| Headnote |
Constitution of India 1950-Article 371-D and Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal Order 1975 - Scope and effect of - An officer of the High Court and a Subordinate Judge compulsorily retired-Administrative Tribunal held the retirement orders invalid - Administrative Tribunal whether has jurisdiction to entertain, deal with or decide the representation by a member of the staff of the High Court or of subordinate Judiciary - Scope of Articles 229 and 235. Article 371-D (3) inserted by the Constitution (Thirty-Second Amendment) Act 1973, empowers the President to constitute an Administrative Tribunal for the State of Andhra Pradesh to exercise such jurisdiction, powers and authority which immediately before the amendment was exercisable by any Court, tribunal or authority in respect of appointment, allotment or promotion to posts in the Civil Services of the State, under the State or under the control of any !ocal authority within the state, Clause (10) provides that the provisions of the Article and any order made by the President thereunder, shall have effect notwithstanding any other provision of the Constitution or in any other law for the time being in force.Para 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal Order, 1975 issued by the President, setting up the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, provides that the Tribunal shall have 'all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable by all Courts with respect to appointment, allotment or promotion to any public post, seniority of persons appointed, allotted or promoted to such post and all other conditions of service of such persons'. The first Respondent in C.A. No. 2826 /77 was a former employee of the High Court. He originally belonged to the High Court service. After being on deputation with the Central and State Governments for some years he rejoined the High Court service as Assistant Registrar and was later promoted as Deputy Registrar. The Chief Justice of the High Court in exercise of his powers under Article 229 of the Constitution read with the relevant rules, passed an order, dated January 3, 1969, compulsorily retiring the respondent from service. who by then had attained the age of 50 years. His writ petition assailing the orders of compulsory retirement, was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that the jurisdiction of the High Court which was hitherto being exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution to correct orders of the Chief Justice on the administrative side with regard to conditions of service of officers of the High Court, vested in the Administrative Tribunal by reason of clause 6(1) of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal Order made by the President under Article 371-D of the Constitution. The respondent thereafter moved the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, which set aside the impugned order on the ground, that it was arbitrary, and amounted to a penalty of dismissal or removal from service and, as such, was hit by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The respondent in C.A. No. 278/78 was a member of the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service working as a Subordinate Judge. He was prematurely retired in public interest by an order of the State Government on the recommendation of the High Court. The respondent's contention that in the case of Subordinate Judges, the High Court being the appointing authority, the Governor had no power or jurisdiction to pass an order of premature retirement of a member of the State Judicial Service, was accepted by the Tribunal, and the impugned order was set aside. In the appeals against both the orders of the Administrative Tribunal. it was contended before this Court by the appellants that Article 371-D of the Constitution should be construed harmoniously with the basic scheme underlying Chapters V and VI in Part VI of the Constitution; and so construed, the general expression, such as "class or classes of posts", "Civil Services of the State" etc. in Clause (3) of this Article will not include posts/members of the High Court staff and the Subordinate Judiciary, with the result that the impugned orders of the Administrative Tribunal are without jurisdiction and nullities.On the other hand, the respondents contended that the phrase ''any Civii Service of the State" in clause (3) of this Article interpreted in its widest sense, includes the members of the High Court staff and the Subordinate Judiciary; that even if such an interpretation is contrary to the Constitutional scheme of "Securing independence of the judiciary, such a result was intended to be brought about by insertion of Article 371-D, the non-obstante provision in Clause (10) of which gives it an over riding effect. |
