http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: A.   V. S. NARASIMHA RAO AND OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANOTHER

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/03/1969

BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ) BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ) SHAH, J.C. RAMASWAMI, V. MITTER, G.K. GROVER, A.N.

CITATION:  1970 AIR  422            1970 SCR  (1) 115  1969 SCC  (1) 839  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1973 SC 827  (1,15,22)  RF         1979 SC 193  (69)  RF         1986 SC   3  (224)  D          1987 SC 663  (1)

ACT: Constitution   of  India,  Art.  16(3)-Requirement   as   to residence in a part of a State-If valid. Public  Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Act,  1957, s. 3 Application to Telengana Area-Validity. Andhra   Pradesh  Public  Employment  (Requirement   as   to Residence) Rule, 1959, r. 3-Validity.

HEADNOTE: The Parliament enacted the Public Employment (Requirement as to  Residence) Act, 1957 in pursuance of cl. (3) of Art.  16 of  the Constitution of India making special  provision  for requirement as to residence in public employment.  Section 3 of  the  Act  gave the power to make  rules  in  respect  of certain classes of employment in certain areas, and  accord- ingly  the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Requirement  as to Residence) Rules were made prescribing the requirement  , as  to  residence  prior to appointment  to  certain  posts, within the Telengana area of the State.  The petitioners who were  non-domicile persons appointed to the  posts  reserved for  the domiciles of Telengana under the rules, were by  an order  relieved from their posts and employed in  the  other ’region  of  the State.  The petitioners, filed  a  petition under  Art. 32 of the Constitution challenging the Act,  the Rules  and  the  order  as  ultra  vires  the  Constitution. Quashing the order, this Court, HELD : Section 3 of the Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence)  Act, 1957 in so far as it related to,  Telengana and  Rule  3 of other Rules under it were  ultra  vires  the Constitution. [122 A] Clause (3) of Art. 16 of the Constitution enables Parliament to make a law in a special case prescribing any  requirement as  to residence within a State or Union Territory prior  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

appointment, in the State or Union Territory.  The provision speaks  of  a  whole  State as  the  venue  for  residential qualification  and  it  is  impossible  to  think  that  the Constituent Assembly was thinking of residence in Districts, Talukas,  cities,  towns  or villages.  The  fact  that  the clause is an exception and came as an amendment must dictate that  a  narrow construction upon the  exception  should  be placed  as  indeed the debates in the  Constituent  Assembly also  seem  to,  indicate.  The words  ’any  law’  and  ’any requirement’ cannot be given wide and liberal  construction. These  words are controlled by the words . residence  within the State or Union Territory’ which words mean what they say neither more or less. [121 D-G] 116

JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 65 of 1969. Petition  under  Art. 32 of the Constitution  of  India  for enforcement of fundamental rights. S.   V. Gupte, P. A. Choudhury and K. Rajendra Chaudhuri, for the   petitioners. M.   C.  Setalvad,  P. Ramachandra,  Rao,  Advocate-General, Andhra Pradesh, A. Raghubir and A. V. Rangam, for respondent No. 1. M.   C. Setalvad and R. N. Sachthey, for respondent No. 2. R.   V. Pillai, H. S. Gururai Rao and Subodh Markandeya, for respondents Nos. 3 to 45. Sardar  Ali Khan, P. N. Duda and J. B. Dadachanji, for  res- pondent No. 46. P.   A.   Choudhury,  K.  Rajendra  Chaudhuri  and   C.   S. Sreenivasa Rao, for the interveners. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullah,  C.J. The petitioners are persons employed  in the  ministerial services of the Andhra Pradesh  Government. All  of them were working in various offices located in  the cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad.  On January 19,  1969, leaders, of all political parties in the Legislature of  the Andhra  Pradesh State appeared to have met and  reached  the decision  that  to  Implement  what  are  called   Telengana Safeguards’, the following measures should be taken :               "All  non-domicile  persons,  who  have   been               appointed either directly, by promotion or  by               transfer  to posts reserved under  the  Andhra               Pradesh  Public Employment (Requirement as  to               Residence)   Rules,  1959  for  domiciles   of               Telengana region will be immediately  relieved               from  service.  The posts so  rendered  vacant               will   be  filled  by   qualified   candidates               possessing  domicile  qualifications  and   in               cases where such candidates are not  available               the   posts  shall  be  left   unfilled   till               qualified domicile candidates become available               Action  on  the  -above lines  will  be  taken               immediately.               All  non-domicile employees so relieved  shall               be  provided employment in the  Andhra  region               without  break  in  service  and  by  creating               supernumerary posts, if necessary."                             117 The  Government  of  Andhra Pradesh  then  passed  an  order (G.O.Ms. 36, G.A. (SR) Dept.) on January 21, 1969  relieving before February 28, 1969 all non-domicile persons  appointed on or after November 1, 1956 to certain categories of  posts

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

reserved for domiciles of Telengana under the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Rules, 1959. Names of such incumbents were to be shown in a proforma  and they were to be employed in the Andhra region without  break in  service by creating supernumerary posts,  if  necessary. These  supernumerary posts were to be treated  as  temporary addition to the strength of the office concerned and were to be adjusted against future vacancies in corresponding  posts as they arose.  The action was based upon s. 3 of the Public Employment  (Requirement  as to Residence Act, 1957  (44  of 1957)  which was an Act of Parliament made in  pursuance  of cl.  (3)  of  Art. 16 of  the  Constitution  making  special provision  for requirement as to residence and brought  into force  on  March 21, 1959.  Section 3 of the  Act  gave  the power  to  make  Rules  in respect  of  certain  classes  of employment in certain areas.  It provided:               "3. Power to make rules in respect of  certain               classes   of  public  employment  in   certain               areas.-               (1)The    Central   Government   may,    by               notification  in  the Official  Gazette,  make               rules  prescribing, in regard to  appointments               to-               (a)any  subordinate service or  post  under               the State Government of Andhra Pradesh, or               any  requirement  as to residence  within  the               Telengana area or the said Union territory  as               the case may be, prior to such appointment.               (2)   In this section,-               (a)..............................               (b)"Telengana   area"  comprises  all   the               territories  specified in sub-section  (1)  of               section  3 of the States  Reorganisation  Act,               1956." Under  s. 4, the Rules had to be laid before each  House  of Parliament  for  a  period  of not less  than  30  d  s  and Parliament  could make such alterations as it liked.   Under S.  5  the  Rules had a life of 5 years  but  by  subsequent legislation the period was extended to 10 years.  It is said that the period 118 is  to be extended by another 5 years.  The Rules were  made on  March  21,  1959.  They are called  the  Andhra  Pradesh Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Rules, 1959. Rule 3 provides :               "3.  Requirement  as  to  residence  Prior  to               Appointment :               A person shall not be eligible for appointment               to a post within the Telengana area under  the               State  Government  of Andhra Pradesh or  to  a               post  under  a local authority (other  than  a               cantonment board) in the said area unless-               (i)he has been continuously residing within               the  said area for a period of not  less  than               fifteen   years  immediately  preceeding   the               prescribed date; and               (ii)he   produces  before   the   appointing               authority ,concerned, if so required by it,  a               certificate of eligibility granted under these               rules;               Provided  that  in relation to  posts  in  the               Secretariat Departments and the Offices of the               Heads  of Departments of the State  Government               of  Andhra Pradesh situated in the  cities  of               Hyderabad and Secunderabad, the requirement as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

             to  residence  laid down in  this  rule  shall               apply  to  the  filling  of  only  the  second               vacancy in every unit of three vacancies which               are to be filled by direct requirement;               Provided further that any period of  temporary               absence from Telengana area for the purpose of               prosecuting  his  studies  or  for  undergoing               medical  treatment  or  any  period  of   such               temporary  absence not exceeding three  months               for  any other reason shall not be  deemed  to               constitute  a break in the continuity of  such               residence, but for purpose of calculating  the               said  period of fifteen years any such  period               of temporary absence shall be excluded." The  petitioners -were appointed between December  27,  1956 and  July 4, 1968.  They -challenge the Act, the  Rules  and the proposed action as ultra vires the Constitution.   Their case  is that Art. 16(3) under which the Act and  the  Rules purport  to be made has been misunderstood as  conferring  a power to make, a law prescribing requirement as to residence in  a part of a State.  For this reason S. 3 of the  Act  is challenged as ultra vires the Constitution.                             119 Article  16  on  which the Act, the Rules  and  the  present action  are all based, reads : "16.    Equality  of  opportunity  in  matters   of   public employment. (1)There  shall  be  equality  of  opportunity  -for   all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.  (2)  No  citizen shall, on ground only of  religion,  race, caste,  sex,  descent, place of birth, residence or  any  of them,  be  ineligible  for,  or  discriminated  ’against  in respect of, any employment or office under the State. (3)Nothing  in this article shall prevent Parliament  from making any law prescribing, in regard to a class or  classes of  employment  or  appointment  to  an  office  under   the Government  of, or any local or other authority   within,  a State  or Union territory, any requirement as  to  residence within   that  State  or  Union  territory  prior  to   such employment or appointment. (4)........................ (5)...................... The  question  is  one  of  construction  of  this  article, particularly  of  the first three clauses, to find  out  the ambit  of  the law taking power of  Parliament.   The  first clause  emphasises that ware shall be in India  equality  of opportunity  for  all citizens in matters of  employment  or appointment to any office under the late.  The word  ’State’ here is to be understood in the extended use given to it  by the definition of that word Art. 12.  The second clause then specifies  a prohibition against discrimination only on  the grounds  of  religion, race, sex, descent, place  of  birth, residence or any of them.  The intention here is make  every office  or employment open and available to  every  citizen, and  inter  alia to make offices or employment in  one  part India  open  to citizens in all other-parts of  India.   The third  pause  then  makes an  exception.   This  clause  was amended  by the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act,  1956. For  the  original  words of the  clause  ’under  any  State specified  in  the  First schedule or  any  local  or  other authority  within  its  territory  any  requirement  as   to residence within-that State’, the present words from  ’under the Government’ to ’Union territory’ have been  substituted. Nothing  turns  upon the amendment which seeks to  apply  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

the exception in the clause to Union territory and to remove ambiguity in language. 120 The  clause  thus  enables Parliament to make  a  law  in  a special  case  prescribing any requirement As  to  residence within a State or Union territory prior to appointment, as a condition  of  employment in the State or  Union  territory. Under Art. 35(a) this power is conferred upon Parliament but is denied to the Legislatures of the States, notwithstanding anything in the Constitution, and under (b) any law in force immediately  before the commencement of the Constitution  in respect to the matter shall subject to the terms thereof and subject to such adaptations that may be made under Art.  372 is to continue in force until altered or repealed or amended by Parliament. The  legislative power to create  residential  qualification for employment is thus exclusively conferred on  Parliament. Parliament   can   make  any  law  which   prescribes.   any requirement  as  to  residence within  the  State  or  Union territory prior to employment or appointment to an office in that  State or Union territory.  Two questions  arise  here. Firstly,   whether   Parliament’,  while   prescribing   the requirement, may prescribe the requirement of residence in a particular  part  of the State and, secondly,  whether  Par- liament  can delegate this function by making a  declaration and  leaving the details to be filled in by the rule  making power of the Central or State Governments. Mr.  S. V. Gupte, for the petitioners, points out  that  the ;Constitution is speaking of State and Union territory.   It has  already  made  a declaration that no  person  shall  be disqualified  for  any  office in  the  territory  of  India because  of his residence in any particular part  of  India. The  exception, therefore, must be viewed narrowly  and  not carried to excess by interpretation.  The article speaks  of residence  in a State and means only that.  If it  chose  to speak  of  residence in parts of State  such  as  Districts, talauqas,  cities, towns etc. more appropriate and  specific language could have been used such as ’any requirement as to residence  within that State or Union territory or  part  of that State or Union territory’.  Having used the word State, the  unit  State  is only meant and not  any  part  thereof. Reference  is  made to the history of the  drafting  of  the Article  and the debates in the Constituent  Assembly  which bear out this contention. On  the other hand, Mr. Setalvad bases his argument  on  two things.   He contends that the power is given to  Parliament to  make any law and, therefore, Parliament is  supreme  and can  make  any law on the subject as the article  says.   He very  ingeniously  shifts  the emphasis to  the  words  ’any requirement’  and contends that the requirement may be  also as  to  residence  in the State or any  particular  part  of state.                             121 The claim for supremacy of Parliament is misconceived.  Par- liament in this, as in other matters, is supreme only in  so far  as the Constitution makes it.  Where  the  Constitution does not concede supremacy, Parliament must, act within  its appointed  functions  and  not transgress  them.   What  the Constitution  says  is  a  matter  for,construction  of  the language   of  the  Constitution.   Which  is   the   proper construction  of  the two suggested?  By  the  first  clause equality  of opportunity in employment or appointment to  an office is guaranteed.  By the second clause, there can be no discrimination,  among  other  things,  on  the  ground   of residence.    Realising,  however,  that   sometimes   local

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

sentiments  may have to be respected or sometimes an  inroad from more advance States into less developed States may have to  be  prevented,  and  a  residential  qualification  may, therefore,  have to be prescribed, the exception  in  clause (3)  was  made.  Even so,, that clause  spoke  of  residence within the State.  The claim of Mr. Setalvad that Parliament can  make a provision regarding residence in any  particular part  of a State would render the general  prohibition  lose all its meaning.  The words ’any requirement’ cannot be read to  warrant  something  which  could  have  been  said  more specifically.   These words bear upon the kind of  residence or  its duration rather than its location within the  State. We  accept the argument of Mr. Gupte that the  Constitution, as  it  stands,  speaks of a whole State as  the  venue  for residential qualification and it is impossible to think that the  Constituent  Assembly  was  thinking  of  residence  in Districts,  Taluqas,  cities, towns or villages.   The  fact that  this clause is an exception and came as  an  amendment must  dictate that a narrow construction upon the  exception should  be placed as indeed the debates in  the  Constituent Assembly  also seem to indicate.  We accordingly reject  the contention  of Mr. Setalvad seeking to put a very  wide  and liberal  construction  upon  the words ’any  law’  and  ’any requirement’.   These words are obviously controlled by  the words ’residence within the State or Union territory’  which words  mean  what  they  say, neither  more  nor  less.   It follows,  therefore,  that  S. 3 of  the  Public  Employment (Requirement  as  to Residence) Act, 1957, in so far  as  it relates  to  Telengana (and we say nothing about  the  other parts) and Rule 3 of the Rules under it are ultra vires  the Constitution. In view of our conclusion on this point it is not  necessary to  express  any opinion whether delegation to  the  Central and/or State Governments to provide by rules for the further implementing of the law made by Parliament is valid or not. It  was argued that the Mulki Rules existing in  the  former Hyderabad  State must continue to operate by virtue of  Art. 35(b)  in  this  area.   This point is  not  raised  by  the petitions  under consideration and no expression of  opinion by us ’is desirable. L12 Sup Cl/69-9 122 For  the reasons given above we quash the orders passed  and declare  s.  3 of the Public Employment (Requirement  as  to Residence) Act, 1957 as also Rule 3 of the Rules ultra vires the  Constitution. The petitions shall be allowed but  there shall be no order about costs. Y. P.       Petitions allowed. 123