Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Devarakonda Rajesh Babu vs Nizam Institute Of Medical Sciences And ... on 21 October, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1998(1)ALD53, 1997(6)ALT290, AIR 1998 ANDHRA PRADESH 162, (1997) 6 ANDH LT 290, (1998) 1 ANDHLD 53, (1998) 1 APLJ 463
Bench: B. Subhashan Reddy, M.H.S. Ansari
JUDGMENT
1. At issue, is the very important constitutional question as to whether area reservation basing on the residence in a particular region of a State of Andhra Pradesh prevails over the class reservation envisaged under Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India relating to admissions into educational institutions and more particularly, postgraduate medical courses.
2. Both the writ petitions pertain to admission into M.S. Orthopaedics of Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences - a State-wide Institution - which is the deemed University. Reservations to Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes are in the ratio of 6:15:25 respectively. The following table, in various disciplines shows the number of seats conforming to the above ratio of reservation :
Sl. No Course Available seats Reservation under Article 15(4) S.C. (15%) S.T. (6%) B.C. (25%)
1.
Anaesthesiology 2 0.30 0.12 0.50
2. General Medicine 3 0.45 0.18 0.75
3. Pathology 2 0.30 0.12 0.50
4. Hospital Admn.
20.30 0.12 0.50
5. Radio-Diagnosis 2 0.30 0.12 0.50
6. Orthopaedics 4 0.60 0.24 1.00
7. D.M.R.D. 4 0.60 0.24 1.00 Total 19 2.85 1.14 4.75 = 3 seats = 1 seat = 5 seats With M.S. Orthopaedics consisting of 4 seats, with which we arc concerned, reservation of one seat each for B.C. and S.T. has been provided in the above discipline. Dr. Satyam, the appellant in W.A.No.141 of 1996 (arising out of W.P.No.29820/1995) who belongs to B.C.B category had obtained 107 marks and claimed preference for admission over Dr. Jayabharath Reddy from Andhra University area. His case is that, he having obtained the highest marks among the B.C. candidates ought to be given the seat. Dr. Rajesh Babu, the appellant in W.A.No. 140/1996 (arising out of W.P.No.29700/1995) belongs to S.T. category and having obtained 97 marks claimed preference over Dr. Padma who is also S.T. candidate and who has obtained less number of marks i.e., 73. The Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences (for short "NIMS") has contested the claims made by the above appellants. Contest is also made by the other candidates who arc successful in getting the admissions. Reliance is placed on the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission) Order, 1974 which is issued by the President of India, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under clauses (I) and (2) of Article 371D of the Constitution of India as amended by A.P. Educational Institutions Regulation of Admissions (Amendment) Order, 1991. Under Para 6 of the Order, 1974, admission to 85% of the available scats in every course of study provided by State-wide University be reserved in favour of and allocated among the local candidates in relation to the local areas specified in para 3, in the ratio of 42:36:22 respectively for Andhra University area, Osmania University area and Sri Venkateswara University area. Whether the said ratio of reservation has got any application to any course of study in which total number of available scats does not exceed 3, however, is a question apart in these appeals, as we are concerned with 4 scats in M.S.-Orthopaedics. Out of the said 4, one under the said order is unreserved and a person, namely, Parameswar Rao, who has secured 110 marks is selected. He happens to be from Andhra University area. No controversy is raised with regard to his admission. Disputed selections, however, are of Dr. Jayabharat Reddy who hails from the local area of Andhra University and Dr. Padma who hails from the local area of Osmania University. The third candidate Dr. Obulpathy, hails from Sri Vcnkateswara University area. The marks obtained by Dr. Jayabharat Reddy, Dr. Obulpathy and Dr. Padma arc 108, 109, 73 respectively. As stated above, Dr. Saiyam who belongs to B.C.-B category and is from Andhra University area and Dr. Rajesh Babu who belongs to S.T. category and is from Andhra University area have claimed that they are entitled to selection. Dr. Rajesh Babu has further claimed that he having obtained 97 marks has a superior claim over Dr. Padma who has obtained only 73 marks. The claims of Dr. Satyam and Dr. Rajesh Babu, however, have been negatived on the ground that one seat each has been reserved for local areas of three universities mentioned above. The claim of Dr. Satyam that he secured more marks than Dr. Jayabharath Reddy is negatived as he is found to have secured only 107 marks. Having regard to the area of reservation, however, Dr. Obulpathy is given admission even though he has obtained 101 marks, for he hails from Sri Venkateswara University area. Likewise, Dr. Padma who hails from Osmania University area is denied admission. Learned single Judge has upheld the selection. Hence, these appeals.
3. M/s. S. Ramachander Rao and S.A. Chary, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants have submitted that class reservation envisaged under Article 15(4) of the Constitution has to be followed having regard to the rotation system and reservation for B.C. and S.T. candidates. Their contention is that any other provision with regard to reservation should yield to this special provision contained under Clause (4) of Article 15 which was brought forth by amendment for the purpose of the classes which arc both, socially and educationally backward. The learned Counsel for the respondents has contended that class reservation has to be applied within the area reservation.
4. In Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, , the Supreme Court held (hat merit should be the criterion in the matter of admissions to medical course and even if residence qualification has to be given to maintain the equality, in no event, the said residence qualification can be extended to postgraduate medical courses such as M.S., M.D. and the like. The Supreme Court directed the Union of India, as also the State Governments and Administrations of Union Territories to draw a scheme on the said lines holding that it was laying down law for the entire country, having heard the affected and the interested. The Supreme Court, however, in a later judgment in Reita Nirankari v. Union of India, held that the ratio decided in Pradeep Jain's case (supra) and All India Scheme for selection of medical admissions framed pursuant thereto arc not applicable to the States of Andhra Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir in view of the special constitutional provisions. In so far as State of Andhra Pradesh is concerned, the said special provision is Article 371D of the Constitution of India. The said Constitution Amendment is enacted incorporating Article 371D to remove inequalities in the matter of education and employment in the State of Andhra Pradesh in view of the historical background. The former State of Hyderabad comprised of three linguistic areas; i.e., Telangana, Marathwada and Karnataka. In 1919, the Nizam issued a Firman promulgating what came to be known as 'Mulki Rules'. The Nizam confirmed these rules by another Firman issued in 1949. Those rules provided inter alia 15 years' residence in the State as an essential qualification for public employment. In 1955, the Rajpramukh in exercise of his powers under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution framed the Hyderabad General Recruitment Rules, 1955 in supersession of all the previous rules on the subject. One of these Rules laid down that domicile certificate would be necessary for appointment to a State or subordinate service and the issue of such certificate depended upon residence in the State for a period of not less than 15 years. On 1-11-1956, as a result of coming into force of State Reorganization Act, the State of Hyderabad was trifurcated. Telangana region become a part of the newly formed State of Andhra Pradesh, while Marathwada and Kamataka regions ultimately became parts of Maharashtra or Mysore States. At the time of formation of State of Andhra Pradesh in 1956, certain safeguards were envisaged for Telangana area in the matter of development and also in the manner of employment opportunities and educational facilities for the residents of that area. For such safeguards, the Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Act, 1957 was enacted inter alia to provide for employment opportunities for residents of Telangana area. But, the Supreme Court in A. V.S. Narasimha Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, held the above provisions of the Act to be unconstitutional. Following agitation for a separate Telangana State and later for separate Andlira State and owing to other variety of causes, measures were devised from time to time to resolve the problems and finally what is known as six-point formula for promoting accelerated development of the backward areas of the State so as to secure the balanced development of the State as a whole and for providing equitable opportunities to different areas of the State in the matter of education, employment and career prospects in public services was evolved. The Constitution (32nd Amendment) Act, 1972 was brought into effect for making provisions for equitable opportunities for people of different areas of the State in the matter of admission to the educational institutions and public employment as well as for the constitution of the State Administrative Tribunal with jurisdiction to deal with certain disputes and grievances relating to public services. Article 371D of the Constitution which was inserted by the above amendment was (a) to promote accelerated development of the backward areas of the State of Andhra Pradesh so as to secure the balanced development of the State as a whole and (b) to provide equitable opportunities to different areas of the State in the matter of education, employment and career prospects in public services. There is a nexus for the object to be achieved, as the evil of inequitable opportunities and facilities for the people belonging to different parts of the State of Andhra Pradesh in matters of public employment and education was sought to be remedied by incorporation of the above special provision. Article 14 contemplates of de facto equality and amongst unequally circumstanced persons real equality and not merely de jure equality. In P.Sambamurthy v. State of A.P., AIR 1987 SC 663 a Five-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the validity of Article 371D excepting clause (5) thereto as being the ultra vires the Constitution. In C. Surekha v. Union of India, , a contention raised on behalf of the petitioner who was a non-local belonging to Kerala and who was unsuccessful in seeking post-graduate medical admission challenging the constitutional validity of Article 371D as also A.P. Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission) Order, 1974, was repelled holding that Article 371D does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution as contended, following the view expressed by the Constitution Bench in P. Sambamurthy v. State of A.P. (supra). It was also held that in view of clause (10) of Article 371D, the residence qualification takes precedence as the provisions of the said Article and of any order made by the President thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything in any other provision of the Constitution or in any other law for the time being in force. The other contention as to whether the scheme pursuant to Pradeep Jain's case (supra) clashes with the Presidential Order under Article 37ID was found unnecessary for adjudication for the reason that the petitioner therein had secured admission elsewhere. The same was the view taken by the Supreme Court in Fazal Gafoor v. Union of India, . The said view was affirmed by the Supreme Court in S. Prakasha Rao v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, and upheld the validity of Article 371D and the orders made thereunder : In P. Padmanabha Reddy v. State, Justice Jeevan Reddy, single Judge, as he then was, speaking for this Court held that clause (10) of Article 371D will have effect notwithstanding anything in any other provision of the Constitution, or in any other law for the time being in force and that the Presidential Order of 1974 prevails over any other law to the extent of inconsistency and that paragraph 9 expressly gives an overriding effect to the said Order and in particular, in the matter of admission to any University or any other educational institution subject to the control of State Government. The said case relates to the reservation of 85% of the seats to local candidates and it was held that the said seats conforming to 85% should be rilled up only in accordance with the Presidential Order. With regard to 15% unreserved seats, the contention that the local candidates should be considered was negatived. But, that is a question apart so far as this writ petition is concerned. In B. Ramesh v. University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, a Division Bench comprising of Justive Jeevan Reddy and Justice Quadri has upheld the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission) Order, 1974 which was issued by the President in exercise of the powers contained under Article 371D. That case related to admission of the petitioner to M. Ch. Genito Urinary Surgery speciality challenging the validity of Article 371D of the Constitution and the consequent Order of the President in the year 1974. The contentions that the Presidential Order was violative of the basic structure of the Constitution and so also Article 371D were negatived by referring to the judgments in Sambamurthy's case (supra), Surekha's case (supra) and Dr. Fazal Ghafoor's case. It was also held emphatically that clause (10) of Article 371D gives overriding power over any other provisions of the Constitution and that other constitutional provisions to the extent of inconsistency are inoperative. In that case, the argument was if there are super-specialities in one local area of University, there should not be any reservation for the local candidates as that would result in depriving the non-local candidates of the chance of getting admission, when the seats are limited. The Division Bench held that such an argument cannot be sustained as it will go contrary to the scheme of the Presidential Order. The Division Bench took note of the merit aspect in Pradeep Kumar Jain's case and held that Andhra Pradesh is an exception having regard to the special circumstances of backwardness. In Fazal Gafoor v. Principal, O.M. College, 1988 (2) ALT 227, a Division Bench of this Court held that even one scat can be reserved for local candidate. The petitioner therein was bom in Kerala State and passed his M.B.B.S qualification from a college in that State. In 1982, he joined M.D. (General Medicine) course in Osmania Medical College and passed the said course in 1986. He wanted to obtain admission into super-speciality course. The only super-specialities for which a M.D, in General Medicine is eligible are (i) D.M. -Gastroenterology and (ii) D.M.-Neurology. So far as D.M.-Neurology is concerned, for the academic year 1986-87, there is only one seat available in Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences. No other Institute or University in this State offers the said course. So far as D.M. Gastroentcrology is concerned, again there is only one scat available in Osmania Medical College and nowhere else in the State. As the petitioner did not belong to the State of A.P. and was not a local candidate and as he was not granted any seat, his contention that if there is one seat, it cannot be reserved was repelled holding that even if there is one seat, it can be reserved for local candidate conforming to 85%. The contention on the touch-stone of Article 14 of the Constitution was also repelled by the Division Bench holding ''This argument need not detain us inasmuch as the Presidential Order has been issued under Article 371D of the Constitution of India. It is a special provision contained in the Constitution applicable only to the State of Andhra Pradesh. The provisions of Article 371D prevail and override Article 14 as well, as is clear from clause (10) thereof, which says that the provisions of this article and of any order made by the President thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything in any other provision of this Constitution or in any other law for the time being in force. Faced with this clause, Mr. Sarathi sought to argue that Article 371D of the Constitution is itself unconstitutional inasmuch as it violates the basic structure of the Constitution. We do not think that we can permit this argument to be raised at this stage. This contention was not raised in this writ petition and it requires examination at much greater depth. In any event, we may point out that the constitutional validity of this Article has been upheld by the Supreme Court in Sambamurthy's case (supra). It was further held "Be that as it may, we have to decide the question arising in this writ petition with reference to the Presidential Order applicable to this State and there can be no doubt that the petitioner, not being a local candidate, was rightly refused admission in D.M. (Neurology). There is only one scat in the said super-speciality in N1MS and NIMS is situated in Telangana area, and according to Rule 5 of the Presidential Order, it is to be treated as reserved for local candidates. We have already rejected the argument of the appellant that in case of one seat, it should be treated as unreserved. This judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court in Fctzal Gafoor v. Principal, Osmania Medical College. Hyderabad, . It is not as if special leave petition was dismissed just without any reasons. The reasons have been given by the Supreme Court upholding the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court, Even Article. 14 vis-a-vis Article 371D (10) was held to be valid. Interpreting A.P. Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975 and A.P. Panchayat Raj Engineering Service Rules, 1963 vis-a-vis Article 371D under which the Order of 1975 was promulgated, the Supreme Court in Govt. of A.P. v. A. Suryanarayana Rao, upheld the object of Article 371D as to promote speedy development of backward areas of Andhra Pradesh with a view to secure balance in the development of the State as a whole and to provide equitable opportunities to different areas of the State in the matter of education, employment and career/prospects in public service. It was held that the Presidential Order was made under Article 371D as a special provision which makes departure from the general scheme of the Constitution. The conversion of State into six zones pursuant to the Presidential Order which was made keeping in view the object of be achieved was upheld. The non obstante clause contained under Article 371D (10) was approved. It was held that Article 371D is of exceptional nature and the object is to provide equal opportunities in backward areas in respect of specified posts mentioned in the 3rd Schedule which are included in the local cadre which, thus, became zonal posts. In B. Sudhakar (Dr.) v. Union of India, 1994 (2) An.W.R. 252, a Full Bench of this Court very comprehensively dealt with the Constitutional validity of Article 371D and the Presidential Order mentioned supra and held that one seat for each local area has got to be reserved even if there is one seat and rejected the contention that such a treatment would violate Article 14 and upheld on the ground of non obstante clause contained under Clause (10).
5. That apart, it is too well settled a proposition that whenever a special provision is made with regard to a particular subject, it always prevails over a general provision. The reservation which is provided under Article 15(4) of the Constitution is a general one whereas the reservation provided under Article 371D is a special one and following the maxim 'generalibus specialia derogant', the area reservation under Article 371D of the Constitution prevails over class reservation under Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Gopikishan Sen, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 522 dealing with a similar legal provision held that when a special provision is made on a certain subject, that subject is excluded from the general provision attracting the above maxim, In R.C. Poudyal v. Union of India, , interpreting Article 371F(f) as introduced by Constitution 36th Amendment Act, 1975 and dealing with non obstante clause and on the question whether reservation of scats in the Legislature based on ethnic group is itself destructive of democratic principles, it was held that "There is no doubt that the non obstante clause is a statute gives overriding effect to the provisions covered by the non obstante clause over the other provisions in the statute to which it applies and in that sense, the non obstante clause used in Article 371F would give overriding effect to Clauses (a) to (p) of Article 371F over other provisions of the Constitution." It was also held "The systematic deficiencies in the plenitude of the doctrine of full and effective representation has not been understood in the constitutional philosophy as derogating from the democractic principle. Indeed, the plea in the case relating to reservation of scats in State Assembly, in the perspective, is really one of violation of the equality principle rather than of the democratic principle. The inequalities in representation in the case are an inheritance and compulsion from the past. Historical considerations have justified a differential treatment. Article 371F(f) cannot be said to violate any basic feature of die Constitution, such as die democratic principle. The process and pace of political transformation is necessarily reliant on its institutions of die past. Mere existence of a Constitution, by itself, docs not ensure constitutionalism or a constitutional culture. It is the political maturity and traditions of a people that import meaning to a Constitution which otherwise merely embodies political hopes and ideals. The provisions of Clause (f) of Article 371F and the consequent changes in the electoral laws were intended to recognise and accommodate the pace of the growth of the political institutions of Sikkim and to make the transition gradual and peaceful and to prevent dominance of one section of the population over another on the basis of ethnic loyalties and identifies. These adjustments and accommodations reflect a political expediencies for the maintenance of social equilibrium. The political and social maturity and of economic development might in course of time enable the people of Sikkim to transcend and submerge these ethnic apprehensions and imbalances and might in future - one hopes sooner - user in a more egaliterian dispensation."
6. What emerges from the discussions above leads us to examine whether class reservation as presently in vogue can operate as it is in accordance with the roster which is in use, since it is not in doubt that any provision made as contemplated under Articles 15(4) or 16(4) of the Constitution of India cannot override the reservation for the three areas of the State under the Presidential Orders. It is irresistible that for each area, for posts in respect of which appointments are sought to be made and for seats which are sought to be filled in the educational institutions, a separate roster is required for appointments as well as for admissions to the educational institutions. Only such a roster can decide whether the required percentage of reservation to backward classes and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from each area is provided to them. Prospecting further, it is not difficult to visualise that irrespective of number of appointments in the posts and service under the Government of the State reserved for each area pursuant to the Presidential Order such a roster can be made applicable by fictionally calculating the number of posts to be filled in and carrying forward for subsequent years the vacancies to be filled strictly in accordance with the roster of class reservation. This however cannot be effectively applied in the case of filling up the seats in educational institutions as each year's availability of scats would depend upon determination of number of scats or creation of number of seats for any discipline of education in particular year. Carry forward can as a rule be effective only when there is some predictable determination of the number of seats which is subsequent years would become available and unless any such determination is envisaged and is understandable, each year's seats have to be filled in and exhausted in that year only. No other inference is possible thus to have any view opposite to the principle that applicability of the class reservation roster would depend upon the availability of the number of seats in a particular year. If number of seats available in a particular year are less than making the class reservation roster operational since area reservation must prevail class reservation may not be available without thus reserving such number of seats for different classes of persons on the basis of the fiction of the carry forward each year admissions in educational institutions in different disciplines must be completed and exhausted if there is a chance of any class losing the benefit of the roster, it is obvious, the roster be inopcrational.
7. It is not unknown that there are needs to provide one or couple of posts and appoint persons in such posts under the Government of the State. When number of posts are not sufficient for the roster to work, when we refer to the roster we mean the roster which is prepared separately for each area, and reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes is not possible resorting to the rule of carry forward in such situations and in particular when some one would enter to serve of such posts very young, there would be rancours and protests, appropriate it would before the Government of the State that it resorts invariably to recruitments which would fulfil the needs of all classes and not leave any particular class to nurture its grievance. This alone would on the one hand see that the purpose of area reservation is realised and the need of equality to be achieved in different classes of citizens is met. In other words, whenever such needs arc determined, such number of posts are created which meet the needs of the roster and if such number is not, as held by this Court in B. Sudhakar's case (supra) the posts shall be deserved in so far class reservations is concerned. Similarly in various disciplines of education it is not unknown only one or a couple of seats are created. As held by this Court by Jeevan Reddy, J as he men was, in P. Padmanabha Reddy's case (supra) if there is one seat it has to be reserved for the area and it is obvious, as we have indicated above, only one scat in any discipline of education cannot be reserved for backward classes or Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. The same must also be true if only such number of seats are available, as we have indicated earlier, which arc not enough to provide reservation for different classes of citizens of the country and seats so available shall go in order of reservation as indicated in the Presidential Order. We are not required to dialect this aspect of the matter in any further detail as in the case of B. Ramesh (supra) this Court has explained the legal position in this behalf. Following the order of area reservation a couple of seats may be found divided for different areas and thus leaving no scope for picking up any one of them for class reservation. In view of what is stated supra we hold as under :
(1) that Article 371D is infra vires the Constitution;
(2) that any order passed under Article 371D of the Constitution of India making special provision for area reservation based on the residential qualification is valid and shall prevail over the general provision for class reservation envisaged under Article 15(4) and/or 16(4) of the Constitution of India;
(3) that the roster for class reservation has to be confined to the area for which reservation is provided under the Presidential Orders and for class reservation in each area independent roster is necessary;
(4) that for the purposes of reservation in appointments after adhering to the area reservation as aforementioned the fiction of cany forward can be applied as envisaged above but such fiction of carry forward cannot be applied to admissions in the educational institutions and any class reservation if at all possible has to be confined to the number of seats available in a particular academic year of admissions. One scat or couple of seats, since area reservation has to be implemented before any class reservation is given effect to, cannot be subjected to either the so-called rule of derescrvation or the rule of class reservation as they are to be made available first in accordance with the Presidential Order for each area of reservation. The rule in this behalf will be as one indicated in the judgment of this Court in P. Padmanabha Reddy's case (supra) or B. Ramesh's case, (supra) as the case may be.
8. Since however the admissions have already been effected in favour of the candidates into M.S. Orthopaedics for the academic year 1995-96 and there is no violation of the rule of area reservation in the admissions given to them it has to be held that there is no infirmity in the admissions of Dr. S. Jaibharat Reddy, Dr. Obulpathy and Dr. (Ms.) J. Padma in M.S. Course of the academic year 1995-96. With the declaration of law as above thus the writ appeals have to be dismissed. But it cannot be done so without a formal direction to the Government of the State of Andhra Pradesh to implement strictly the Presidential Orders as indicated above and follow the rule of area reservation in accordance with the principles as indicated above and apply class reservation only strictly in accordance with the principles as stated above. Since the Court has been taken to repeated exercise to decide upon controversies in this behalf, it is felt necessary that such direction must issue and as the superior and the Constitutional Court of the State it is strictly within the jurisdiction of this Court that it moulds the relief in the writ petition so as to settle the controversial issues as to area and class reservation. We accordingly hereby direct that the Government of the State of Andhra Pradesh shall forthwith issue necessary instructions for the implementation of the above directions of the Court and ensure that appointments in any future vacancies in the posts and the service under the Government of the State and admissions into various institutions falling in a particular area of reservation arc held strictly in accordance rath the directions as above before any further appointments are made and before any further admissions arc made in any educational institutions falling in any area of the State.
9. Before we part with this judgment we record our appreciation for the assistance that we have received from the learned Counsel for the appellants M/s. S. Ramachander Rao, Senior Advocate and S.A. Chari, Advocate and Shri M.R.K. Chowdary, learned Counsel for the N.I.M.S., as well as learned Advocate General for the State who have given their invaluable assistance to the Court. It indeed augurs well for the parties that Counsel of eminence have agreed to rise above the causes they were expected to espouse and argued more on principles to be evolved than to keep their arguments limited to the cause of their respective parties. A common cause some time is brought before the Court at the instance of an aggrieved individual; as issues in a common cause are not adversorial it is indeed appreciable that learned Counsel for the parties have chosen to address the Court on principles of law including interpretation of the various constitutional provisions.
10. The appeals are ordered accordingly.