Telangana High Court
Dr Kamatham Madhusudhan, Hyderabad. vs Union Of India, Training,New Delhi, 6 ... on 21 March, 2022
Author: Satish Chandra Sharma
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 50 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 51 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:- 4
(2013) 1 SCC 745 52 "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] .") 53
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 5 (2016) 5 SCC 1 54 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 55 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.
56
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.
57
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 58 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.
59
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 60 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.
61W.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 62 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 63 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. 64 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 65 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 66 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 67 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 68 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 69 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 70 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 71 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 72 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 73 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 74 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 75 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.
76W.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 77 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 78 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 79 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 80 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.
81W.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 82 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 83 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 84 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 85 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.
86
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 87 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.
88
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 89 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.
90
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. 91
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.
92
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 93 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. 94 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 95 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 96 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 97 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 98 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 99 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 100 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.
101W.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 102 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 103 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 104 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 105 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 106 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 107 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 108 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 109 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 110 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 111 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 112 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