
out a single example, wherein any deviation has been done
from the seniority list by the respondents. This Court does
not find any reason to interfere in the matter of allocation
of the petitioners to the State of Andhra Pradesh.
W.P.No.6857 of 2017
70. The petitioner before this Court, Dr. S.Narendra
Babu, who is working as Civil Assistant Surgeon in
Paediatrics, CHC, Badepally, Mahabubnagar District, has
challenged the constitutional validity of the executive
instructions, dated 30.10.2014 issued by the Government
of India in the matter of allocation of employees and also
prayed for quashment of the proceedings dated 25.01.2017
and 27.01.2017, by which the petitioner has been
allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh and has been
relieved to join the State of Andhra Pradesh.
71. The petitioner has been allocated in the reverse order
of seniority and his objections have been looked into and
merely because he has been allocated to the State of
Andhra Pradesh, he has challenged the constitutional
validity of the guidelines. The petitioner has not been able
to point out a single example wherein the respondents
have deviated from the prescribed procedure
discriminating the petitioner and therefore, the question of
interference in the matter of allocation done by the
respondents does not arise.
W.P.No.6890 of 2017
72. The petitioner before this Court, Dr Mrs.Bathini
Kezia, who is working as Civil Assistant Surgeon in Urban
Health Primary Centre, Hyderabad, has filed the present
writ petition being aggrieved by the allocation of the
petitioner to the State of Andhra Pradesh, vide proceedings
dated 22.02.2017 passed by the Government of India in
exercise of powers conferred under Section 77(2) of the
Reorganisation Act. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the
executive instructions dated 29.10.2014 issued in the
matter.
73. As per the study details of the petitioner, she has
been rightly allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh as
per her local status. The representation of the petitioner
has already been looked into and a final allocation order
has been issued. The petitioner has not been able to point
out a single example, wherein the respondents have
deviated from the seniority of the Assistant Surgeons and
no case for interference is made out in the matter at this
juncture.
W.P.No.6902 of 2017
74. The petitioner before this Court, Dr. I.Anupama, who
is serving on the post of Civil Assistant Surgeon, Amangal,
Ranga Reddy District, has challenged the constitutional
validity of the executive instructions, dated 29/30.10.2014
issued by the Government of India and the proceedings
dated 22.02.2017 allocating her to the State of Andhra
Pradesh. The petitioner has studied from 1991 to 1998 in
Vijayawada which comes under the State of Andhra
Pradesh and in the reverse order of seniority, keeping in
view the local status of the petitioner, the allocation has
been done. The petitioner, merely because she wants to
continue in the State of Telangana, has challenged the
constitutional validity of the executive instructions, dated
30.10.2014.
75. Keeping in view the executive instructions, dated
30.10.2014 and also keeping in view the local status of the
petitioner, the petitioner has rightly been allocated to the
State of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner has not been able
to point out a single example, wherein the respondents
have deviated from the executive instructions issued in the
matter of allocation of employees and therefore, no case for
interference is made out in the matter.
W.P.No.6904 of 2017
76. The petitioner before this Court, Dr. R.Leela, who is
serving on the post of civil Assistant Surgeon, Pharmacy
Health Centre, Moinabad, Ranga Reddy District, has
challenged the constitutional validity of the executive
instructions, dated 29.10.2014 issued by the Government
of India, which was re-issued by the State of Andhra
Pradesh, dated 30.10.2014.
77. The petitioner's local status is the State of Andhra
Pradesh and therefore, the petitioner has rightly been
allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh keeping in view
the executive instructions issued by the Government of
India. The petitioner has not been able to point out a
single example, wherein the respondents have deviated
from the executive instructions issued in the matter and
no case for interference is made out in the matter.
W.P.No.7052 of 2017
78. The petitioner, Pampana Venu, who is working as a
Statistical Officer, Mahabubnagar District, has filed the
present writ petition challenging the order, dated
25.02.2017 relieving him to join in the State of Andhra
Pradesh.
79. The petitioner has been allocated to the State of
Andhra Pradesh, keeping in view the executive
instructions, dated 30.10.2014. The petitioner has not
pointed out a single example, wherein the respondents
have deviated from the executive instructions issued in the
matter of allocation of employees. No case for interference
is made out in the matter.
W.P.No.7146 of 2017
80. The petitioner, Dr. P.Hanumantha Rao, who is
serving on the post of Civil Assistant Surgeon, Hyderabad,
has filed the present writ petition challenging the order,
dated 22.02.2017 allocating him to the State of Andhra
Pradesh.
81. The representation of the petitioner has also been
considered by the respondents. The petitioner has been
allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh, keeping in view
the executive instructions, dated 30.10.2014. The
petitioner has not pointed out a single example, wherein
the respondents have deviated from the executive
instructions issued in the matter of allocation of
employees. No case for interference is made out in the
matter.
W.P.No.7148 of 2017
82. The petitioner, Dr. Y.Adilakshmi, who is serving on
the post of Civil Assistant Surgeon, Hyderabad, has filed
the present writ petition challenging the order, dated
22.02.2017 allocating her to the State of Andhra Pradesh.
83. The petitioner has been allocated to the State of
Andhra Pradesh, keeping in view the executive
instructions, dated 30.10.2014. The petitioner has not
pointed out a single example, wherein the respondents
have deviated the executive instructions issued in the
matter of allocation of employees. No case for interference
is made out in the matter.
W.P.No.7150 of 2017
84. The petitioner, Dr. Byram Sujatha, who is serving on
the post of Civil Assistant Surgeon, Vikarabad, has filed
the present writ petition challenging the executive
instructions, dated 30.10.2014 as well as the proceedings
dated 22.02.2017 allocating her to the State of Andhra
Pradesh.
85. The petitioner has rightly been allocated to the State
of Andhra Pradesh, keeping in view the seniority
rules/local status. The petitioner has not pointed out a
single example, wherein the respondents have deviated the
executive instructions issued in the matter of allocation of
employees. No case for interference is made out in the
matter.
W.P.No.7154 of 2017
86. The petitioner, Dr. Ch.V.G.Bhavani, who is serving
on the post of Assistant Professor of Obstetrics and
Gynaecology, Government Medical College,
Mahabubnagar, has filed the present writ petition
challenging the executive instructions, dated 30.10.2014
as well as the proceedings dated 22.02.2017 allocating her
to the State of Andhra Pradesh.
87. The petitioner's local status is the State of Andhra
Pradesh and therefore, she has rightly been allocated to
the State of Andhra Pradesh, keeping in view the seniority
rules/local status. The petitioner has not pointed out a
single example, wherein the respondents have deviated the
executive instructions issued on the subject. No case for
interference is made out in the matter.
W.P.No.7156 of 2017
88. The petitioner, Dr. T.V.S.Narasimha Sastry, who is
working as an Additional District Medical and Health
Officer, Vijayawada, has filed the present writ petition
challenging the executive instructions, dated 30.10.2014
as well as the proceedings dated 22.02.2017 allocating him
to the State of Andhra Pradesh.
89. The petitioner's local status is the State of Andhra
Pradesh and therefore, he has rightly been allocated to the
State of Andhra Pradesh, keeping in view the seniority
rules/local status. The petitioner has not pointed out a
single example, wherein the respondents have deviated the
instructions issued on the subject. No case for interference
is made out in the matter.
W.P.No.7157 of 2017
90. The petitioner, B.Nelaveni, who is working as a
Statistical Officer, Nalgonda, has filed the present writ
petition challenging the executive instructions, dated
30.10.2014 as well as the proceedings dated 23.02.2017
allocating her to the State of Andhra Pradesh.
91. The petitioner has studied from 1969 to 1976 in YSR
Kadapa District and therefore, her local status is the State
of Andhra Pradesh. She has been rightly allocated to the
State of Andhra Pradesh keeping in view the seniority
rules/local status. The petitioner has not pointed out a
single example, wherein the respondents have deviated the
instructions issued on the subject. No case for interference
is made out in the matter.
W.P.No.7159 of 2017
92. The petitioner, Dr.Boddepalli Venkateswara Rao, who
is working as the Deputy Director (Admin)/Private
Secretary to Hon'ble Minister has filed the present writ
petition challenging the constitutional validity of the
executive instructions, dated 30.10.2014 in exercise of
powers conferred under Section 77(2) of the
Reorganisation Act and also challenged the proceedings
dated 22.02.2017 and 23.02.2017 allocating him to the
State of Andhra Pradesh and relieving him from the State
of Telangana respectively.
93. The petitioner has studied from 1977 to 1984 in
Srikakulam District, which comes under the State of
Andhra Pradesh, and therefore, the petitioner has rightly
been allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh.
94. The petitioner has not been able to point out a single
example of any deviation from the seniority rules/local
status by the respondents and therefore, no case for
interference is made out in the matter.
W.P.No.7160 of 2017
95. The petitioner, G.Krishna Mohan, who is working as
the Office Superintendent under the Director of Health,
Hyderabad, has filed the present writ petition challenging
the constitutional validity of the executive instructions,
dated 30.10.2014 in exercise of powers conferred under
Section 77(2) of the Reorganisation Act and also challenged
the proceedings dated 22.02.2017 and 23.02.2017
allocating her to the State of Andhra Pradesh and relieving
her from the State of Telangana respectively.
96. The petitioner has studied from 1981 to 1987 in
Krishna District, which comes under the State of Andhra
Pradesh. The allocation has been done keeping in view the
seniority of the petitioner and the petitioner wants to
continue in the State of Telangana and therefore, she has
gone to the extent of challenging the constitutional validity
of the executive instructions issued by the Government of
India and State Government in exercise of powers
conferred under Section 77(2) of the Reorganisation Act.
97. The petitioner has not been able to point out a single
example of any deviation from the seniority rules/local
status by the respondents and therefore, no case for
interference is made out in the matter.
W.P.No.7161 of 2017
98. The petitioner before this Court, Manoj Kumar
Choudhary, who is working as Junior Assistant under the
Director of Medical Education, has challenged the
constitutional validity of the executive instructions, dated
29.10.2014 issued by the Government of India, which was
re-issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh, dated
30.10.2014. He has also challenged the order, dated
22.02.2017 allocating him to the State of Andhra Pradesh.
99. The petitioner has rightly been allocated to the State
of Andhra Pradesh keeping in view the executive
instructions issued by the Government of India. The
petitioner has not been able to point out a single example,
wherein the respondents have deviated from the executive
instructions issued in the matter and no case for
interference is made out in the matter.
W.P.No.7215 of 2017
100. The petitioner before this Court, Dr. G.Showrilamma,
who is serving on the post of Civil Assistant Surgeon, has
challenged the constitutional validity of the executive
instructions, dated 29.10.2014 issued by the Government
of India, which was re-issued by the State of Andhra
Pradesh, dated 30.10.2014. She has also challenged the
order, dated 22.02.2017 allocating her to the State of
Andhra Pradesh.
101. The petitioner has studied in Guntur District which
falls in the State of Andhra Pradesh and therefore, her
local status is the State of Andhra Pradesh. Keeping in
view the executive instructions issued by the Government
of India, the petitioner has been allocated to the State of
Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner has not been able to point
out a single example discriminating the petitioner vis-à-vis
the other employees and therefore, no case for interference
is made out in the matter.
W.P.No.7342 of 2017
102. The petitioner before this Court, Dr. N.Roja Ramani,
who is serving on the post of Dental Assistant Surgeon,
has challenged the constitutional validity of the executive
instructions, dated 29.10.2014 issued by the Government
of India, which was re-issued by the State of Andhra
Pradesh, dated 30.10.2014. She has also challenged the
order, dated 22.02.2017 allocating her to the State of
Andhra Pradesh.
103. The petitioner has studied from 1987 to 1994 in
Kurnool District which falls in the State of Andhra Pradesh
and therefore, her local status is the State of Andhra
Pradesh. Keeping in view the executive instructions issued
by the Government of India, the petitioner has rightly been
allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner
has not been able to point out a single example
discriminating the petitioner vis-à-vis the other employees
and therefore, no case for interference is made out in the
matter.
W.P.No.7355 of 2017
104. The petitioners before this Court, Dr. K.S.Hemanth
Kumar, who is serving on the post of Dental Assistant
Surgeon and Dr. J.P.Narasimha Reddy, who is serving on
the post of Civil Assistant Surgeon, have challenged the
constitutional validity of the executive instructions, dated
29.10.2014 issued by the Government of India, which was
re-issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh, dated
30.10.2014. They have also challenged the order, dated
22.02.2017 allocating them to the State of Andhra
Pradesh.
105. The petitioner No.1 has studied from 1985 to 1992 in
Chittoor and the petitioner No.2 has studied from 1983 to
1988 from YSR Kadapa District, which fall in the State of
Andhra Pradesh and therefore, their local status is the
State of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, they have been rightly
allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh in the order of
seniority, keeping in view the executive instructions issued
by the Government of India. The petitioners have not been
able to point out a single example, where the respondents
have deviated from the executive instruction issued in the
matter of allocation of employees.
W.P.No.7514 of 2017
106. The petitioners before this Court, Dr. K.Sureshbabu,
Surarsura Radha Krishna and Bejili Srinivas, who are
serving on the post of Civil Assistant Surgeon, have
challenged the order dated 22.02.2017 allocating them to
the State of Andhra Pradesh.
107. The petitioner No.1 has studied from 1987 to 1994 in
West Godavari District, the petitioner No.2 has studied
from 1979 to 1986 in Guntur District and the petitioner
No.3 has studied from 1994 to 1999 in Vijayawada,
Krishna District and as per their study, their local status
is the State of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, they have been
rightly allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh in the
order of seniority, keeping in view the executive
instructions issued by the Government of India. The
petitioners have not been able to point out a single
example discriminating the petitioners vis-à-vis the other
employees and therefore, no case for interference is called
for.
W.P.No.7573 of 2017
108. The petitioners before this Court, Dr. D.Srinivasa
Rao and Dr. Kishore Kumar Mandava, who are serving on
the post of Civil Assistant Surgeon, have challenged the
constitutional validity of the executive instructions, dated
29.10.2014 issued by the Government of India, which was
re-issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh, dated
30.10.2014. They have also challenged the order, dated
22.02.2017 allocating them to the State of Andhra
Pradesh.
109. The petitioners' local status as per the executive
instructions is State of Andhra Pradesh and therefore, they
have been rightly allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh,
keeping in view the executive instructions issued by the
Government of India. The petitioners have not been able to
point out a single example discriminating them vis-à-vis
the other employees and therefore, no case for interference
is made out in the matter.
W.P.No.7642 of 2017
110. The petitioners before this Court, Dr. M.Kiranmayee
and Dr M.Neelima, who are serving on the post of Civil
Assistant Surgeon, have challenged the constitutional
validity of the executive instructions, dated 29.10.2014
issued by the Government of India, which was re-issued by
the State of Andhra Pradesh, dated 30.10.2014. They have
also challenged the order, dated 22.02.2017 allocating
them to the State of Andhra Pradesh.
111. The petitioners have studied from 1986 to 1993 in
Chittoor District and as such, their local status is State of
Andhra Pradesh and therefore, they have rightly been
allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh, keeping in view
the executive instructions issued by the Government of
India. The petitioners have not been able to point out a
single example, where the respondents have deviated the
executive instruction issued on the subject. No case for
interference is made out in the matter.
W.P.No.7646 of 2017
112. The petitioner before this Court, Dr. R.Leelavathi,
who is serving on the post of Civil Assistant Surgeon, has
challenged the constitutional validity of the executive
instructions, dated 29.10.2014 issued by the Government
of India, which was re-issued by the State of Andhra
Pradesh, dated 30.10.2014. She has also challenged the
order, dated 22.02.2017 allocating her to the State of
Andhra Pradesh and the order, dated 25.02.2017 relieving
her to join in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
113. The petitioner has studied from 1983 to 1990 in
SPSR Nellore District and therefore, her local status is
State of Andhra Pradesh. She has rightly been allocated to
the State of Andhra Pradesh, keeping in view the executive
instructions issued by the Government of India. The
petitioner has not been able to point out a single example,
where the respondents have deviated from the executive
instruction issued on the subject. No case for interference
is made out by the petitioner in the matter of allocation.
W.P.No.7677 of 2017
114. The petitioner before this Court, Dr. K.Prasanna
Lakshmi, who is serving on the post of Civil Assistant
Surgeon, has challenged the constitutional validity of the
executive instructions, dated 29.10.2014 issued by the
Government of India, which was re-issued by the State of
Andhra Pradesh, dated 30.10.2014. She has also
challenged the order, dated 22.02.2017 allocating her to
the State of Andhra Pradesh and the order, dated
25.02.2017 relieving her to join in the State of Andhra
Pradesh.
115. As per the study details of the petitioner, her local
status is the State of Andhra Pradesh and therefore, she
has rightly been allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh.
The petitioner has not been able to point out a single
example, where the respondents have deviated from the
executive instruction issued on the subject. No case for
interference is made out by the petitioner in the matter of
allocation.
W.P.No.7907 of 2017
116. The petitioners before this Court, Dr. C.Radhika,
Dr. A.Sunil Kumar and Dr. V.Purushotham, who are
serving on the post of Civil Assistant Surgeon, have
challenged the constitutional validity of the executive
instructions, dated 29.10.2014 issued by the Government
of India, which was re-issued by the State of Andhra
Pradesh, dated 30.10.2014. They have also challenged the
order, dated 22.02.2017 allocating them to the State of
Andhra Pradesh.
117. As per the study details of the petitioners, their local
status is State of Andhra Pradesh and therefore, they have
rightly been allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh,
keeping in view the executive instructions issued by the
Government of India. The petitioners have not been able to
point out a single example, where the respondents have
deviated from the executive instruction issued on the
subject. No case for interference is made out by the
petitioner in the matter of allocation.
W.P.No.7942 of 2017
118. The petitioner before this Court, Dr. A.Swetha, who
is serving on the post of Civil Assistant Surgeon, has
challenged the constitutional validity of the executive
instructions, dated 29.10.2014 issued by the Government
of India, which was re-issued by the State of Andhra
Pradesh, dated 30.10.2014. She has also challenged the
order, dated 22.02.2017 allocating her to the State of
Andhra Pradesh and the order, dated 25.02.2017 relieving
her to join in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
119. As per the study details of the petitioner, her local
status is the State of Andhra Pradesh and therefore, she
has rightly been allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh.
The petitioner has not been able to point out a single
example, where the respondents have deviated from the
executive instruction issued on the subject. No case for
interference is made out by the petitioner in the matter of
allocation.
W.P.No.8315 of 2017
120. The petitioner before this Court, Dr. Padmala
Bhargava Narayana, who is serving on the post of Civil
Assistant Surgeon, has challenged the constitutional
validity of the executive instructions, dated 29.10.2014
issued by the Government of India, which was re-issued by
the State of Andhra Pradesh, dated 30.10.2014. He has
also challenged the order, dated 22.02.2017 allocating him
to the State of Andhra Pradesh and the order, dated
25.02.2017 relieving him to join in the State of Andhra
Pradesh.
121. As per the study details of the petitioner, his local
status is the State of Andhra Pradesh and therefore, he
has rightly been allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh.
The petitioner has not been able to point out a single
example, where the respondents have deviated from the
executive instruction issued on the subject. No case for
interference is made out by the petitioner in the matter of
allocation.
W.P.No.8347 of 2017
122. The petitioner before this Court, Dr. Snagufta
Rahman, who is serving on the post of Civil Assistant
Surgeon, has challenged the constitutional validity of the
executive instructions, dated 29.10.2014 issued by the
Government of India, which was re-issued by the State of
Andhra Pradesh, dated 30.10.2014. She has also
challenged the order, dated 22.02.2017 allocating her to
the State of Andhra Pradesh and the order, dated
25.02.2017 relieving her to join in the State of Andhra
Pradesh.
123. The petitioner has studied from 1983 to 1990 in
Kurnool District and therefore, her local status is the State
of Andhra Pradesh. She has rightly been allocated to the
State of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner has not been able
to point out a single example, where the respondents have
deviated from the executive instructions issued on the
subject. No case for interference is made out by the
petitioner in the matter of allocation.
W.P.No.8523 of 2017
124. The petitioner before this Court, Dr. K.Sandhya, who
is serving on the post of Civil Assistant Surgeon, has
challenged the constitutional validity of the executive
instructions, dated 29.10.2014 issued by the Government
of India, which was re-issued by the State of Andhra
Pradesh, dated 30.10.2014. She has also challenged the
order, dated 22.02.2017 allocating her to the State of
Andhra Pradesh and the order, dated 25.02.2017 relieving
her to join in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
125. The petitioner has studied from 1989 to 1996 in
SPSR Nellore District and therefore, her local status is the
State of Andhra Pradesh. She has rightly been allocated to
the State of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner has not been
able to point out a single example, where the respondents
have deviated from the executive instructions issued on
the subject. No case for interference is made out by the
petitioner in the matter of allocation.
W.P.No.8558 of 2017
126. The petitioner before this Court, Dr. Adapa Padmaja,
who is serving on the post of Civil Assistant Surgeon, has
challenged the constitutional validity of the executive
instructions, dated 29.10.2014 issued by the Government
of India, which was re-issued by the State of Andhra
Pradesh, dated 30.10.2014. She has also challenged the
order, dated 22.02.2017 allocating her to the State of
Andhra Pradesh and the order, dated 25.02.2017 relieving
her to join in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
127. The petitioner has studied from 1975 to 1982 in
Krishna District and therefore, her local status is the State
of Andhra Pradesh. She has rightly been allocated to the
State of Andhra Pradesh keeping in view the executive
instructions issued on the subject. The petitioner has not
been able to point out a single example, where the
respondents have deviated from the executive instructions
issued on the subject. No case for interference is made out
by the petitioner in the matter of allocation.
W.P.No.8664 of 2017
128. The petitioner before this Court, Dr. S.Aruna Devi,
who is serving on the post of Associate Professor (Civil
Assistant Surgeon), has challenged the constitutional
validity of the executive instructions, dated 29.10.2014
issued by the Government of India, which was re-issued by
the State of Andhra Pradesh, dated 30.10.2014. She has
also challenged the order, dated 22.02.2017 allocating her
to the State of Andhra Pradesh and the order, dated
25.02.2017 relieving her to join in the State of Andhra
Pradesh.
129. The petitioner has studied from 1989 to 1996 in
West Godavari District and therefore, her local status is
the State of Andhra Pradesh. She has rightly been
allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh keeping in view
the executive instructions issued on the subject. The
petitioner has not been able to point out a single example
discriminating the petitioner vis-à-vis other employees and
therefore, the petitioner has not made out any case for
interference by this Court.
W.P.No.9358 of 2017
130. The petitioner before this Court, Dr. Sofia Noor, who
is serving on the post of Professor & Head of the
Department, Department of Community Medicine, Rajiv
Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS), Kadapa, has
challenged the constitutional validity of the executive
instructions, dated 29.10.2014 issued by the Government
of India in exercise of powers conferred under Section 77 of
the Reorganisation Act, which was re-issued by the State
of Andhra Pradesh, dated 30.10.2014. She has also
challenged the order, dated 25.01.2017 allocating her to
the State of Andhra Pradesh.
131. The petitioner has been rightly allocated to the State
of Andhra Pradesh as per the study details of the petitioner
as her local status is the State of Andhra Pradesh. The
petitioner has not been able to point out a single example
discriminating the petitioner vis-à-vis other employees and
therefore, the petitioner has not made out any case for
interference by this Court.
W.P.No.9364 of 2017
132. The petitioner before this Court, Dr. D.Sunkanna,
who is serving on the post of Civil Assistant Surgeon, has
challenged the constitutional validity of the executive
instructions, dated 29.10.2014 issued by the Government
of India in exercise of powers conferred under Section 77 of
the Reorganisation Act. He has also challenged the order,
dated 22.02.2017 allocating him to the State of Andhra
Pradesh.
133. As per the study details of the petitioner, his local
status is the State of Andhra Pradesh and therefore, he
has rightly been allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh.
The petitioner has not been able to point out a single
example discriminating the petitioner vis-à-vis other
employees and therefore, the petitioner has not made out
any case for interference by this Court.
W.P.No.9393 of 2017
134. The petitioner before this Court, Dr. Indravathi
Besta, who is serving on the post of Civil Assistant
Surgeon, has challenged the constitutional validity of the
executive instructions, dated 29.10.2014 issued by the
Government of India in exercise of powers conferred under
Section 77 of the Reorganisation Act. She has also
challenged the order, dated 22.02.2017 allocating her to
the State of Andhra Pradesh.
135. As per the study details of the petitioner, her local
status is the State of Andhra Pradesh and therefore, she
has rightly been allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh.
The representation of the petitioner has been looked into
by the respondents. The petitioner has not been able to
point out a single example discriminating the petitioner
vis-à-vis other employees and therefore, the petitioner has
not made out any case for interference by this Court.
W.P.No.9621 of 2017
136. The petitioner before this Court, Dr. Burugula Ravi,
who is serving on the post of Civil Assistant Surgeon, has
challenged the constitutional validity of the executive
instructions, dated 29.10.2014 issued by the Government
of India in exercise of powers conferred under Section 77 of
the Reorganisation Act, which was re-issued by the State
of Andhra Pradesh on 30.10.2014. He has also challenged
the order, dated 22.02.2017 allocating him to the State of
Andhra Pradesh.
137. As per the study details of the petitioner, his local
status is the State of Andhra Pradesh and therefore, he
has rightly been allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh.
The petitioner has not been able to point out a single
example discriminating the petitioner vis-à-vis other
employees and therefore, the petitioner has not made out
any case for interference by this Court.
W.P.No.9660 of 2017
138. The petitioner before this Court, Dr. P.Subhashini,
who is serving on the post of Civil Assistant Surgeon, has
challenged the constitutional validity of the executive
instructions, dated 29.10.2014 issued by the Government
of India in exercise of powers conferred under Section 77 of
the Reorganisation Act, which was re-issued by the State
of Andhra Pradesh on 30.10.2014. She has also challenged
the order, dated 22.02.2017 allocating her to the State of
Andhra Pradesh.
139. The petitioner has studied from 1981 to 1988 in YSR
Kadapa District, which falls in the State of Andhra Pradesh
and therefore, her local status is the State of Andhra
Pradesh. She has rightly been allocated to the State of
Andhra Pradesh keeping in view the executive instructions
issued on the subject. The petitioner has not been able to
point out a single example, where the respondents have
deviated from the executive instructions issued in the
matter of allocation of employees and therefore, no case for
interference is made out by the petitioner.
W.P.No.10264 of 2017
140. The petitioner before this Court, Munavat Lakshmi
Bai, who is working as an Assistant Director
(Administration), has challenged the constitutional validity
of the executive instructions, dated 29.10.2014 issued by
the Government of India in exercise of powers conferred
under Section 77 of the Reorganisation Act, which was re-
issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh on 30.10.2014. She
has also challenged the order, dated 22.02.2017 allocating
her to the State of Andhra Pradesh.
141. The petitioner has studied from 1986 to 1993 in
Visakhapatnam District, which falls in the State of Andhra
Pradesh and therefore, her local status is the State of
Andhra Pradesh. She has rightly been allocated to the
State of Andhra Pradesh keeping in view the executive
instructions issued on the subject. The petitioner has not
been able to point out a single example, where the
respondents have deviated from the executive instructions
issued in the matter of allocation of employees and
therefore, no case for interference is made out by the
petitioner.
W.P.No.10924 of 2017
142. The petitioner before this Court, T.Sudheer Reddy,
who is serving on the post of Civil Assistant Surgeon, has
challenged the constitutional validity of the executive
instructions, dated 29.10.2014 issued by the Government
of India in exercise of powers conferred under Section 77 of
the Reorganisation Act, which was re-issued by the State
of Andhra Pradesh on 30.10.2014. He has also challenged
the order, dated 22.02.2017 allocating him to the State of
Andhra Pradesh.
143. As per the study details of the petitioner, his local
status is State of Andhra Pradesh and therefore, he has
rightly been allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh
keeping in view the executive instructions and also
keeping in view the local status/seniority rule. The
petitioner has not been able to point out a single example,
where the respondents have deviated from the executive
instructions issued in the matter of allocation of employees
and therefore, no case for interference is made out by the
petitioner.
W.P.No.11067 of 2017
144. The petitioner before this Court, Dr. T.Bhavana, who
is serving on the post of Civil Assistant Surgeon, has
challenged the constitutional validity of the executive
instructions, dated 29.10.2014 issued by the Government
of India in exercise of powers conferred under Section 77 of
the Reorganisation Act, which was re-issued by the State
of Andhra Pradesh on 30.10.2014. She has also challenged
the order, dated 22.02.2017 allocating her to the State of
Andhra Pradesh.
145. The petitioner has studied from 1992 to 1999 in
Krishna District, which falls under the State of Andhra
Pradesh and her local status is State of Andhra Pradesh.
She has rightly been allocated to the State of Andhra
Pradesh keeping in view the executive instructions. The
petitioner has not been able to point out a single example,
where the respondents have deviated from the executive
instructions issued in the matter of allocation of employees
and therefore, no case for interference is made out by the
petitioner.
W.P.No.11089 of 2017
146. The petitioner before this Court, Dr. B.Lavanya Devi,
who is serving on the post of Civil Assistant Surgeon, has
challenged the constitutional validity of the executive
instructions, dated 29.10.2014 issued by the Government
of India in exercise of powers conferred under Section 77 of
the Reorganisation Act, which was re-issued by the State
of Andhra Pradesh on 30.10.2014. She has also challenged
the order, dated 22.02.2017 allocating her to the State of
Andhra Pradesh.
147. As per the study details of the petitioner, her local
status is State of Andhra Pradesh and therefore, she has
rightly been allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh
keeping in view the executive instructions. The petitioner
has not been able to point out a single example, where the
respondents have deviated from the executive instructions
issued in the matter of allocation of employees and
therefore, no case for interference is made out by the
petitioner.
W.P.No.11642 of 2017
148. The petitioner, Smt. C.Prameela Rani, working as
L.H.V.Superintendent (District Public Health Nursing
Officer) could not be allocated to the State of Telangana for
want of posts. She has raised a ground that her husband
was working as Assistant General Manager in the State
Bank of India, Hyderabad and he is a heart patient.
149. The State Bank of India is certainly having large
number of branches in the State of Andhra Pradesh and
her husband can very well seek a transfer to the State of
Andhra Pradesh. The case does not fall under the spouse
category as per the Executive Instructions and therefore,
as she has been allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh
keeping view her seniority, representation was considered
and the respondents have rightly rejected the request of
the petitioner seeking allocation to the State of Telangana.
150. In the present case, as transparent procedure was
followed for allocating the petitioner to the State of Andhra
Pradesh, the petitioner cannot be allocated to the State of
Telangana on account of personal difficulties as stated by
her and there is no ground made by the petitioner for
interference by this Court. Merely because she has opted
for the State of Telangana, she cannot be allocated to the
State of Telangana keeping in view the aforesaid Judgment
in the case of Indradeo Paswan (supra) and this Court does
not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by
the respondents in the matter of allocation of the petitioner
to the State of Andhra Pradesh.
W.P.No.18118 of 2017
151. The petitioner before this Court, Dr. Lakshmi
Prasanna, who is serving on the post of Civil Assistant
Surgeon, has challenged the constitutional validity of the
executive instructions, dated 29.10.2014 issued by the
Government of India in exercise of powers conferred under
Section 77 of the Reorganisation Act, which was re-issued
by the State of Andhra Pradesh on 30.10.2014. She has
also challenged the order, dated 11.05.2017 allocating her
to the State of Andhra Pradesh and order dated
17.05.2017 reliving her to join in the State of Andhra
Pradesh.
152. As per the study details of the petitioner, her local
status is State of Andhra Pradesh and therefore, she has
rightly been allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh
keeping in view the executive instructions. The petitioner
has not been able to point out a single example, where the
respondents have deviated from the executive instructions
issued in the matter of allocation of employees and
therefore, no case for interference is made out by the
petitioner.
W.P.No.18138 of 2017
153. The petitioner before this Court, Dr. Ch.Sumanth
Kumar, who is serving on the post of Civil Assistant
Surgeon, has challenged the constitutional validity of the
executive instructions, dated 29.10.2014 issued by the
Government of India in exercise of powers conferred under
Section 77 of the Reorganisation Act, which was re-issued
by the State of Andhra Pradesh on 30.10.2014. He has
also challenged the order, dated 11.05.2017 allocating him
to the State of Andhra Pradesh and order dated
17.05.2017 reliving him to join in the State of Andhra
Pradesh.
154. As per the study details of the petitioner, his local
status is State of Andhra Pradesh and therefore, he has
rightly been allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh
keeping in view the executive instructions. The petitioner
has not been able to point out a single example, where the
respondents have deviated from the executive instructions
issued in the matter of allocation of employees and
therefore, no case for interference is made out by the
petitioner.
W.P.No.19616 of 2019
155. The petitioner before this Court, Dr. Goriparthi
Lasya, who is serving on the post of Civil Assistant
Surgeon, has challenged the constitutional validity of the
executive instructions, dated 29.10.2014 issued by the
Government of India in exercise of powers conferred under
Section 77 of the Reorganisation Act, which was re-issued
by the State of Andhra Pradesh on 30.10.2014. He has
also challenged the order, dated 22.02.2017 allocating her
to the State of Andhra Pradesh and order dated
25.02.2017 reliving her to join in the State of Andhra
Pradesh.
156. As per the study details of the petitioner, her local
status is State of Andhra Pradesh and therefore, she has
rightly been allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh
keeping in view the executive instructions. The petitioner
has not been able to point out a single example, where the
respondents have deviated from the executive instructions
issued in the matter of allocation of employees and
therefore, no case for interference is made out by the
petitioner.
157. The interim orders granted in all the writ petitions
are vacated and the writ petitions are accordingly
dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall
stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_____________________________
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ
___________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
21.03.2022
pln
