1998 (3) TMI 707 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
Validity of Regulation 9(2) of the Andhra Pradesh College Service Commission Regulation, 1986 in light of Regulation 9(1) and the Constitution.

Analysis:

The case involved an appeal against the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, which had quashed Regulation 9(2) of the Andhra Pradesh College Service Commission Regulation, 1986. The Tribunal held that Regulation 9(2) contravened Regulation 9(1) by potentially wiping off past services of government servants absorbed by the Commission. The issue was whether Regulation 9(2) was valid (para 1).

The Andhra Pradesh College Service Commission was formed under the Andhra Pradesh College Service Commission Act, 1985. The employees of the Commission were on deputation from the State Government. The Act empowered the Commission to make regulations regarding the terms and conditions of service of its employees. The Commission framed Regulations with the Government's approval. Regulation 9(2) allowed deputationists opting for absorption to be appointed regularly and their seniority determined batch by batch. The private respondents challenged Regulation 9(2's validity, leading to the appeal (para 2).

The appellant argued that the Commission had the right to determine service conditions, including seniority principles, for absorbed employees. They contended that Regulation 9(2) did not violate any constitutional provisions and should not have been struck down by the Tribunal. Case precedents were cited to support this argument. Conversely, the private respondent's counsel argued that past service should be considered for determining seniority, as done under Regulation 9(1). The State of Andhra Pradesh's counsel suggested harmoniously reading Regulations 9(1) and 9(2). The Court had to decide whether to uphold Regulation 9(2) by interpreting it or strike it down (para 3).

The Court applied the principle that statutes and regulations are presumed valid unless they violate the Constitution. It emphasized harmonious construction of provisions to avoid striking them down outright. The Court analyzed Regulation 9(2) in light of precedents emphasizing counting pre-existing service for determining ranking in a new cadre. It found that Regulation 9(2) should be read down to consider deputationists' past service for seniority in the Commission. The Court rejected the argument that seniority should be based solely on service under the Commission, emphasizing the importance of considering past service for fairness. The Court disposed of the appeal by upholding Regulation 9(2 with the interpretation that past service should be factored into determining seniority (para 4).