NDLI: J. Pandurangarao Vs. Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission

J. Pandurangarao Vs. Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission

Content Provider: Supreme Court of India

Please Log-in to view this content

If you are not a registered user, please register first and then use the e-mail id and password to log-in.

Advisory jurisdiction

Arbitration petition

Civil miscellaneous petition

Contempt petition civil

Contempt petition criminal

Criminal appeal

Criminal miscellaneous petition

Curative petition Criminal

Curative petition civil

Death reference case

Disciplinary jurisdiction

Election petition civil

Habeas corpus petition

Miscellaneous application

Review petition civil

Review petition criminal

Special leave petition civil

Special leave petition criminal

Special reference case

Suo moto contempt petition civil

Suo moto contempt petition criminal

Suo moto transfer petition civil

Suo moto transfer petition criminal

Suo moto writ petition civil

Suo moto writ petition criminal

Tax reference case

Transfer petition civil

Transfer petition criminal

Transferred case civil

Transferred case criminal

Writ petition civil

Smt. Ujjam Bai Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Lachhman Das on Behalf of Firm Tilak Ram Ram Bux Vs. State of Punjab and Others

J. Pandurangarao Vs. Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission

Kunj Beharilal Agarwal Vs. Union of India

M/s. Chhotabhai Jethabhai Patel & Co. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Raja Jagannath Baksh Singh Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Another

Smt. Somavanti and Others Vs. The State of Punjab and Others

Shivdev Singh Vs. The State of Punjab

Rev. Sidhajbhai Sabha and Others Vs. State of Bombay and Another

Khandige Sham Bhat and Others Vs. The Agricultural Income Tax Officer

State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. State of Mysore

British India Corporation Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

M. R. Balaji and Others Vs. State. of Mysore

Pioneer Traders and Others Vs. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports Pondicherry

Bridge & Roof Co. (india) Ltd. Vs. Union of India

Adhyaksha Mathur Babu's Sakti Oushadhalaya Dacca (p) Ltd. and Others Vs. Union of India

Jagannath Sonu Parkar Vs. State of Maharashtra

Roop Chand Vs. State of Punjab

Mohmedalli and Others Vs. Union of India and Another

Mahendra Lal Jaini Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others

Prem Chand Garg Vs. Excise Commissioner, U. P. Allahabad

Heggade Janardhan Subbarye Vs. The State of Mysore and Another

The Karimtharuvi Tea Estates Ltd., Kottayam & Anr. Vs. State of Kerala & Ors.

Travancore Rubber & Tea Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State of Kerala & Anr.

Jay Engineering Works Ltd. and Others Vs. The Union of India and Others

Akadasi Padhan Vs. State of Orissa

Writ petition criminal

J. Pandurangarao Vs. Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Constitutional validity Appointment Andhra State Judicial Service Rules Notification laying down conditions State Judicial Service
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case Type	Writ Petition
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Petition Allowed
Headnote	State Judicial Service —Appointment—Notification laying down conditions—Constitutional validity—The High Court Meaning of—Andhra State Judicial Service Rules, r. 12(b)— Constitution of India, Arts. 14, 16 (2). In January 1962, the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission invited applications for selection for the posts of District Munsifs in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner applied but his application was rejected on the ground that he did not fulfil the first condition in para 4A(1) of the Commission, notification which reads thus:—4-A(1)—"that at the time when the petitioner applies he is practising as an Advocate of the High Court”. The question is whether the expression “The High Court” in the notification refers to the Andhra High Court alone or to all the High Courts in India. If the expression means the Andhra High Court then the further question would be whether the Rule prescribing the said requirement is ultra vires as being discriminatory. The ‘Clause in the notification is based on r. 12(b) of the Andhra State Judicial Service Rules and reads that “no person shall be eligible for appointment to the post of District Munsiff by the method specified in column (1) of the table below unless he possess the qualifications specified in the corresponding entries in column (2) thereof” and among the qualifications specified is the same as in 4(A) (1) of the notification.Held, that the subject matter of the rules is the appointment of subordinate judicial officers who would work in courts subordinate to the Andhra -High Court, and so, the use of the definite pronoun “The” in the expression “the High Court” clearly indicates that it is not any High Court that is intended but it is the particular High Court of Andhra Pradesh that is in view. Therefore the expression "the High Court” in the context means the Andhra High Court.Held, further, that though Art. 14 forbids class Legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation. When any impugned rules or statutory provision is assailed on the ground that it contravenes Art. 14, its validity can be sustained if two tests are satisfied. The first test is that the classification on which it is founded must be based on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things grouped together from others left out of the group; and the second is that the differentia in question must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by the rule or statutory provision in question. The classification on which the statutory provision may be founded may be referable to different considerations. It may be based on geographical considerations or it may have reference to objects or occupations or the like. In every case, there must be some nexus between the basis of the classification and the object intended to be achieved by the statute.The plea that all the rules must be considered together is entirely misconceived. It is quite clear that in testing the validity of any one of these rules, the true scope and effect of the impugned rule itself will have to be considered and the decision of the question would have to be confined to the relevant considerations in respect of the said rule and nomore, Just as the presence of one invalid rule cannot invalidate the other rules which may be valid, so the presence of a number of valid rules would not help to validate an impugned rule if it is otherwise invalid.There is no rational basis for differentiating the advocates enrolled into the Andhra High Court from the rest as the impugned rule purports to do. If the basis of the impugned rule is that a person who applies for appointment to the post of a District Munsiff, should have been enrolled as an Advocate of a High Court, that basis can be satisfied even if the person is enrolled as an Advocate not of the Andhra High Court but of any other High Court. All the High Courts have the same status; all of them stand for the same high traditions of the Bar and the administration of justice. The impugned rule has introduced a classification between one class of Advocates and the rest, and the said classification must be said to be irrational inasmuch as there is no nexus between the basis of the said classification and the object intended to be achieved by the relevant scheme of rules. The impugned rule and the corresponding portion of the paragraph of the notification based on it must be held to be ultra vires and unconstitutional.
Judge	Honble Mr. Justice P.B. Gajendragadkar
Neutral Citation	1962 INSC 136
Petitioner	J. Pandurangarao
Respondent	Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission
SCR	[1963] 1 S.C.R. 707
Judgement Date	1962-04-11
Case Number	355

Central Library (ISO-9001:2015 Certified)
Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur
Kharagpur, West Bengal, India | PIN - 721302

See location in the Map
03222 282435
Mail: support@ndl.gov.in

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in