Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

20. Against that Order of the Tribunal, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh came in appeal (C.A. 278 of 1978) by special leave to this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.

21. The first contention of Shri Lal Narain Sinha, appearing for the appellants, is that in the context of basic and fundamental principles underlying the Constitution relating to the judiciary including the High Court, officers and servants of the High Court and members of the judicial services are outside the scope of Article 371-D of the Constitution. It is urged that the general expressions indicating class or classes of posts in Article 371-D (3) must be given a restricted interpretation which is in harmony with this basic scheme of the Constitution.

24. In the alternative, Shri Sarathy submitted that the subject-matter of this case will fall within the purview of sub-clause (c) of Clause (3) of Article 371-D, because (i) compulsory retirement is a condition of service, and (ii) the 1st respondent was a person appointed to a post in a "civil service of the State" within the contemplation of the said Clause. According to Shri Sarathy, even if an order issued by the President under Clause (3) of Article 371-D abridges, curtails or takes away the powers vested in the Chief Justice under Art. 229, or in the High Court under Articles 226 and 235, or is contrary to the constitutional scheme of securing independence of the judiciary, such a result was intended to be brought about by the amendment of the Constitution as is clear from the non obstante provision in Clause (10) of this Article. Shri Sarathy further invited our attention to the definition of the expression "public post"

42. In sum, the entire scheme of Chapters V and VI in Part VI epitomised in Articles 229 and 235, has been assiduously designed by the Founding Fathers to insure independence of the High Court and the subordinate judiciary.

43. The state is now set for noticing the provision of Article 371-D and the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal Order, 1975, made by the President in exercise of the powers conferred by Clauses (3) and (4) of this Article. Article 371-D was inserted in the Constitution with effect from July 1, 1974 by the Constitution (Thirtysecond Amendment) Act, 1973. This Article as its heading shows, makes "special provisions with respect to the State of Andhra Pradesh". Cl.(1) of the Article authorises the President to provide by order"

78. The 'officers and servants of the High Court' and the members of the Judicial Service, including District Judges, being outside the purview of Clause (3), the non obstante provision in Clause (10) cannot operate to take away the administrative or judicial jurisdiction of the Chief Justice or of the High Court, as the case may be, under Arts. 229, 235 and 226 of the Constitution in regard to these public servants in matters or disputes falling within the scope of the said Articles. Clause (10) will prevail over any provisions of the Constitution, other than those which are outside the ambit of Article 371-D, such as Article 229 and 235. Provisions not otherwise covered by Article 371-D, cannot be brought within its sweep because of the non obstante Clause (10). It follows as a necessary corollary that nothing in the Order of the President constituting the Administrative Tribunal, confers jurisdiction on the Tribunal to entertain, deal with or decide the representation by a member of the staff of the High Court or of the Subordinate Judiciary.