The State of Telangana & Anr. vs B. Subba Rayudu and Others

HELD: 1. The Respondent No.1 was however, allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh, ignoring his option for the State of Telangana and in violation of the Guidelines issued vide G.O.Ms No. 312 dated 30th October 2014. The allocation was also in contravention of the requirement of Clause (f) of Paragraph 18 directing that allocation shall be done in order of seniority as available. On behalf of the Respondent No.1, it was rightly contended that the spouse of the Respondent No.1 who had been born and educated in the State of Telangana had to be treated as a local candidate of the State of Telangana. As a spouse, the Respondent No.1 ought to have been allocated to the State of Telangana. [Paras 49-50][371-B, D-E]

2. Admittedly, at the time of bifurcation of the State of Andhra Pradesh, the Petitioner was posted in an area which falls with Telangana. The Petitioner was required to exercise an option, which he admittedly did. It is not in dispute that 9 posts out of total 23 posts were allocated to the State of Telangana and 14 to the State of Andhra Pradesh. As per guidelines, allocable employees were to be considered on the basis of seniority as on 1st June 2014. [Para 56][377-C]

3. As found by the High Court, the Petitioner’s position was 4th inseniority in the composite State of Andhra Pradesh as on 1st June 2014. The 3 people, senior to him, were all local candidate of Andhra Pradesh, who had opted for Andhra Pradesh. The Respondent No.1 was senior most of the employees who opted for Telangana. The High Court found that the Respondent No.1 had denied allocation to Telangana on a “strange interpretation of Clause (f) of paragraph 18 of the Guidelines, giving no weight to seniority. The High Court found on facts that no importance at all had been given to the fact that the spouse of the Respondent No.1 was a local of Telangana. [Para 57][377-DE]

4. On a possible interpretation of the Guidelines read with the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment Order 1975 and, in particular, paragraph 4 thereof, the High Court found that the Respondent No.1 was local candidate of the State of Telangana. Admittedly, he studied from Class VIII to X at Khammam which is in the State of Telangana. He thereafter did his Bachelor of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry and Master of Veterinary Science at the college of Veterinary Science, AP, Agricultural University at Hyderabad. He studied in that institution for 7 years from 1985 to 1992 being the year in which he appeared in the qualifying examination. [Para 58][377-F-G]

5. Under the Constitution, India is a Union of States. Every part of every State is an integral and inseverable part of India. Admittedly, the Respondent was born in India. He has his domicile in the territory of India. As held by this Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, under the Indian Constitution, there is only one domicile i.e. domicile of the country and there is no separate domicile for a State. [Para 59][377-H; 378-A]

6. It is not in dispute that the respondent has his domicile in the Territory of India and was born in the territory of India. Admittedly, he is a citizen of this country. As a citizen of India, the respondent has a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India. [Para 63][378E-F]

7. Under Article 13 (2) of the Constitution of India prohibits the State from making any law which takes away or infringes the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution of India and any law made in contravention of Article 13(2), to the extent of the contravention would be void. [Para 64][378-F-G]

8. The Andhra Pradesh State Reorganisation Act, 2014 or any other guidelines framed thereunder, including the guidelines circulated on 30.10.2014 cannot take away from citizens, the right to reside and settle in any part of the country. [Para 66][379-A]

9. It is true that when a State is divided and the employees and officers of the State Government have to be allotted to the two states, such allocation has to be done on the basis of the Rules and Regulations and by guidelines. [Para 67][379-B]

10. However, such rules, regulations and guidelines have to be construed harmoniously with the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. It is true that the respondent may have been born in an area which now forms part of Andhra Pradesh and may have received a substantial part of his education in areas which now form part of the State of Andhra Pradesh. However, admittedly, he cleared all Board and University examinations from areas within the State of Telangana. At the time of bifurcation, he was posted in Hyderabad, which is now part of Telangana. [Para 68][379-C-D]

11. The guidelines circulated on 30.10.2014 for allocation of employees and officers to the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh are directory and not inflexible. On a liberal interpretation of the guidelines in the light of the philosophy of the Indian Constitution read with Andhra Pradesh Public Employment Order, 1975, which was in force at the time of bifurcation, and is applicable to the respondent even under the Guidelines referred to above, the High Court rightly arrived at the conclusion that the respondent was a local candidate of Telangana and was entitled to allocation as per his seniority in terms of Paragraph 18(f) of the guidelines. Furthermore, admittedly, the spouse of the respondent was a local candidate of Telangana. [Para 69][379-D-F]

Suriyakala v. A. Mohandoss and Ors (2007) 9 SCC

196 : [2007] 2 SCR 419 ; M/s Bengal Chemical and Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Their Employees AIR 1959 SC 633 : [1959] Suppl. SCR 136; Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala and Another (2000) 6 SCC 359 : [2000] 1 Suppl. SCR 538; State of Bombay v. Rusy Mistry AIR 1960 SC 391; Municipal Board, Pratabgarh and Another v. Mahendra Singh Chawla and Others (1982) 3 SCC 331; Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 2003 SC 2889 : [2003] 1 Suppl. SCR 674; Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India AIR 1984 SC 1420 : [1984] 3 SCR 942 – referred to.