Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.31 seconds)Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors vs Sri D. Janardhana Rao And Another on 23 September, 1976
17. From what is stated above, it is not clear what are the
reasons given for arriving at that conclusion. In other words, it
is not clear what is the ratio decidendi of that decision. Ratio
decidendi means the reason for deciding or the grounds for the
decision. The ratio decidendi alone binds as a precedent and not
the final conclusion. Further, the above view taken by the
W.A.No.983/2008 & connected cases 17
Division Bench of this Court cannot stand with the later decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Government of Andhra
Pradesh v. D.J.Rao [AIR 1977 SC 451]. It was a decision
dealing with the power of the Governor to grant relaxation of the
provisions of the general rules contained in the Andhra Pradesh
State and Subordinate Services Rules. Rule 47 interpreted by the
Apex Court was similar to Rule 39 of Kerala State and
Subordinate Services Rules. The Apex Court observed that
occasion for acting under Rule 47, the Rule which conferred
power on the Government to relax the provisions of the General
Rules, may arise after the attention of the Government is invited
to a case, where there has been a failure of justice. In such
cases, justice can be done only by exercising the power under
Rule 47 with retrospective effect. It was observed that otherwise
the purpose of the Rule will be largely frustrated. In the said
decision, the Apex Court observed as follows:
R. P. Khanna & Ors vs S.A.F. Abbas & Ors. Etc on 22 February, 1972
"8. Rule 47 of the Andhra Pradesh State
and Subordinate Services Rules gives power
to the Governor to relax the rigour of the
general rules in such manner as may appear to
him to be just and equitable. To show that
rule 47 giving such wide power to the
Government is not unique of its kind, counsel
W.A.No.983/2008 & connected cases 18
for the appellants referred to similar
provisions in several other Service Rules like
rule 13 of the Secretary of State's Services
(Medical Attendance) Rules 1938, rule 10 of
the Indian Administrative Service (Pay) Rules,
1954, rule 15 of the Indian Police Service
(Probation) Rules, 1954, Rule 10 of the Indian
Police Service (Pay) Rules, 1954 and Rule 10(b)
proviso, of the Indian Forest Service
(Appointment by Competitive Examination)
Regulations, 1967. Clearly, the power under
Rule 47 is to be exercised in the interest of
justice and equity. It is not difficult to see
that the occasion for acting under Rule 47
may well arise after the attention of the
Government is drawn to a case where there
has been a failure of justice. In such cases
justice can be done only by exercising the
power under R.47 with retrospective effect,
otherwise the object and purpose of the rule
will be largely frustrated. The view we take
finds support from the decision of this Court
in R.P.Khanna v. S.A.F. Abbas, (1972) 3 SCR
548 = (AIR 1972 SC 2350). In that case the
Court was dealing with R.3(3)(b) of the Indian
Administrative Service (Regulation of
Seniority) Rules, 1954 which lays down that
the year of allotment of an officer who was
appointed to the Service by promotion shall
be the year of allotment of the juniormost
among the officers who entered the service
by direct recruitment who officiated
continuously in a senior post from a date
earlier than the date of commencement of
W.A.No.983/2008 & connected cases 19
such officiation by the former. The second
proviso to the rule states that a promotee
shall be deemed to have officiated
continuously in a senior post prior to the date
of inclusion of his name in the select list
prepared in accordance with the requirements
of the Indian Administrative Service
(Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, if
the period of such officiation prior to that
date was approved by the Central Government
in consultation with the Union Public Service
Commission. Overruling a contention raised on
behalf of the direct recruits that it was not
open to the State to make a retrospective
declaration with regard to posts being made
equivalent to senior posts, this Court
observed:
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 12A in Kerala Education Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Esther B.S vs State Of Kerala on 29 May, 2007
16. Going by the above Rule, a Manager cannot be
appointed as a teacher or non-teaching staff of the school. Sub-
rule (2) of the above Rule prohibits appointment of the persons
specified therein as Manager. If a Manager cannot act as a
teacher, it would imply that a teacher cannot function as
Manager also. Apparently, the above legal position persuaded
the Manager to seek exemption from the rigour of the said Rule,
so that, she can function as Manager as well as the Principal of
the School. The learned Single Judge found the order bad,
mainly, relying on the decision of the Division Bench of this
Court in Esther v. State of Kerala [1989(1) KLT 621]. In that
W.A.No.983/2008 & connected cases 16
decision, relaxation in favour of a person, who is not covered by
the Rules was granted. That was the main point highlighted in
the said decision. But, in this case, we notice that the 4th
respondent is definitely a person governed by the provisions of
the K.E.R. She was seeking relaxation of the rules, so that, she
can function as the Principal of the School and Manger of it,
simultaneously. So, the principles laid down in the above said
decision cannot have any application to the facts of this case.
The learned Judge also relied on the decision of this Court in
[1976 KLT Sh. Notes 7 (case no.16)]. The reported portion of
that decision reads as follows:
1