Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Andhra Provincial Village Officers ... vs N.T. Ramarao And Ors. on 1 July, 1988
Equivalent citations: AIR1989AP74, AIR 1989 ANDHRA PRADESH 74, 1988 APLJ(CRI) 276
JUDGMENT Jayachandra Reddy, J.
1. This is a petition filed under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act by the Andhra Provincial Village Officers Association, represented by its Secretary, the Rayalaseema Village Officers Association represented by its Secretary and Andhra Pradesh Qualified Village Officers Association, represented by its President. The prayer in this petition is to summon the respondents, viz., Sri N.T. Rama Rao, the Chief Minister, the Revenue Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Commissioner of Land Revenue, Andhra Pradesh, and punish them for contempt of Court as they flouted the orders of a Full Bench of this Court, dated 27-11-1987 in Writ Petition No. 15280 of 1987 : () and batch. The Full Bench allowed those writ petitions and directed the respondents "to comply with the direction in the order of the Supreme Court dated 8-5-1987 : () within 4 weeks from today". It is alleged in this petition that the respondents have flouted this order.
2. At the stage of admission, we heard the learned Advocate General also. The learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Advocate General have addressed elaborate arguments. We also directed the learned Advocate General to file a counter, and it is accordingly filed.
3. The main thrust of the arguments of the learned Advocate General is that the orders of the High Court directing the respondents "to comply with the direction in the order of the Supreme Court dated 8-5-1987" have been carried out meticulously by the respondents and that a perusal of the orders of the Supreme Court in the main case and in some of the subsequent connected proceedings would make it clear that there is no scope whatsoever to complain that the directions given by the Supreme Court have not been carried out.
4. To appreciate the arguments advanced by both sides, it becomes absolutely necessary to know what exactly are 'the directions given by the Supreme Court on 8-5-1987' and in what context. On 6-1-1984 the Posts of Part-time Village Officers in Andhra Pradesh were abolished by an Ordinance (No. 1 of 1984). The Ordinance was replaced by the Andhra Pradesh Abolition of Posts of Village Officers Act (Act 8 of 1985). The Ordinance and the Act were challenged in this Court and in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court by judgment dated 27-3-1985 in T. Venkata Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, , upheld the constitutional validity of the provisions of the Act, Thereafter the Government, in exercise of the powers under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 of the said Act, issued G.O. Ms. No. 1048, dated 11-9-1985 sanctioning 4800 posts of Village Assistants in the Revenue Department for a period of one year from the date of appointment. By another G.O. Ms. No. 1056, Revenue (H) Department dated 129-1985 ad hoc rules were framed for making those appointments. The Commissioner of Land Revenue issued notification dated 25-10-1985 inviting applications to a competitive examination of S.S.C. standard to be conducted on 25-2-1986. Writ Petition No. 5786 of 1985 and batch were filed in this Court for directing the Government to act upon the undertaking given by the Government before the Supreme Court in T. Venkata Reddy's case. (supra) and to fill up the posts of Village Assistant by educationally qualified persons having Matriculation or its equivalent, allowing such of those Village Officers who had not attained the age of superannuation to continue in service till they attained the age of 58 years. By judgment dated 4-2-1986, a Division Bench of this Court disposed of the writ petitions granting substantial relief. The Division Bench upheld the right of the writ petitioners to have the posts of Village Assistants to be absorbed by the erstwhile Part-time Village Officers who had the educational and age qualifications and who were found physically fit and who had not incurred any punishment during the time they were in office. The State Government filed an appeal before the Supreme Court against the said judgment, but leave was refused. Thereafter, the Government amended Rule 3 of the Ad hoc Rules adding a proviso thereto which lays down that the initial recruitment to the post shall be made from the erstwhile holders of the posts of Part-time Village Officers who have the requisite age and educational qualifications as prescribed in the A.P. Abolition of Posts of Part-time Village Officers Act, 1985. and who are physically fit, and have not incurred any punishment during their service as Village Officers. Aggrieved by this, the Village Officers filed W.P. No. 13989 of 1986 and batch. A Division Bench of this Court held by an order dated 13-11-1986 that the Government was bound to call for interview those erstwhile village officers who had not as on 25-10-1985 crossed the age of 34 years in the case of other communities, and the age of 39 years in the case of Scheduled Castes. Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes, and also allowing the erstwhile Village Officers, while computing their age, to deduct the length of their service as part-time village officer subject to a maximum of 5 years, treating them as persons already in service of the State Government in terms of Rule 12(g) of the State and Subordinate Service Rules, Against the said judgment, an appeal was filed by the Village Officers and the Supreme Court by judgment dated 8-5-1987 in R.K. Rama Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, allowed the appeals and directed the Government "to absorb as Village Assistants all erstwhile Part-time Village Officers who have not attained the age of 58 years if they possess the minimum education qualification and are otherwise suitable for appointment. irrespective of their age." (emphasis suplied). The Government sought review of this judgment and the erstwhile Village Officers filed a contempt petition in the Supreme Court. The review petition was dismissed and notice was ordered in the contempt petition. The Supreme Court once again directed the respondents to implement the order dated 8-5-1987. Immediately, the Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 789, dated 18-8-1987 for filling up the 4800 posts of Village Assistants sanctioned in G.O. Ms. No. 1048. Revenue, dated 11-9-1985, The Supreme Court however discharged the contempt petition, by its order dated 7-9-1987.
5. Some of the erstwhile Village Officers who have not been appointed as Village Assistants filed W.P. No. 13513 of 1987 and the same was dismissed by a learned single Judge on the ground that Article 371-D of the Constitution was a bar, against which Writ Appeal No. 1464of 1987 was filed. Some of the erstwhile Village Officers also filed W.P. Nos. 15280 of 1987 and batch. These writ petitions and the said writ appeal were heard and disposed of by the Full Bench as already mentioned, on 27-11-1987 (Vide A.P. Village Officers Assn. v. Govt. of A.P., and the respondents were directed to comply with the directions of the Supreme Court within four weeks. Against that judgment, the State Government filed a special leave petition but the same was dismissed on 25-1-1988.
6. The grievance of the petitioners in this contempt petition is that the respondents are deliberately disobeying the directions to implement the orders of the Full Bench dated 27-11-87 in A.P. Village Officers Assn.'s case, (supra) within the time limit of four weeks, and therefore they have committed contempt of this Court.
7. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is stated that the direction of the Supreme Court in the judgment dated 8-5-1987 (R. K. Rama Rao's case. ) (supra) to absorb as Village Assistants all the erstwhile Part-time Village Officers who have not attained the age of 58 years if they possess the minimum educational qualification and are otherwise suitable for appointment, irrespective of their age' has to be understood in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in T. Venkata Reddy's case, AIR 1986 SC 724) (supra) and in the context in which the direction was made, and that the request that all the erstwhile Part-time Village Officers have to be absorbed, was rejected. From a careful examination of the affidavit and the counter-affidavit and the rival contentions, it becomes necessary to understand the scope and effect of the directions given by the Supreme Court in T. Venkata Reddy's case, (supra) and R. K. Rama Rao's case, (supra). In T. Venkata Reddy's case. (supra), the Village Officers questioned the Ordinance and the Act. Their Lordships upheld the constitutional validity of the provisions of the Ordinance and the Act, and in paragraph 21 observed thus :
"The abolition of the posts and the declaration that the incumbents of those posts would cease to be holders of those posts under Section 3 of the Ordinance being completed events, there is no question of their revival of the petitioners continuing to hold these posts any longer. The above contention has, therefore, to be rejected in the circumstances of this case."
Therefore the Supreme Court categorically held that all the posts stood abolished and they cannot be revived and the petitioners cannot continue. Then as a last point it urged before the Supreme Court that the State Government may be asked to consider the cases of those petitioners who possess the prescribed qualifications for "appointment" as Village Assistants, The Supreme Court then observed thus : --
"We are informed that the number of posts of Village Assistants that are going to be created would be about one-eighth of the number of Posts of Part-time Village Officers which are abolished. It is also difficult in law to issue any direction in that behalf in the facts and circumstances of this case. We, however, record that in paragraph 21 of the counter-affidavit filed by V.V. Janardhan Reddy, Deputy Secretary to Govt. Revenue Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh it is stated thus :
"In addition, the Government is of the view that such of those Village Officers who possess the required qualifications as prescribed and otherwise found suitable will also be considered for appointment of Village Assistants subject to the availability of the posts."
25. We trust that the State Government will give due regard to the above said statement while making appointments. Statements contained in affidavits are meant to be honoured."
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri S. Ramachandra Rao, submits that the above observations of the Supreme Court are to the effect that all the qualified erstwhile Village Officers should be absorbed, if necessary by increasing the strength, and the Government cannot reduce the posts to4800 whereas 7100 erstwhile Village Officers who are qualified are available for appointment. The learned Advocate General on the other hand submits that it was brought to the notice of the Supreme Court that only one-eighth of the number of posts of Part-time Village Officers which were abolished, were only to be created and in that context a portion in the counter-affidavit filed by the Deputy Secretary to Government. Revenue Department, mentioning that "the Government is of the view that such or those Village Officers who possess the required qualifications and otherwise found suitable would also be considered for appointment of Village Assistants subject to the availability of the posts" is extracted. As already mentioned, the matter again went up to the Supreme Court in R. K. Rama Rao's case, (supra), the stand taken by the Government as expressed in the counter-affidavit was considered, and thereafter suitable directions were given.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a perusal of the directions given in Rama Rao's case, , are to the effect that all the qualified erstwhile Part-time Village Officers should be appointed. In R. K. Rama Rao's case, , their Lordships were of the view that the Government gave an assurance at the time of hearing of T. Venkata Reddy's case, . It may be noted that in R. K. Rama Rao's case, (supra), the Judgment of the High Court fixing the age limit as 34 years was questioned and it was set aside and in the operative portion it is ordered thus : --
"At the time of the hearing before the Supreme Court in Venkata Reddy's case (supra), no age qualification had been prescribed. If the undertaking was required to be subject to the maximum age limit prescribed for direct recruitment, under the ad hoc Rules, it would practically eliminate all the erstwhile Village Officers. We do not think that the Government should be allowed to gel round the undertaking given at that time by purporting to prescribe a maximum age limit which would have the effect of eliminating the majority of the erstwhile Village Officers. We have, therefore, no option but to allow the appeals and direct the respondents to absorb as Village Assistants all erstwhile Part-time Village Officers who have not attained the age of 58 years if they possess the minimum, educational qualification and are otherwise suitable for appointment, irrespective of their age."
The Full Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 15280 of 1987 and batch reported in A.P. Village Officers' Association v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, , directed the respondents to comply with the above directions given in R. K. Rama Rao's case, (supra).
10. As rightly contended by the learned Advocate General, these directions have to be understood in the context of the Judgment rendered in T. Venkata Reddy's case, (supra). In T. Venkata Reddy's case (supra) the Government made it clear that only one-eighth of the number of posts of part-time Village Officers which are abolished, are going to be created and that the Government created 4800 posts after assessing the actual need to carry on the village administration.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioners however invited our attention to some of the averments in the special leave petition filed by the Government against the Judgment in A.P. Village Officers' Association's case, (supra). In the special leave petition filed by the Government it is mentioned that there is no need to sanction any more posts and that the directions of the Courts are only to the effect of filling up of all the 4800 posts from the erstwhile Part-time Village Officers if they possess the minimum educational qualification and who are physically fit and have not incurred any punishment during their service as Village Officers, and that all the 4800 posts have been filled up by the qualified erstwhile Part-time Village Officers who have satisfied all the conditions, and that the directions given by the Supreme Court on 8-5-1987, , have been implemented. As already mentioned, the leave was refused and the petition was dismissed. Therefore, according to Sri S. Ramachandra Rao, it must be presumed that the Supreme Court rejected the contention that the number of posts should be limited only to 4800. We are unable to agree. It must be noted that what all the Full Bench in A. P. Village Officers' Assn.'s case, (supra), observed was that the directions given by the Supreme Court on 8-5-1987 should be implemented. The expression "erstwhile Part-time Village Officers' in the Supreme Court's order has to be understood in the light of the observations made in T. Venkata Reddy's case, (supra). In that case, the question as to what should happen to all the erstwhile Village officers directly came up for consideration and the assurance given by the Government was also noted; and their Lordships also noted the stand taken by the Government to the effect that the number of posts of Village Assistants that are going to be created would be about one-eighth of the number of posts of Part-time Village Officers which were abolished. It, therefore, becomes clear that the Supreme Court did not understand the assurance given by the Government in the manner in which it is sought to be interpreted by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
12. The learned counsel however contended that the Supreme Court in R. K. Rama Rao's case, (supra), the Division Bench of this Court in Bommaraju Hanumanthu Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (1986) 1 APLJ 398 : (1986 Lab 1C 1046) and Full Bench of this Court in A. P. Village Officers' Association's case, (supra), understood the directions given by the Supreme Court in T. Venkata Reddy's case, (supra), as to mean that all the qualified erstwhile Part-time Village Officers should be absorbed and for that purpose, if necessary, the Government had no option but to create supernumerary posts. At the risk of repetition, we would like to narrate the incidents in a chronological order briefly for a better appreciation of this contention. The posts of Part-time Village Officers were abolished by Ordinance No. 1 of 1984 dated 6-1-1984. On 27-3-1985 the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Ordinance in T. Venkata Reddy's case, (supra). In that case it was lastly urged that the State Government may be asked to consider the cases of those petitioners who possess the prescribed qualifications for appointment as Village Assistants. The Court was informed that the number of posts of Village Assistants that are going to be created would be one-eighth of the number of posts of Part-time Village Officers which are abolished. The Supreme Court expressed that "it is difficult in law to issue any direction in that behalf in the facts and circumstances of the case". Having observed so, the Supreme Court however referred to the undertaking given by the Deputy Secretary. As the Government did not immediately create the posts some writ petitions were filed. The Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 1048, dated 11-9-1985 creating 4800 posts of Village Assistants. This was followed by G.O. Ms. No. 1056, Revenue dated 12-9-1985 framing ad hoc Rules for making appointments created in G.O. Ms. No. 1048. The Division Bench in Bommaraju Hanumantha Rao's case, (1986) 1 APLJ 398 : (1986 Lab 1C 1046) (supra), by Judgment dated 4-2-1986, issued a Writ of Mandamus holding that the ad hoc rules are invalid to the extent that they do not provide for the absorption of the erstwhile Village Officers. In another batch of Writ Petitions (W.P. Nos. 15392 and 13989 of 1986) which were filed questioning the Proviso to Rule 3 prescribing the age limit, a Division Bench of this Court held that the Government was bound to call for interview those erstwhile Village Officers who had not as on 25-10-1985, crossed the age of 34 years in the case of other communities, and the age of 39 years in the case of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes also allowing the erstwhile Village Officers to deduct the length of their service as Part-time Village Officer subject to a maximum of five years. The view taken by the High Court was questioned in R. K. Rama Rao's case, (supra). All these cases are the aftermath of the decision of the Supreme Court in T. Venkata Reddy's case, . In R. K. Rama Rao's case (supra), the appeals were allowed on 8-5-1987 and again a direction was given, as already mentioned, to absorb as Village Assistants all erstwhile Part-time Village Officers who have not attained the age of 58 years, if they possess the minimum educational qualification and are otherwise suitable for the appointment irrespective of their age. This direction is again based on the observations made in Venkata Reddy's case, 1985 SC 724 (supra), regarding the posts to be created and the manner of filling them up. After the disposal of R. K. Rama Rao's case, (supra), the Government did not implement the directions given therein. But after reopening of the Supreme Court after the summer vacation, a review petition was filed. The erstwhile Village Officers filed a contempt petn. (CMP No. 17418 of 1987) in the special leave petns. on 13-7-1987. The review petition was dismissed and notice was ordered on the contempt petition on 11-8-1987. In the order dismissing the review petition, the Government was once again directed to implement the order dated 8-5-1987 within four weeks from that day. Immediately the Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 789, Revenue, on 18-8-1987 for filling up the 4800 posts of Village Assistants sanctioned in G.O. Ms. No. 1048, dated 11-9-1985. On 24-8-1987 a notification was issued advising the qualified and eligible erstwhile Village Officers to appear before the District Collector concerned, on 2-9-1987. In the contempt petition (C.M.P. No. 17418 of 1987) the Chief Secretary and the Revenue Secretary filed counter-affidavits, and in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the counter-affidavits all these details including the number of posts created and the manner of filling them up are mentioned. The contempt petition was discharged on 7-9-1987 with the following observation :--
"In view of paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of (affidavit of) the Chief Secretary and paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the affidavit of the Revenue Secretary and G.O. Ms. No. 789, Revenue dated 18-8-1987, the contempt petition is discharged."
This order, in our view, is very important because there is a reference to G.O. Ms. No. 789, dated 18-8-1987. Paragraph 3 in the said G.O. reads thus : --
"The Government have considered the matter and they direct that the 4,800 posts of Village Assistants as sanctioned in G.O. Ms. No. 1048, Revenue, dated 11-9-1985 and distributed district-wise should be filled up as directed by the Supreme Court in its Judgment in S.L.P. Nos. 846 and 1804 of 1987, dated 8-5-1987, immediately. The Commissioner for Land Revenue, Hyderabad is requested to take necessary action in the matter accordingly."
It must be remembered that in the contempt case the Village Officers mainly contended that the Government has disregarded the undertaking given before the Supreme Court and that they should be directed to obey and implement the directions given on 8-5-1987 (in R. K. Rama Rao's case) and to punish them for contempt of Court. By way of a counter to this, the Chief Secretary and the Revenue Secretary filed their affidavits and the Supreme Court did not indicate that all the erstwhile qualified Village Officers should be absorbed.
13. Therefore, from the above discussion it emerges that the stand taken by the Government viz,, that the Supreme Court in Venkata Reddy's case, (supra) did not give any definite direction regarding the number of posts to be created and that on the other hand accepted the stand taken by the Government that only one-eighth of the number of posts of Part-time Village Officers which were abolished, are going to be created, and ultimately G.O. Ms. No. 789 was issued in which various writ petitions and the cases before the Supreme Court are referred to in the preamble, and that filling up of the 4800 posts as per the said G.O. amounts to complying with the direction of the Supreme Court in its Judgment in R.K. Rama Rao's case, (supra) appears to be correct. In the contempt petition their Lordships of the Supreme Court particularly referred to this G.O. and discharged the petition. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Supreme Court's directions in R. K. Rama Rao's case (supra), to carry out the directions given in T. Venkata Reddy's case, (supra) amount to absorbing all the qualified erstwhile Part-time Village Officers irrespective of the number of posts to be created.
14. As a matter of fact, in Bommaraju Hanumantha Rao's case. (1986) 1 APLJ 398 : (1986 Lab IC 1046) (supra), the directions given are thus :--
"We also direct the respondents to take all the necessary steps to appoint the erstwhile Village Officers who have the requisite educational and age qualifications as prescribed in Rule 6 of the Ad hoc rules, provided that they are physically fit and have not incurred any punishment during the course of their service as Village Officers without requiring them to acquire any new qualifications or to appear for any written examination or oral test, as early as possible, at any rate, within six months from today. In case, the number of posts sanctioned and created falls short of the number of eligible erstwhile Village Officers for selecting the most deserving among them on merits, the procedure as laid down in Rule 5 of the Ad hoc Rules with the difference that no M.L. A. would be nominated by the Government to be a member of the Special District Level Committee, would be followed."
These are all the directions given prior to the decision of the Supreme Court in R. K. Rama Rao's case, (supra). But even here, the above extracted direction of the Division Bench does not lead to the conclusion that all the erstwhile Village Officers were to be absorbed irrespective of the number of posts.
15. The learned Counsel for the petitioners however submitted that a similar assurance was given by the Tamil Nadu Government and the Supreme Court in K. Rajaram v. State of Tamil Nadu, gave a direction based on such an undertaking to absorb all the qualified Village Officers. There the question of number of posts to be created depending upon the expediency did not arise. At any rate, this (is) a contempt case and what we have to see is whether the directions given by the Full Bench in A.P. Village Officers' Association's case, (supra), have been flouted. We have already held that the Full Bench in A. P, Village Officers' Assn.'s case (supra), only directed the respondents to implement the directions given in R. K. Rama Rao's case, (supra) and those directions again in turn were issued to implement the directions given in T. Venkata Reddy's case, (supra). The fact that the Supreme Court discharged the contempt petition in CMP. No. 17418 of 1987 accepting what is contained in G.O. Ms. No. 789, dated 18-8-1987, provides a complete answer to the contentions raised in this contempt case.
16. Before parting with this case, we have to consider one more submission. It is submitted that the creation of 4800 posts at present is done in a designed manner with a view to by-pass the other qualified Village Officers who were thrown out and that in future the Government are going to create more number of posts and fill them up according to their own will and pleasure. About the future appointments, we cannot give any directions. As a matter of fact, in T. Venkata Reddy's case, (supra), the Supreme Court in the penultimate paragraph made a similar observation. However, from what had happened up-till now, we hope that in filling up the future vacancies, if so created, the Government may give the necessary weightage to the Village Officers who were thrown out of job, provided they still satisfy the other conditions. We are constrained to make this observation in view of the fact that because of the abolition of the posts of "Village Officers" many of them are rendered jobless though they served in that capacity for number of years.
17. For the foregoing reasons, the contempt case is dismissed, but under the circumstances without costs.
18. The Learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri S. Ramachandra Rao submits that the various directions given by the Supreme Court and the Government Orders require consideration by the Supreme Court. Therefore, leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is necessary. Accordingly, he made an oral application for grant of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
19. We do not think this case involved any substantial question of law of general importance which required to be decided by the Supreme Court. Hence, leave is refused.
_