/2022 INSC 0800/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PEITTION (C) NOS. 1565­66 OF 2021]
THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR.    ......PETITIONERS
VERSUS
B. SUBBA RAYUDU AND OTHERS             ....RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
INDIRA BANERJEE J.
These Special Leave Petitions are against a final judgment and order
dated   8 th
  December   2020   whereby   the   High   Court   for   the   State   of
Telangana and  for  the State of  Andhra  Pradesh  at  Hyderabad, allowed  the
Writ   Petitions   filed   by   the   Respondent   No.1   being   Writ   Petition   (TR.)   No.
5482 of 2017 and Writ Petition No. 24820 of 2017, set aside an order being
F.   No.   29/01/2016­SR(S)   dated   14 th
  January   2016   of   the   Ministry   of
Personnel, PG and Pensions and directed the Ministry of Personnel, PG and
Pensions   to   allocate   the   Respondent   to   the   State   of   Telangana   with   effect
from   14 th
  January   2016.       The   State   of   Telangana   was   directed   to   give   a
1

posting   to   the   Respondent   in   the   cadre   of   Joint   Director­Class   A   in   the
Animal   Husbandry   Department   of   the   State   of   Telangana   and   also   pay
salary   to   the   Respondent   as   Joint   Director­Class   A   in   the   Animal
Husbandry   Department   within   four   weeks   from   the   date   of   the   judgment
and order.
2. The Respondent No.1, a member of a Scheduled Tribe, held the State
Cadre post of Joint Director­Class A in the Animal Husbandry Department
of the undivided State of Andhra Pradesh.   Smt. B. Shanthabai, wife of the
Respondent   No.1,   was   also   a   State   Government   employee   working   as
Assistant Registrar in the same State. 
3. By   a   Notification   No.S.O.655B   dated   4 th
  March   2014,   the   Central
Government   notified   the   Andhra   Pradesh   Reorganisation   Act,   2014
bifurcating   the   State   of   Andhra   Pradesh   into   two   States­   the   new   State   of
Telangana   and   the   residue   state   of   Andhra   Pradesh   with   effect   from   2 nd
June 2014.
4. In   terms   of   Section   80   of   the   Andhra   Pradesh   Reorganisation   Act,
2014,   the   Central   Government   issued   a   Circular   being   F.   No.
27/13/213/SRS   dated   29 th
  October   2014   laying   down   guidelines   for
allocation   of   employees   to   the   States   of   Telangana   and   Andhra   Pradesh,
respectively.
5. As per the said Guidelines and in particular Paragraph No. 12 Clause
(vii)   thereof,   no   allocable   posts   were   to   be   omitted   while   distributing   the
cadre strength between the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh.   
2

6. By   a   Circular   being   G.O.   Ms.312   dated   30 th
  October   2014,   the
Government of Andhra Pradesh circulated the approved Guidelines for final
allocation   of   State   Government   Employees   to   All   India   Services   under   the
Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014.  Some of the relevant provisions
of the Guidelines are set out hereinbelow for convenience: 
“ 18 . The   following   principles   and   procedure   shall   guide   the   final
allocation of personnel:
a) Persons   who   immediately   before   the   appointed   day   are   serving
on   substantive   basis   in   connection   with   the   affairs   of   the   existing
State   of   Andhra   Pradesh   shall   be   considered   for   allocation,
Employees holding posts on purely ad hoc basis immediately before
the   ‘appointed   day’   shall   be   considered   against   substantive   posts
(or regular) held by them on the ‘appointed day’ if any.
b) Allocation   of   employees   would   be   based   on   final   distribution   of
posts including vacant posts proposed by the Advisory Committee in
consultation   with   the   successor   States   and   after   approval   of   the
Central Government.
c) Allocable   employees   shall   be   considered   for   allotment   between
the   successor   States   on   the   basis   of   seniority   list   as   available   on
June 01, 2014.
d)   ….There   shall   not   be   any   case   of   an   employee   not   being
allocated to either of the successor States. 
e) State   service   employees   who   hold   allocable   posts   shall   be
allocated   after   seeking   option   from   the   employees   indicating   their
preference   to   serve   in   either   of   the   successor   States   after   taking
their option into consideration.
f) The   allocation   shall   be   done   in   order   of   seniority   as
available on June 01, 2014. Those who have opted, who are
‘local candidate’s’ relatable to the State  to  which they have
opted,   shall,   in   order   of   their   seniority,   be   considered   for
allocation   first.     If   allocable   posts   in   that   category   remain,
then others who have opted to the state may be allocated in
order   of   seniority.     If   still   posts   remain   allocation   will   be
made in reverse order of seniority.
…
h) Employees   who   are   not   local   in   relating   to   both   States   will   be
allocated on the basis of place of birth or home district, as the case
may   be,   after   due   verification   and   certification.     Those   originally
3

from   other   States   will   be   allocated   on   a   case   by   case   basis   after
considering their option.
i) Employees   who   are   members   of   the   Scheduled   Castes   or
Scheduled   Tribes   shall   be  considered   for   allocation   on   the  basis  of
their   option   if  they   are  local   candidates.     IN   the  event  an   SC   or   ST
employee has not exercised his option or where he has not been so
allocated he/she  shall  be  allocated to the State  where  his caste or
tribe, as the case may be, is included in the concerned schedule of
the State.
…
k) Spouse of an All India Service (AIS) officer who belongs to a State
Cadre or is an employee of a State Government institution shall be
allocated, where so desired by the spouse, to the State to which the
AIS officer is allocated.
l) Spouses   in   State   Cadre   in   Government   or   in   the   State
Government   institutions,   local   bodies   and   those   who   are
deemed allocated as per the Act, shall as far as practicable,
be allotted to the same State, after considering options made
by them and their local candidature.   Spouses who are local
candidates   of   a   State   Shall   be   allocated   to   that   State.
Spouses   who   belong   to   different   States   may   be   allocated
after considering their options.
…
n) Local   candidature   shall   be   as   defined   under   the   Andhra
Pradesh   Public   Employment   (Organisation   of   Local   Cadres
and   Regulation   of   Direct   Recruitment)   Order,   1975   as
certified by the competent authority, with strict reference to
the   school   records.     While   the   committee   may   take   into
consideration   entry   made   in   the   service   register   as   prima
facie   proof   of   local   candidature,   it   shall   be   open   to   either
government   or   the   committee   to   subject   the   genuineness   of
the employee’s local candidature status to strict verification.
False   claim   of   local   candidature   or   production   of   false
certificate with the intent to mislead shall be punishable as
a   criminal   offence   and   also   be   subject   to   major   disciplinary
proceedings.
…
s) Employees   belonging   to   allocable   categories   of   one   department
working   in   another   department   or   organisation   on
deputation/tenure basis will be allotted by the parent department of
the officer.
x) The   actual   allocation   of   personnel   to   States   shall   be   guided   by
the public interest and the administrative needs of the posts in the
States.
4

19 . The Committee shall follow the procedure hereinafter mentioned
for allocation of employees:
i. All   employees   would   be   asked   to   exercise   their   options   in   the
prescribed proforma annexed to these Guidelines, and forward their
duly   filled   option   form   to   the   Member   Secretary,   Advisory
Committee,   G   A   State   Reorganisation   Department.     A   P   Secretariat
electronically   and   through   the   proper   channel   indicating   their
preference for either of the States within two weeks from the date of
public notification calling for options.
ii. Letter   calling   for   options   shall   be   given   wide   publicity   through
print and electronic media.  A copy of the letter shall also be placed
in the public domain for wide publicity.
iii. The   employees,   who   are   eligible   for   allocation   to   either   of   the
successor   States   as   specified   above,   will   submit   their   option   form
addressed   to   the   Member   Secretary,   Advisory   Committee   through
the   respective   Administrative   Departments   of   the   Government   in
which   they   are   working,   to   the   Andhra   Pradesh   State   General
Administration State Reorganisation Department.
iv. Scrutiny   of   statements   made   in   the   option   forms   shall   be   done
and factual accuracy of the statement made therein certified by the
head of the department under whom the employee is working.   The
forms   so   certified   shall   be   delivered   to   the   GA   (SR)   Department   of
the A P Government.
v. If   no   option   is   received   within   the   prescribed   time,   or   where   an
employee   is   willing   to   be   allotted   to   either   of   the   two   states   such
person shall be allotted based on the other criteria.
vi. Option   once   exercised   cannot   be   changed   under   any
circumstance. 
vii.   After   the   distribution   of   posts   is   finalised,   the   Advisory
Committee   will   draw   up,   with   the   help   of   the   departments
concerned   and   the   G   A   State   Reorganisation   Department   of   A   P
Government,   a   Tentative   Allocation   List   for   all   employees   whether
they   have   exercised   option   or   not.     The   Member   Secretary   of   the
Advisory Committee will circulate the Tentative Allocation List to the
respective   successor   State   Government   for   information   of   their
employees   and   for   submission   of   representations,   if   any,   by   such
employees,   within   a   period   of   two   weeks   from   the   date   of   such
communication.     The  GA   State   Reorganisation   Department   of  AP   is
required   to   issue   the   Tentative   Allocation   List   on   behalf   of   the
Advisory   Committee.     The   list   shall   be   widely   published   and
circulated   inviting   representations   of   employees   against   their
tentative allocation.
5

20 . Representations   against   tentative   allocation   may   be   received
and disposed off in the following manner:
i. An   employees   who   feels   aggrieved   by   his   tentative   allocation,
as   prepared   by   the   Advisory   Committee   would   be   at   liberty   to
submit his representations to the Chief Secretary to the successor
State   in   which   he   is   serving,   with   a   copy   to   the   State
Reorganisation   Department   constituted   in   the   State   of   Andhra
Pradesh.
ii. Representation of an employee should be self­contained, clearly
indicating   the   specific   points   of   grievance   and   should   be
addressed   to   the   Advisory   Committee.     The   concerned
administrative   department   will   offer   its   views   on   the
representation   and   forward   it   to   the   G   A   State   Reorganisation
Department of the Government of AP.
iii. The successor State of Andhra Pradesh shall furnish its official
comments   in   the   light   of   the   remarks   of   the   administrative
department   on   the   representations   received   keeping   in   view   of
law,   rules,   and   orders,   and   would   forward   the   same   for   further
consideration of the Advisory Committee.
iv. The Advisory   Committee  will  consider  the representation   of  the
employees   after   taking   the   views   of   Administrative   Department
concerned at a meeting attended by the representatives of the two
States   and   the   Central   Government.     The   recommendations   will
thereafter   be   forwarded   to   the   Central   Government   with   the
recommendations of the Advisory committee for taking a final view
in the matter.
v. Based  on  the recommendations  of the  Advisory  Committee,  the
Central   Government   shall   issue   final   allocation   orders   under
Section   77   of   the   Act   allocating   the   employees   to   either   of   the
State.
vi. The Central Government shall have the power to review any of
its orders issued under the Act.
vii.The   Member   Secretary   of   the   Committee   would   be   responsible
for guiding the Advisory Committee in this regard.”
7. The sanctioned strength of posts in the cadre of Joint Director­Class
A   in   the   Animal   Husbandry   Department   were   23,   out   of   which,   13   posts
were   allotted   to   Andhra   Pradesh   and   10   posts   were   allotted   to   Telangana.
At the time of bifurcation, two out of the 23 posts were vacant.
6

8. On 7 th
  March 2015, the Respondent opted for allocation to the State
of Telangana.  At the material point of time, the Respondent was working as
Project   Director,   ATMA,   Ranga   Reddy   District,   Hyderabad   on   deputation.
However,   by   a   Notification   No.   21105­B/SRI/AI/2014­4   dated   12 th
  June
2015,   the   Respondent   was   allotted   to   the   State   of   Andhra   Pradesh
tentatively.     The   Respondent   submitted   his   objection   against   his   tentative
allocation   to  the   State  of   Andhra   Pradesh   on   26 th
  June   2015,   pursuant   to
the   proceedings   being   GAD(SR),   Department,   Notification   No.
21105/B/SRI/2014­4.
9. On 26 th
 June 2015, the Respondent made a representation that he be
considered a local candidate of the State of Telangana.   The representation
was not considered.     By  an order  No. 5(2)/2016 dated 14 th
  January  2016
in the proceedings being F. No. 29/01/2016, the Ministry of Personnel, PG
and Pensions of the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of
India, allotted the Respondent to the State of Andhra Pradesh.
10. The   Respondent   filed   an   application   being   O.A   No.209/2016   before
the   Central   Administrative   Tribunal   at   Andhra   Pradesh,   challenging   the
aforesaid   allocation   order   dated   14 th
  January   2016   issued   by   the
Government   of   India.     On   29 th
  January   2016,   the   Administrative   Tribunal
issued   notice   in   the   application   and   passed   an   interim   order   to   the   effect
that  the  final  allocation of  the Respondent  to the State of Andhra  Pradesh
would be subject to the final result of the Original Application.
11. By   an   order   4 th
  February   2016,   the   Animal   Husbandry,   Dairy
Development   and   Fisheries   Department   of   the   Government   of   Telangana
7

relieved   the   Respondent.     By   an   order   dated   5 th
  February   2016,   the
Government   of   Telangana,   Department   of   Animal   Husbandry,   directed   the
Respondent No.1 to report to the Head of the Department, Andhra Pradesh
for further posting.
12. The   Respondent   filed   a   Writ   Petition   being   Writ   Petition   No.   4391   of
2016   in   the   High   Court   challenging   the   interim   order   dated   29 th
  January
2016   passed   by   the   Administrative   Tribunal.     By   an   order   dated   16 th
February 2016, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition No. 4391 of 2016
and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration and
directed   the   Tribunal   to   pass   a   speaking   order,   after   hearing   both   the
parties,   within   two   weeks.     It   was   also   directed   that   the   Respondent   No.1
should not be relieved from his present place of posting till disposal of the
Interlocutory Application.
13. By an Order  being  Memo No. 8356/Agri(1)/2016 dated 16 th
  January
2017,   the   Government   of   Telangana   Agriculture   and   Cooperation
Department, repatriated the Respondent No.1 with instructions to report to
his parent Department with immediate effect.
14. On 7 th
  March 2017, the Respondent informed the Commissioner and
Director of Agriculture Department and handed over complete charge of the
post   of   Project   Director,   ATMA,   Ranga   Reddy   District   to   Shri   Y.   Sudhakar
Reddy.
8

15. On   the   same   date   i.e.   7 th
  March   2017,   the   Respondent   was   relieved
from   the   post   of   Project   Director,   ATMA,   Ranga   Reddy   District   and   a
certificate of transfer of charge was issued to him.
16. In   2017,   the   Administrative   Tribunal   for   the   State   of   Telangana   was
abolished   and   the   case   being   O.A.   No.   209/2016   filed   by   the   Respondent
was   transferred   to   the   High   Court   for   the   State   of   Telangana   and   for   the
State   of   Andhra   Pradesh   at   Hyderabad   and   was   renumbered   as   Writ
Petition (TR) No. 5482 of 2017.
17. By the impugned judgment and order  dated 18 th
  February 2017, the
High   Court   allowed   both   the   Writ   Petitions,   setting   aside   the   proceedings
being   F.   No.   29/01/2016­SR(S)   dated   14 th
  January   2016   (Final   Allocation
Order)   of   the   Ministry   of   Personnel,   PG   and   Pensions,   insofar   as   it
concerned the Respondent No.1.
18. The   Ministry   was   directed   to   allocate   the   Respondent   No.1   to   the
State   of   Telangana   with   effect   from   14 th
  January   2016   and   the   State   of
Telangana  was  directed  to  forthwith  give  posting   to  the  Respondent   in  the
cadre   of   Joint   Director,   Class­A   in   the   Animal   Husbandry   Department   of
the State of Telangana and also to release his salary within four weeks.
19. Mr.   Aman   Lekhi,   learned   Additional   Solicitor   General,   appearing   on
behalf   of   the   petitioner,   submitted   that   allocation   had   been   made   by   the
Respondent No.5, i.e., the Government of India in the manner laid down by
law,   i.e.,   as   per   Sections   77(2)   and   80   of   the   Andhra   Pradesh
9

Reorganization Act, 2014, hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 2014”, read
with the Final Allocation Guidelines issued on 29/30 th
 December 2014.
20. Mr. Lekhi submitted that Section 77(2) of the 2014 Act provides that
as soon as may be, after the appointed day, the Central Government shall,
by   general   or   special   order,   determine   the   successor   State   to   which   every
person referred to in Section 77(1) shall be finally allotted for service, after
consideration   of   option   received   from   the   employees,   and   the   date   with
effect   from   which   such   allotment   shall   take   effect   or   be   deemed   to   have
taken effect.  The second and third proviso to the said Section provides that
“ as   far   as   local,   district,   zonal   and   multi­zonal   cadres   are   concerned,   the
employees   shall   continue   to   serve,   on   or   after   the   appointed   day,   in   that
cadre:   provided   also   that   the   employees   of   local,   district,   zonal   and   multi
zonal   cadres   which   fall   entirely   in   one   of   the   successor   States,   shall   be
deemed to be allotted to that successor State” .
21. Mr. Lekhi further submitted that Section 80 of the 2014 Act provides
for   the   constitution   of   Advisory   Committee   (AC)   and   for   the   issue   of
allocation   guidelines   by   the   Central   Government.     The   Government   of
Andhra Pradesh vide GOMs No. 312 dated 29/30 th
 December, 2014 notified
the   final   allocation   guidelines   prepared   under   Section   80   of   the   2014   Act.
The allocation of personnel was to be made in the manner provided under
Guideline   14­17   and   the   allocation   was   to   be   made   in   terms   of   the
principles   guiding   allocation   laid   down   in   Guideline   18   of   the   final
allocation guidelines.
10

22. It is not in dispute that by  virtue of Guideline 18(c) of the Allocation
Guidelines,   the   allocation   from   amongst   allocable   employees   was   to   be
made   between   the   States   of   Andhra   Pradesh   and   Telangana   in   order   of
seniority as available on 1 st
 June, 2014.
23. Mr. Lekhi, however, submitted that the allocation was not to be made
solely on the basis of seniority.  Local candidates of the State for which they
opt   are   to   be   considered   in   order   of   their   seniority   first.     If   the   allocable
posts   in   that   category   still   remain,   then   others   who   have   opted   might   be
allocated in order of seniority.
24. Mr. Lekhi, argued that allocation was to be made first amongst those
local candidates of the State, who had opted for the State in order of their
seniority   and   thereafter,   if   allocable   posts   still  remained,   those   posts   were
to be filled up in the order  of seniority from  amongst non­local candidates
who had opted for the State.  
25. Mr. Lekhi argued that the respondent No.1 had submitted his option
on   the   ground   that   he   was   a   State   Cadre   employee   and   his   wife   a   State
Government employee in the State of Telangana.  Mr. Lekhi submitted that
a  tentative  allocation  list  of the  State  Cadre  employees  between  the  States
of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana was prepared and notified on 12th June,
2015   whereunder   the   Respondent   No.1   was   tentatively   allocated   to   the
State of Andhra Pradesh. 
26. The employees were given 14 days for filing representations/objections
against   the   tentative   allocation   and   the   Respondent   No.1   had   made   a
11

representation   to   be   considered   as   local   candidate   of   the   State   of
Telangana. 
27. The   representation   was   considered   by   the   Allocation   Committee   in
consultation   with   the   heads   of   the   department   at   meeting   held   on   16 th
November   2015,   but   the   request   of   the   Respondent   No.1   for   allocation   to
Telangana was not accepted for the following reasons :­
“(i)  He is a ‘local candidate’ of Andhra Pradesh.
(ii)  His   request   for   allocation   to   Telangana   on  spouse   ground
could   not   be   accepted   as   his   spouse   was   appointed   to   a
Zonal   Cadre,   i.e.,   Zone­II   of   erstwhile   Andhra   Pradesh
which   entirely   fell   under   the   Successor   State   of   Andhra
Pradesh   and   she   was   deemed   allocated   to   Andhra
Pradesh as per provisions of Section 77(2) of the 2014 Act.
(iii)  There   was   no   vacancy   in   the   State   of   Telangana   to
accommodate him.”
28. Mr.   Lekhi   further   submitted   that   the   High   Court  erred  in  describing
the   Respondent   No.1   as   a   local   candidate   in   the   judgment   and   order
impugned ignoring the deemed appointment of his wife under Section 77(2)
of 2014 Act and disregarding the absence of vacancies.  
29. Mr.   Lekhi   argued   that   the   cadre   strength   in   the   category   of   Joint
director­Class   A   in   Animal   Husbandry   Department   was   23,   of   which   14
posts   were   allocated   to   Andhra   Pradesh   and   9   posts   were   allocated   to
Telangana.    However   the  number  of allocable  employees  in  the  category  of
Joint   Director   –   Class   A   was   27   and   out   of   27   employees,   12   employees,
who were local to the State of Telangana and had also opted for the State of
12

Telangana,   were   finally   allocated   to   the   State   of   Telangana   against   the   9
posts as per provisions contained in Guideline 18(f).
30. Mr. Lekhi argued that the Respondent No.1 who was ‘local candidate’
of the State of Andhra Pradesh was finally allocated to the State of Andhra
Pradesh   on   14 th
  January,   2016   by   the   Ministry   of   Personnel,   PG   and
Pensions,   Department   of   Personnel   and   Training   vide   proceeding   F   No.
29/01/2016­SR(S).
31 Ms.   Mohana   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   Respondent   No.1   submitted
that  the  impugned judgment  and order   of the High Court  is well reasoned
and   does   not   call   for   interference   under   Article   136   of   the   Constitution   of
India.
32. Ms. Mohana argued that Article 136 of the Constitution of India does
not create a regular forum of Appeal.   It is only a residual provision which
enables this Court to interfere with the judgment and order of any Court or
Tribunal   in   India,   in   its   discretion,   as   observed   by   this   Court   in
Suriyakala v. A. Mohandoss   and Ors. 1
.
33. Citing   M/s   Bengal   Chemical   and   Pharmaceutical   Works   Ltd.   v.
Their Employees 2
, Ms. Mohana argued that since power under Article 136
of the Constitution of India was discretionary, this Court was not bound to
set   aside  an order  under  Article  136,  even  if  it  was  not  in  conformity   with
law.
1  (2007) 9 SCC 196
2   AIR 1959 SC 633 (at 635)
13

34. Ms.   Mohana   also   cited   Kunhayammed   &   Ors.   v.   State   of   Kerala
and   Another 3
,   State   of   Bombay   v.   Rusy   Mistry 4
,   Municipal   Board,
Pratabgarh and Another v. Mahendra Singh Chawla  and  Others 5
  and
Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan 6
.
35. Ms. Mohana argued that the Respondent  No.1 was a local candidate
of the State of Telangana. In any case, his spouse was a native of Telangana
and posted  in  Telangana.    As such,  the  Respondent  No.1 was also  eligible
under   paragraph   18(1)   of   the   said   Guidelines   dated   30 th
  October   2014   for
allocation to the State of Telangana.
36. Ms.   Mohana   referred   to   the   definition   of   ‘Local   Candidate’.     In   the
definition   of   local   candidate   in   paragraph   7   of   the   Andhra   Pradesh   Public
Employment Order, 1975 which reads:
“ 1 .   A   candidate   for   direct   recruitment   to   any   post   shall   be   regarded  
as a  local candidate in relation to a local area.
(a)   in   cases   where   a   minimum   educational   qualification   has   been
prescribed for recruitment to the post. 
(i)   if   he   has   studied   in   an   educational   institution   or   educational
institutions   in   such   local   area   for   a   period   of   not   less   then   four
consecutive   academic   years   ending   with   the   academic   year   in
which he appeared or, as the case may be, first appeared for the
relevant qualifying examination; or
(ii) where   during   the   whole   or   any   part   of   the   four   consecutive
academic   years   ending   with   the   academic   year   in   which   he
appeared  or   as  the  case  may  be,   first  appeared  for   the  relevant
qualifying   examination   he   has   not   studied   in   any   educational
institution, if he has resided in that local area for a period of not
less   than   four   years   immediately   preceding   the   date   of
commencement   of   the   qualifying   examination   in   which   he
appeared or as the case may be, first appeared.
3  (2000) 6 SCC 359
4   AIR 1960 SC 391 (at 395)
5  (1982) 3 SCC 331
6  AIR 2003 SC 2889
14

(b)   In   cases   where   no   minimum   educational   qualification   has   been
prescribed for recruitment to the post, if he has resided in that local area
for a period of not less than resided in that local area for a period of not
less  than  four  years immediately  proceeding the  date  on  which the  post
in notified for recruitment.”
37. Ms.   Mohana   pointed   out   that   the   Respondent   No.1   had   studied   at
Khammam in the State of Telangana from Class VIII to X.  Thereafter he did
his   Bachelor   of   Veterinary   Science   and   Animal   Husbandry   and   Master   of
Veterinary   Science   at   the   college   of   Veterinary   Science,   AP,   Agricultural
University, Rajendernagar, Hyderabad (Telangana) from 1985 to 1992.  Ms.
Mohana   argued   that   having   studied   in   the   State   of   Telangana   for   7
consecutive years ending with the academic year in which he appeared for
qualifying   examination,   the   Respondent   No.1   was   a   local  candidate   within
the meaning  of   Andhra Pradesh Public Employment  (Organisation of Local
Cadres   and   Regulation   of   Direct   Recruitment)   Order,   1975   (hereinafter
referred to as  “Andhra Pradesh Public Employment Order, 1975”). 
38. Ms. Mohana emphasised that the Respondent No.1 had initially been
appointed   as   Assistant   Director   in   Chevella   Ranga   Reddy   District,
Hyderabad in 1993 through an examination conducted in the unified State
of   Andhra   Pradesh   vide   Recruitment   Notification   issued   in   1992   by   the
Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission.
39. The Petitioner had studied at educational institutions in the State for
a   period   of   not   less   than   7   consecutive   academic   years   ending   with   the
academic   year   in   which   he   first   appeared   for   the   relevant   qualifying
examination   and   was   selected   and   appointed   by   direct   recruitment.     The
15

Respondent   No.1   is   therefore,   to   be   regarded   as   a   local   candidate   to   the
zone in which the city of Hyderabad falls.
40. Referring   to   Clause   18(f)   of   the   Andhra   Pradesh   State   Guidelines
issued   on   30 th
  October   2014,   the   final   allocation   of   the   State   Cadre
Employees   to   the   two   states   of   Telangana   and   Andhra   Pradesh   shall   be
done on the basis of seniority as available on 1 st
 June 2014.
41. Ms.   Mohana   also   referred   to   paragraph   18(i)   of   the   State   Allocation
Guidelines   under   which   employees   who   are   members   of   the   Scheduled
Castes   or   the   Scheduled   Tribes   are   to   be   considered   for   allocation   on   the
basis of their option if they are local candidates.   If an SC or ST candidate
has not exercised his option or where he has not been so allocated, he/she
shall be allocated to the State where his caste or tribe, as the case may be,
is included in the concerned schedule of the State.
42. Ms. Mohana emphasized on Clause 18(f) of the Guidelines dated 30 th
October   2014,   which   clearly   states   that   allocable   employees   shall   be
considered   for   allotment   between   the   Successor   States   on   the   basis   of
seniority list as on 1 st
  June 2014.   As per the seniority list, the position of
the Respondent No.1 was at Sr. NO.4.  All the three employees senior to the
Respondent   No.1   were   allocated   State   of   Andhra   Pradesh   as   per   their
preference.  The Respondent No.1 was thus the senior most in his cadre to
opt for the State of Telangana.  Ms. Mohana argued that the Union of India
gave no weight to seniority of the Respondent No.1 and filled up vacancies
by   persons   who   are   native   of   Telangana,   which   is   patently   contrary   to
clause   18   (f)   of   the   Guidelines.     Ms.   Mohana   argued   that   the   High   Court
16

had   correctly   held   that   denial   of   posting   to   the   Respondent   No.1   from   8 th
March 2017 onwards and denying  him salary from that date onwards was
illegal.   The Respondent No.1 was entitled to be paid salary from 8 th
  March
2017   till   date   of   posting   by   State   of   Telangana   with   interest   at   the   rate   of
7% per annum.
43. Ms. Mohana argued that the wife of the Respondent No.1 admittedly
being   a   local   candidate   of   Telangana   allocated   to   Telangana,   the
Respondent   No.1   needs   to   be   allocated   to   Telangana.   Ms.   Mohana   argued
that   in   any   case   the   Respondent   No.1   ought   not   have   been   relieved   from
service   in   the   State   of   Telangana   while   order   of   stay   was   operating   in   his
favour.
44. Ms.   Mohana   argued   that   after   the   Respondent   No.1   was   released
from ATMA, Rangareddy District on 7 th
  March 2017, he reported to Animal
Husbandry   Department   Telangana   and   requested   that   he   be   given   up   the
posting but to no avail. 
45. The   contentions   of   the   Petitioners   and   the   Respondent   No.1   have
carefully   and   meticulously   been   dealt   with   by   the   High   Court   in   its
impugned judgment and order. The High Court noted:­
“ 7. Aggrieved   ther eby,   petiti oner   gave   a   represen tati on
dt.26. 06.2015   stating   tha t   though   he   was   born   in   Kadapa
District   of   Andhra   Pradesh,   he   had   stu died   Classes   VI II,   IX   an d
X   at   Khammam   in   th e   State   of   Telangana   and   sub sequent
educa tion   including   Post   Gradua tion   was   also   in   the   Telangan a
Sta te   and   so   he   is   to   be   considered   as   a   local   candida te   of
Sta te   of   Telangana;   he   was   initially   appoin ted   as   Assistant
Director   in   Chevella,   Ranga   Reddy   Distric t   in   Telangana   State
through   an   examination   conducted   by   the   A.P.   Public   Ser vice
Commission   in   1993   an d   he   had   only   worked   in   Telangana
Sta te;   his   wife   was   working   in   the   Office   of   the   Commission er
17

of   Co­ opera tion   and   Registrar   of   Co­ operati ve   Soci eties,
Telangana   Sta te,   Hyderabad   as   Assistant   Registr ar;   that   she
was   initially   appoin ted   a s   Junior   Assista nt   in   Krishna   District
of   th e   present   resi duary   Sta te   of   Andhra   Pradesh   against   'non­
local'   category   as   per   the   Andhra   Pradesh   Public   Employment
(Organization   of   Local   Ca dres   and   Regulation   of   Direct
Recruitmen t)   Order,   1975   issued   by   the   President   of   India
under   Clau ses   (1)   and   (2)   of  Article   371­D   of   the   Con stitution   of
India   notifi ed   vi de   G.O.Ms.N o.674,   Gener al   Administra tion
(SPF­   A)   Dep artmen t   dt.2 9.10.197 5   (also   called   'Presidential
Order   of   1975');   during   bifurcati on   process   of   th e   employ ees
between the tw o   Sta tes, sh e was allotted to Telangana   Sta te by
way   of   an   'Order   to   S er ve'   proceeding   dt.3 1.05.2014   of   the
Director,   Ministry   of   Public   Grievances   an d   Pen sion s,
Governm ent   of   In dia;   sh e   was   re­allocated   to   the   residuary
Sta te   of   Andhra   Pradesh   subsequently;   th at   sh e   gave   objection
to   th e   sam e   sta ting   tha t   she   was   born,   brought   up   and
educa ted   in   Telangana   State   an d   sh e   ha d   ren der ed   service   for
16   year s   in   th e   area   covered   by   the   said   Sta te   an d   her
reallocati on   to   Andhr a   Pradesh   was   absurd,   illegal;   th at   the
same   was   pen ding   for   considerati on;   th at   unless   his   wife's
request   is   con sider ed   or   finaliz ed   his   allotm ent   ought   not   to   be
considered.
He   also   stated   that   he   had   two   childr en   born   and   brough t   up
in   Hyderaba d,   aged   15   year s   an d   12   year s   respecti vely,   who
were   in   Classes   10   an d   8   resp ectively,   an d   if   he   is   allotted   to
the Sta te of A.P.,   th eir studies would  be  adver sely affec ted.
He   also   stated   th at   as   per   th e   Seniority   List   in   the   Cadre   of
Joint   Direc tor,   his   positi on   was   at   Serial   No. 4   and   ther e   are
existing   vaca ncies   in   th e   Telangana   State   since   three   Joint
Directors   from   Telangana   State   were   allotted   to   Andhra
Pradesh.
At   the   time   of   these   even ts,   petition er   was   working   as   Projec t
Director,   ATMA,   Ranga   Reddy   District,   Hyderabad   in   the
Agricultur e   Depar tmen t   of   th e   Sta te   of   Telangana   on
depu tati on.”
46. The   High   Court   found   that   notwithstanding   the   factors   noted   above
and   notwithstanding   the   fact   that   the   Respondent   No.1   was   actually
working as Project Director, ATMA, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad in the
Agriculture   Department   of   the   State   of   Telangana,   at   the   time   when   the
State of Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated, the Respondent No.1 was allocated
to the State of Andhra Pradesh.
18

47. The   High   Court   found   that   the   Respondent   No.1   had   continued   to
work   as   Project   Director,   ATMA,   Ranga   Reddy   District   in   the   Agriculture
Department on deputation, pursuant to the order dated 16 th
 February 2016
of   the   High   Court   referred   to   hereinabove.     The   Respondent   No.1   was
apparently   repatriated   from   the   post   of   Project   Director,   ATMA,   Ranga
Reddy   District   on   7 th
  March,   2017,   after   which   he   made   several
representations   to   the   Special   Chief   Secretary,   Animal   Husbandry
Department,   Government   of   Telangana   that   he   be   given   posting.     No
posting orders were, however, issued for over four and a half years and no
salary was paid to the Respondent No.1
48. On   or   about   19 th
  October,   2016,   Smt.   B.   Shantabai,   wife   of   the
Respondent   No.1,   who   had   earlier   been   working   in   Telangana   but   later
allocated to Andhra Pradesh in 2017, made a representation for transfer to
Telangana on mutual basis with one B. Geethavani, who was not interested
in continuing in Telengana in view of her husband’s condition of health.  In
the   said   representation,   she   stated   that   she   was   willing   to   forego   her
seniority   and  willing   to  take  the  last   rank   below   the  last   regular   Assistant
Registrar working in Zone­VI in the State of Telangana.  It appears that the
State of Andhra Pradesh issued GOMs No. 51 Agriculture and Co­operation
(COOP.I)   Department   dated   12 th
  June,   2017   according   permission   to
transfer   Smt.   B.   Shantabai,   wife   of   the   Respondent   No.1   to   the   State   of
Telangana.
49. On   and   from   14 th
  June   2017,   Smt.   B.   Shantabai   was   posted   as
Assistant   Registrar   in   the   office   of   the   Commissioner   for   Cooperation   and
19

Registrar   of   Cooperative   Societies.     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   30 th
  October   2014   and,   in   particular,   Clause   (1)   of   Para   18   set   out
hereinbelow for convenience :­
"Spouses   in   State   cadre   in   Government   or   in   State   Government
institutions, local bodies and those who are deemed allocated as per
the   Act,   shall   as   far   as   practicable,   be   allotted   to   the   same   State,
after  considering  options  made by  them  and their  local candidature.
Spouses who are local candidates of a State shall be allocated to that
State. Spouses who belong to different States may be allocated after
considering their options. "
50. 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.
51. The High Court considered the Counter Affidavit filed by the State of
Telangana at length and found :
“ 28 . The   State   of   Telangana   and   its   Direc tor   of   Animal
Husb andry   who   were   implea ded   as   respon den t   nos.4   an d   5   in
O.A.No.209   of   2016   /   W.P.   (TR)   No.5482   of   2017   filed   coun ter­
affida vit   /   V.M.A.No.205   of   2016   in   O.A.No.209   of   2016   (re­
number ed   as   WVMP(TR).No.70 3   of   2017)   to   vaca te   th e   order
dt.29.0 1.20 1 6   granted by it and di smiss  the  O.A.  /  W.P.
29 . In   the   said   cou nter ­affidavi t,   it   is   sta ted   that   petition er's
wife   had   been   appointed   in   Krish na   District   an d   promoted   as
Assista nt   Registrar   in   Zone­ II   (Zonal   Cadr e   Post),   th at   her
seniority   was   also   declared   in   th e   sai d   Zon e   which   falls   in   th e
State   of   Andhra   Pradesh   an d   as   per   Secti on   77(2)   of   the   A.P.
20

Reorganization   Act,   2014   she   has   to   work   in   the   said   Sta te
only.
30 . Therefor e,   it   is   stated   th at   peti tioner   cann ot   claim   tha t   his
wife   is   working   in   th e   State   of   Telangana   and   claim   allotm ent
to th e   Telangana  Sta te  on  'sp ouse' grounds.
31 . It   is   sta ted   th at   petiti oner   belongs   to   the   State   of   Andhra
Pradesh   as   per   his   local   candi datur e   and   so   h e   has   been
allocated   to   the   hom e   Sta te   of   Andhra   Pradesh   based   on
availability  of posts in th e   sai d State.
32 . It   is   however   sta ted   that   peti tion er's   repr esenta tion
regarding   his   provisi onal   allocati on   to   th e   State   of   Andhr a
Pradesh   and   the   local   sta tus   of   his   wife   were   referred   to   th e
Commission er   of   Co­ opera tives   and   Registrar   of   Co­oper ative
Societies,   Hyderaba d   and   th e   latter   vide
Lr.Roc.No. 778 / MINC/201 4   dt.22.0 4.2015   informed   th at   as   on
th at   date   petiti oner' s   wife   is   working   as   Assista nt   Registr ar   in
th e   Office   of   Commissioner   &   Registr ar   of   Coop erati ve
Societies, Andhra   Pradesh   at  Hyderabad.
33 . It   is   admitted   that   petiti oner   while   working   as   Joint
Direc tor   (Animal   Hu sbandry)   at   District   Project   Office,   Rajiv
Vidya   Missi on   ha d   submitted   op tion   form   to   th e   Animal
Husb andry   Depar tment   exercising   his   op tion   for   th e   State   of
Telangana  a s  per prefer ential   claim in  terms  of  para  18(i)  of th e
op tion   form   an d   also   enclosed   details   of   his   sp ouse,   but   his
request   cannot   be   accepted,   and   the   decision   was   taken   in
accordance with  the guidelines for   final allocati on.
34 . In   W.P.No.2482 0   of   2017,   the   Sta te   of   Telangana   and   the
Direc tor   of   Animal   Husb andry   Depar tment   filed   a   counter
stating   th at   as   per   para   no.   18(i)   of   G.O.Ms.No.31 2
dt.30. 1 0.20 1 4,   'employees   who   are   members   of   the   Scheduled
Castes or the Scheduled Tribes shall be considered for allocation on
the   basis   of   their   option   if   they   are   local   candidates' ;   that
petition er   is   a   local   candida te   of   Cu ddapa h   District   of   Andhr a
Pradesh   Sta te;   and   so,   petition er   cannot   con ten d   tha t   his
allocati on to th e State of A.P. is incorrec t.
35 . It   is   admitted   that   petitioner's   wife   ha d   joined   in   th e   State
of   Telangana   in  201 7,   but  it  is  con ten ded  th at  peti tioner   falsely
plea ded   th at   his   wife   was   working   in   Telangana   Sta te   at   th e
time   of   filing   of   O.A.No.209   of   2016   an d   th e   sai d   plea   is   not
correc t.
36 . It   is   sta ted   tha t   th ough   peti tioner   obtain ed   order   on
16.02. 2016   in   W.P.No. 4391   of   201 6   tha t   he   should   not   be
relieved   from   his   present   place   of   work   in   the   post   of   Project
Direc tor,   ATMA,   Ranga   Reddy   District   in   the   Agriculture
Department  of  th e  Telangana   State,   he  was  relieved  because  a t
th e   time   of   re­ organization   of   Distric ts   in   the   State   of
Telangana,   the   ATMA   Scheme   was   merged   with   Farmer
Training Cen ter s, etc.  pursuan t to a policy deci sion.”
21

52. The State of Andhra Pradesh did not file any counter affidavit in the
High   Court.     A   counter   affidavit   has   been   filed   on   behalf   of   the   Union   of
India admitting that 14 posts of Joint Directors were allotted to the State of
Andhra Pradesh and 09 posts were allotted to the State of Telangana.   The
number of allocable employees in the cadre of Joint Director were 27 more
than   the   sanctioned   cadre   strength.     The   excess   allocable   employees   were
allocated   between   successor   States   on   population   ratio   as   per   Guidelines.
The   Respondent   No.1   though   local   to   the   State   of   Andhra   Pradesh   had
opted for Telangana but he was allotted to the State of Andhra Pradesh as
per   Paragraph   18(f)   of   the   Guidelines,   since   there   was   no   vacancy   within
the filled posts in Telangana.  
53. The   Union   of   India   contended   that   the   request   of   the   Respondent
No.1 for allocation to Telangana on the ground of his spouse being a local of
Telangana  could  also  not   be   accepted  as  his   spouse  belonged   to  the  zonal
cadre of Andhra Pradesh.  
54. The High Court held :­
“ 46 . Para   18   of   th e   said   G.O.   mentioned   the
guidelines/principles   which   would   be   followed   for   th e   purpose
of allocati on  of  employ ees.
47 . Clause   (e)   of   Para   18   stated   that   ' State   Service   employees
who hold allocable   posts shall he   allocated   after   seeking option   from
the   employees   indicating   their   preference   to   serve   in   either   of   the
successor States after taking their option into consideration.'
48 . Admittedly,   petition er   gave   his   op tion   for   allocating   him   to
th e State of  Telangana  on   07.03.201 5.
49 . Admittedly,   of   th e   total   23   posts   in   the   Animal   Husbandry
Department   of   the   composite   Sta te   of   Andhra   Pradesh,   9   posts
were   allocated   to   th e   State   of   Telangana   and   14   posts   were
allocated to  the  residuary State  of  Andhra Pradesh.
22

50 . Clause   18(c)   of   the   guidelines   sta tes   tha t   allocable
employees   shall   be   considered   for   allotment   between   the   successor
State  on the basis of seniority list  as available on 01­06­2014.
xxx xxx xxx
53 . The   petiti oner' s   positi on   in   th e   seni ority   list   of   Joint
Direc tor s   (clau se­ A)   in   the   composi te   State   of   Andhra   Pradesh
as on 02.0 6.2014   was   Sl . No.4.
54 . The   three   people   who   were   senior   to   him   by   name
Tanikonda   Dam odar   Naidu,   K oneti   Venka ta   Ramana,
M.Sriniva sa   Rao,   who   were   local   candidates   of   Andhr a
Pradesh,   opted   for   th e   State   of   Andhra   Pradesh   an d   were
allocated   temporarily   to   th e   State   of   Andhra   Pradesh   as   can   be
seen   from   Notificati on   dt.   12.06.2 015   issued   by   th e   Gener al
Administrati on   (SR)   Department   of   th e   Governmen t   of   Andhra
Pradesh   and   also   a s   per   ann exur e­ I   to   the   final   allocati on   or der
No. 5(2)/2016  dt.  14. 1 .20 16.
55 . Therefor e,   the   peti tioner   is   th e   senior   most   among   persons
in   the   Ca dre   of   Joint   Direc tor   Class­A   to   opt   for   the   State   of
Telangana.
xxx xxx xxx
57 . Therea fter   the   latter   part   of   sub ­Clause   (f)   of   Clause   18
which   says   'if   allocable   posts   in   that   category   remain,   then,   others
who   have   opted   to   the   State   may   be   allocated   in   order   of   seniority '
will   come   to   the   aid   of   th e   petition er;   and   becau se   he   is   the
senior most   available   person   in   th e   cadr e   of   joint   Director ­   Class
A,   his   claim   for   allocati on   perman ently   to   the   Sta te   of
Telangana,   would   ha ve   primacy   over   the   claims   of   all   his
junior s in th e said cadre.
58 . Instead   of   following   th e   above   procedure   prescribed   by
Clau se   (f)   of   Para   1 8,   a   strange   interpretation   was   given   in
para­ 6   of   its   coun ter   is   adop ted   by   the   Union   of   In dia   saying
' due   to   non­ availability   of   vacancy   within   the   filled   posts   in
Telangana',   petiti oner,   though   he   ha d   opted   for   the   State   of
Telangana,  had to be allocated to  th e State  of  Andhra Pradesh.
59 . This   suggests   that   th e   Union   of   India   gave   no   weight   at   all
to   the   seniority   of   the   petition er   or   to   the   fact   that   he   was   th e
senior   most   person   in   th e   cadre   of   Joint   Dir ector   Class­ A   to   opt
for   th e   State   of   Telangana,   proc eeded   to   fill   up   the   vacancies
allocated   to   the   State   of   Telangana   by   per son s   who   are   'na tives
of   Telangana',   and   then   took   a   stand   tha t   th ere   are   no
vaca ncies   in   Telangana   State,   where   the   petiti oner   can   be
accommodated.   This   procedure   is   patently   contrary   to   Para
18(f)   of the Guidelines.
xxx xxx xxx
62 . In   th e   coun ter­ affi davit   filed   by   the   Sta te   of   Andhra
Pradesh,   in   O.A.No. 209   of   201 6/V.M.A.No,398   of
2016/W.V.M.P.(TR)   No. 701   of   2017   in   W.P.   (TR)   No.548 2   of
23

2017   it   is   stated   in   para­6(f)   that   the   Commissioner,   Registrar
of   Coopera tive   Societies,   Hyderaba d   had   sta ted   in
Lr.No.7 78/Misc/2014   dt. 22.04.20 15   that   petition er's   spouse
was   working   as   Assistan t   Registrar   in   his   Office   at   Hyderabad.
Admittedly,   th e   petiti oner' s   spou se   was   initially   appoin ted   in
'non­ local'   category   in   Zone­ II   falling   in   the   residuary   State   of
Andhra   Pradesh,   because   she   was   a   'local   can didate'   to   th e
State   of   Telangana.   Sh e   ultimately   was   posted   on   mutual
tra nsfer  to th e  State   of  Telangana  in June,  2017.
63 . Therefor e,   th e   Union   of   In dia   cannot   harp   on   th e
petition er's   wife' s   belonging   to   the   Zonal   cadr e   of   the   State   of
Andhra   Pradesh   to   deny   petiti oner' s   claiming   for   posting   in   th e
State   of   Telangana   on   sp ouse   groun ds.   Th e   State   of   Telangana
cann ot   also   con ten d   tha t   th e   petition er   incorrec tly   stated   that
his   spou se   was   working   in   th e   State   of   Telangana   and   th at   sh e
does  not 'belong to th e State of Telangana'.
xxx xxx xxx
65 . Therefor e,   th e   petition er   was   entitl ed   to   be   allocated   to   th e
State   of   Telangana   even   on   sp ouse   grou nd   and   th e   Union   of
In dia   withou t   taking   n ote   of   the   above   fac ts   erred   in   rejecting
petition er's   request   for   allocati on   to  th e  State  of   Telangana   even
on   spou se  grou nd.
xxx xxx xxx
68 . Also   sinc e   th e   petition er   had   stu died   Classes   VIII   to   X   in
Khammam   Di strict   in   the   Sta te   of   Telangana   an d   he   sta tes   th at
upto   post­ graduation,   he   stu dies   in   th e   State   of   Telangana,
un der   Para   7   of   the   Presiden tial   order,   197 5,   he   is   a   local
candi date'   of   th e   Sta te   of   Telangana   only,   but   ignoring   this   fact
an d   simply   taking   note   of   his   place   of   birth   as   Cuddapah   in
Andhra   Pradesh   Sta te,   he   was   wrongly   trea ted   as   a   'local
candi date'   for   th e   State   of   Andhra   Pradesh.   So   even   un der
Clau se   (i)   of   para   18,   petiti oner   is   eligible   to   be   allotted   to   th e
State of  Telangana.
xxx xxx xxx
75 . It   is   th e   contention   of   petitioner   tha t   the   or der   No. 5   (2)   of
2016   dt.14. 01.201 6   permanen tly   allocating   the   petitioner   to   th e
State of   Andhra   Pradesh itself  states  in para no.2   th ereof  that  it
would   not   come   into   effec t   in   respect   of   any   person   who   has
ob tained   'stay   or der'   from   a   Court   of   Law   against   his   allocati on
to   any   of   th e   successor   Sta tes   till   the   time   such   stay   order   is
vaca ted;   and   since   the   order   passed   by   th e   Divisi on   Bench   on
16.02. 2016   in   Writ   Petiti on   No. 4391   of   201 6   directing   the
petition er   not   to   be   di sturb ed   from   his   curren t   posting   is   in   the
na ture   of   such   'stay   or der',   th e   petiti oner   cann ot   be   asked   to
rep ort to th e State of  Andhra Pradesh.
76 . We   fin d   force   in   the   petition er's   contenti on   an d   agree   with
it.
24

77 . So   th e   petiti oner   cann ot   be   deni ed   salary   by   the   State   of
Telangana   fr om   8.3.2017   till   date   on   th e   basis   of   the   sai d
relieving   or der   or   the   perman ent   allocati on   order
F.N o.29/01/2 016   ­   SR(S)   dt.   14.01.2 016   (Order   No.5(2)/201 6)
Ministry   of   Per sonn el,   PG   &   Pen sion s,   Department   of   Personnel
an d Training, Governm ent of   In dia.”
55. There   is   no   infirmity   in   the   well   reasoned   order   of   the   High   Court
which calls for interference of this Court in exercise of power under Article
136   of   the   Constitution   of   India.     As   argued   by   Ms.   Mohana,   jurisdiction
under   Article   136   of   the   Constitution   of   India   is   discretionary.       The
discretionary   jurisdiction   under   Article   136   of   the   Constitution   of   Indian
should   not   ordinarily   be   exercised   to   interfere   with   an   otherwise   just   and
reasonable order by recourse to hyper technicality upon a narrow, rigid and
pedantic interpretation of the guidelines. 
56. 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 1 st
June 2014.   
57. As   found   by   the   High   Court,   the   Petitioner’s   position   was   4 th
  in
seniority   in   the   composite   State   of   Andhra   Pradesh   as   on   1 st
  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
25

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. 
58. 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. 
59. 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 7
, under  the
Indian  Constitution,  there   is  only   one   domicile  i.e.  domicile  of   the  country
and there is no separate domicile for a State.
60. The power to admit and include States into the Union under Article 2
of   the  Constitution,  and   to  form   new  States   and/or   reorganize  State,   is  in
its   very   nature   of   the   power,   wide   and   its   exercise   necessarily   guided   by
7   AIR 1984 SC 1420
26

political   issues   of   considerable   complexity,   many   of   which   may   not   be
judicially manageable.  
61. Article 3, empowers Parliament to enact law and form a new State by
separation of territory from any State or by granting two or more States or
parts   of   States   or   by   uniting   any   territory   to   a   part   of   any   State.     The
principles   relating   to   change   of   sovereignty   in   international   law   are   not
applicable to re­organisation of the territory of the State under Article 3 of
the Constitution of India. 
62. When   such   an   adjustment   or   reorganisation  of   territory   takes   place,
the   existing   law   as   well   as   administrative   orders   in   a   particular   territory
continue to be in force and continue to be binding upon the successor State
so  long   as  they   are  not   governed,   changed   or   repudiated  by   the  successor
State. 
63. 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. 
64. 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. 
27

65. All   statutes   and   all   rules,   regulations   and   bye­laws   framed   by   the
Government, which constitute law have to be construed harmoniously with
the   fundamental   rights   guaranteed   under   Part­III   of   the   Constitution   of
India. 
66.   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.  
67. 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. 
68. 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.  
69. 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
28

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.  
70. In   our   considered   view,   there   is   no   infirmity   in   the   impugned
judgment   and   order   of   the   Division   Bench   of  the  High  Court   affirming   the
judgment of the Single Bench.  
71. The Special Leave Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. 
…..................................... J.
       [INDIRA BANERJEE]   
…..................................... J.
       [V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN]
NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 14, 2022
29