Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Though teachers, working in Panchayat Raj institutions, were not organized into a local cadre, teachers in Government Schools were organized as such in each district. Consequently, in terms of Para 5(1) of the 1975 Presidential Order, each District is a separate unit for the purposes of recruitment, appointment, discharge, seniority, promotion and transfer of teachers in Government Schools. It is in terms of Para 5(1) of the 1975 Presidential Order that Rule 9 of G.O.Ms.No.11 dated 23.01.2009, which relates to teachers in Government schools, stipulates that, for the purposes of recruitment, appointment, seniority, discharge for want of vacancy, promotion, transfer and reappointment, the unit of appointment shall be the Revenue District. Reading the words "Revenue District" in the adhoc Rules notified in G.O.Ms.No.9 dated 23.01.2009 as the existing 31 districts, would render Rule 9 thereof ultravires the Presidential Order which recognizes only the erstwhile 10 districts as the districts within which alone should local cadres be organized and be treated as a unit.

As the 2018 Rules were made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, such Rules are Legislative in character and can only be struck down if they are ultravires Part III or any of the provisions of the Constitution of India. Even if the source of power to make the 2018 Rules is traced to Sections 78 and 99 of the A.P. Education Act, conferment of rule-making power by an Act does not enable the rule-making authority to make a rule which travels beyond the scope of the enabling Act or which is inconsistent therewith or repugnant thereto. (State of Karnataka v. H. Ganesh Kamath28), and a protection given by the statute cannot be nullified by Rules authorised by the Statute. (Management, D.T.U. v. B.B.L. Hajelay29). Even if the 2018 Rules are held to be subordinate legislation, as they were made under Sections 78 and 99 of the A.P. Education Act, such Rules can be impeached only if it is ultravires the Parent Act (i.e the A.P. Education Act) or any other law in force or in violation of any of the provisions of the Constitution. It is not even contended that the 2018 Rules fall foul of any law made either by Parliament or the State Legislature. The only question is whether Rule 2 of the 2018 Rules contravenes Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India?

It is only if the petitioners are held to have established that Rule 2 of the 2018 Rules violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, would we be justified in striking it down as ultravires Part III of the Constitution. A complaint, of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, cannot be judged by adopting a doctrinaire approach. It is not prudent or pragmatic to insist on mathematical accuracy in view of the inherent complexities involved. (State of Karnataka v. Mangalore University Non-Teaching Employees Association30). There is no requirement of mathematical exactness for determining the validity, as long as it is not palpably arbitrary. 28 (1983) 2 SCC 402 29 (1972) 2 SCC 744 30 (2002) 3 SCC 302 (State of Maharashtra v. Indian Hotel & Restaurants Assn.31; Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar32; Welfare Association, A.R.P. v. Ranjit P. Gohili33; Shashikant Laxman Kale v. Union of India34). The Rule making authority enjoys considerable latitude, and exercises its power enriched by its experience and taking into consideration myriad circumstances. (Ombalika Das v. Hulisa Shaw35). Precision and arithmetical accuracy will not exist in any categorisation, and such precision and accuracy is not what Article 14 contemplates. As long as the broad features of the categorisation are identifiable and distinguishable, and the categorisation is reasonably connected with the object targeted, Article 14 does not forbid such a course of action. (Subramanian Swamy v. Raju36; Murthy Match Works v. CCE37; Roop Chand Adlakha v. DDA38; Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab39; Basheer v. State of Kerala40; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Gopal D. Tirthani41; B. Manmad Reddy v. Chandra Prakash Reddy42 and Transport and Dock Workers Union v. Mumbai Port Trust43).

16. (P. Murugesan60). It is only if the 2018 Rules are held ultravires Part III or any other provisions of the Constitution can they be struck down.

It is contended, on behalf of the petitioners, that once power is exercised to make Rules under any enactment (in this case under Sections 78 and 99 of the A.P. Education Act, 1982), the rule making power under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, is not available to the State; and non- compliance with the procedural requirements of Section 99(3) of the A.P. Education Act would render the 2018 Rules illegal, and liable to be struck-down.