- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Govt. Of A.P And Another v. B. Satyanarayana Rao (Dead) By Lrs. And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The controversy concerns the method of filling vacancies in the post of Regional Transport Officer (RTO) in the Andhra Pradesh Transport Department. The Andhra Pradesh Transport Services Rules, framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, permit three modes of appointment to the RTO post: (i) direct recruitment; (ii) promotion of Motor Vehicles Inspectors; and (iii) recruitment by transfer from Superintendents of the State Transport Authority, Superintendents of subordinate offices, and Section Officers of the Secretariat (excluding the Law, Finance and Legislature Departments).
Specific vacancies—labelled the second and fourth in a seven-vacancy rotation—were filled by transferring Superintendents of the State Transport Authority and Section Officers of the Secretariat to the RTO post. Employees working in the offices of the Regional Transport Officers challenged these appointments before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, which held that the transfers violated the Presidential Order of 1975 and set the appointments aside.
The affected appointees and the State of Andhra Pradesh filed Special Leave Petitions (SLPs). Permission to file the SLPs was granted, delay was condoned, and leave was ultimately granted, converting the SLPs into the present civil appeals.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether vacancies in the post of Regional Transport Officer may lawfully be filled by recruitment by transfer of (a) Section Officers of the Secretariat and (b) Superintendents of the Office of the State Transport Authority, under the Andhra Pradesh Transport Services Rules.
- Whether such transfers are prohibited by, or contrary to, para 5(2) of the Presidential Order of 1975 creating local cadres and zones.
- Whether the earlier Supreme Court decision in State of A.P. v. V. Sadanandam, 1989 Supp (1) SCC 574, governs the present controversy and precludes a contrary interpretation.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- The matter is squarely covered by State of A.P. v. V. Sadanandam, which upheld the State Government’s power under para 5(2) of the Presidential Order to fill vacancies across zones by transfer when public interest so requires.
- Para 5(2) confers an overriding authority on the State Government, permitting recruitment by transfer notwithstanding local-cadre restrictions.
Respondents' Arguments
- Sadanandam should be treated as per incuriam because it allegedly failed to consider certain relevant provisions of the applicable Rules; alternatively, the present case should be referred to a larger Bench.
- Para 5(2) authorises only a lateral transfer to an equivalent post, not “recruitment by transfer” to a promotional post such as RTO.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| State of A.P. v. V. Sadanandam, 1989 Supp (1) SCC 574; (1989) 11 ATC 391 | Para 5(2) of the Presidential Order confers overriding power on the State Government to fill vacancies by transfer in the interest of public administration. | The Court treated Sadanandam as directly governing the present dispute, rejected the respondents’ per-incuriam argument, and applied its reasoning to uphold the impugned transfers. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court began by identifying that the core controversy had already been addressed in Sadanandam. It examined the respondents’ submission that Sadanandam was rendered per incuriam and concluded that the doctrine was inapplicable because no binding precedent or relevant statutory provision had been overlooked in that earlier decision.
It further held that a coordinate Bench is bound by an earlier coordinate-Bench decision unless subsequent changes in law undermine its authority, which was not demonstrated here. Consequently, a reference to a larger Bench was unwarranted.
Addressing the specific construction of para 5(2) of the Presidential Order, the Court reiterated Sadanandam’s view that the phrase “nothing in this Order shall prevent the State Government from making provision for …” grants an explicit overriding power, enabling the State Government to fill vacancies by transfer—even where such action diverges from local-cadre promotional expectations—in the interest of public administration.
Finding the Tribunal’s contrary reasoning erroneous, the Court concluded that the impugned appointments were lawful under the Rules read with the Presidential Order.
Holding and Implications
APPEALS ALLOWED; JUDGMENTS OF THE ANDHRA PRADESH ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL SET ASIDE; NO ORDER AS TO COSTS.
Immediate Effect: The appointments of Section Officers of the Secretariat and Superintendents of the State Transport Authority to the posts of Regional Transport Officer stand reinstated. Broader Implication: The decision reaffirms the binding authority of Sadanandam and clarifies that, under para 5(2) of the Presidential Order of 1975, the Andhra Pradesh Government possesses an overriding power to fill vacancies by transfer when administrative exigencies so require. No new legal doctrine is created; the Court fortifies existing precedent.
Order
1. Permission to file SLP granted. Impleadment application allowed.
2. Delay condoned.
3. Leave granted.
4. The short question that arises in these appeals is whether the post of Regional Transport Officer in the Department of Transport can be filled in by transfer of Section Officers of the Secretariat and Superintendents of the Office of the State Transport Authority. The recruitment to the posts of Regional Transport Officers are governed by the Rules known as the Andhra Pradesh Transport Services Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”). Rule 3(a) provides the method of recruitment to the post of Regional Transport Officer. Rule 3(a) reads as under:
“Category IV: Regional Transport Officer—
1. By direct recruitment.
2. By promotion from among Motor Vehicles Inspectors
3. By recruitment by transfer from among:
(i) Superintendents of the Office of the State Transport Authority;
(ii) Superintendents of the subordinate offices; and
(iii) Section Officers of the Secretariat except Law, Finance and Legislature Departments.”
5. Rule 3(a) further provides that the first vacancy in the post of Regional Transport Officer is to go to the Motor Vehicles Inspector. The second vacancy is meant for Superintendents of the Office of the State Transport Authority. The third vacancy is to go to Motor Vehicles Inspectors. The fourth vacancy is earmarked for Section Officers of the Secretariat. The fifth vacancy is for Superintendents of subordinate offices of the Multizone. The sixth vacancy is for Motor Vehicles Inspectors. The seventh vacancy is meant for Superintendents of subordinate offices of the Multizone. It is against the second and fourth vacancies, the employees working as Superintendents in the Office of the State Transport Authority and as Section Officers in the Secretariat were appointed as Regional Transport Officers by transfer. The said appointments were challenged by the employees working in the Office of the Regional Transport Officers.
6. The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal found that the appointments of Superintendents in the Office of the State Transport Authority and Section Officers working in the Secretariat to the posts of Regional Transport Officers are contrary to the Presidential Order of 1975. Consequentially, their appointments were set aside. It is against the said order and judgment the appointees whose appointments were set aside and the State of Andhra Pradesh are in appeal before us.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that this matter stands concluded by a decision of this Court in the case of State of A.P v. V. Sadanandam 1989 Supp (1) SCC 574, (1989) 11 ATC 391 wherein it was held that overriding power has been given to the State Government under para 5(2) of the Presidential Order in express terms in recognition of the principle that public interest and administrative exigencies have precedence over the promotional interest of the members of the local cadres and zones and therefore, the State Government by order of transfer can fill the vacancies on the posts in different zones, as contemplated under the Rules.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent attempted to convince us that the decision in the case of State of A.P v. V. Sadanandam 1989 Supp (1) SCC 574, (1989) 11 ATC 391 has to be ignored on the principle of per incuriam as certain relevant provisions of the Rules were not considered in the said case, and in any case this case requires to be referred to a larger Bench of three Judges. The rule of per incuriam can be applied where a court omits to consider a binding precedent of the same court or the superior court rendered on the same issue or where a court omits to consider any statute while deciding that issue. This is not the case here. In State of A.P v. V. Sadanandam 1989 Supp (1) SCC 574, (1989) 11 ATC 391 the controversy was exactly the same as it is here and this Court after considering para 5 of the Presidential Order of 1975 held that the Government has power to fill a vacancy in a zone by transfer. We, therefore, find that the rule of per incuriam cannot be invoked in the present case. Moreover, a case cannot be referred to a larger Bench on mere asking of a party. A decision by two Judges has a binding effect on another coordinate Bench of two Judges, unless it is demonstrated that the said decision by any subsequent change in law or decision ceases to laying down a correct law. We, therefore, reject the arguments of learned counsel for the respondents.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents then urged that in any case para 5(2) of the Presidential Order does not permit the recruitment by transfer and the only power of the State Government under para 5(2) of the Presidential Order is to pass simpliciter order of transfer on an equivalent post. This very argument was also advanced in the case of State of A.P v. Sadanandam 1989 Supp (1) SCC 574, (1989) 11 ATC 391. The relevant para 15 is extracted below:
“15. In the first place, we must point out that the Tribunal has failed to construe para 5(2) of the Presidential Order in its proper perspective and give full effect to the powers conferred thereunder on the State Government to make provisions contrary to the scheme of local cadres prescribed under para 5(1). The words of sub-para (2) of para 5 viz. ‘nothing in this order shall prevent the State Government from making provision for’ sets out the overriding powers given to the State Government under the sub-para. Such overriding powers have been given to the State Government in express terms in recognition of the principle that public interest and administrative exigencies have precedence over the promotional interests of the members belonging to local cadres and zones. Since para 5(2) also forms a part of the Presidential Order, it forms part of the scheme envisaged for creating local cadres and zones. The Tribunal was, therefore, in error in taking the view that if the State Government was to exercise its powers under para 5(2) and make provision for promotion of UD Assistants in the Directorate and Assistant Section Officers in the Secretariat to be transferred to posts in Zones I to IV, it will be the very negation of the creation of cadres and zones under para 5(1) and it will be destructive of the scheme underlying the Presidential Order. In fact the Tribunal has realised the operative force of para 5(2) to some extent but it has failed to give full effect to its realisation of the scope of Section 5(2). In para 12 of its judgment in RP No. 1595 of 1983 the Tribunal has stated that since the amended Rule refers to para 5(2) of the Presidential Order ‘it will no longer be open to the petitioners to attack the amendment as was done in respect of the earlier amendment in the previous RP’. The Tribunal has thus noticed that the amended Rule has been brought about by the Government in exercise of its powers under para 5(2) but it has failed to draw the logical inference following therefrom.”
10. Following the decision in the case of State of A.P v. Sadanandam 1989 Supp (1) SCC 574, (1989) 11 ATC 391 we reject the arguments of counsel for the respondents.
11. For the aforesaid reasons these appeals deserve to be allowed. We accordingly set aside the judgments and orders under appeal. The appeals are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Alert