http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: P. RAVINDER & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT13/08/1991

BENCH: MISRA, RANGNATH (CJ) BENCH: MISRA, RANGNATH (CJ) KULDIP SINGH (J)

CITATION:  1991 SCR  (3) 564        1991 SCC  Supl.  (2) 112  JT 1991 (3)   480        1991 SCALE  (2)349

ACT: Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules.     Andhra  Pradesh  Government’s  Order  dated     18.11.81 --Appointment to Non-Gazetted posts of all services--Weight- age  of  5   marks to candidates who  have  obtained  basic educational  qualifications through Telugu  Medium--Applica- bility of order confined to selection carried through  State Public  Service  Commission--Whether  arbitrary--Benefit  of order  whether applicable to selection made  through  bodies other than the State Public Service Commission.

HEADNOTE:     The  Government of Andhra Pradesh issued an order  dated 18.11.81  which provided that in respect of appointments  to NonGazetted  posts  of  all services,  candidates  who  have obtained  their basic educational qualification through  the medium  of Telugu shall be given weightage of 5% marks.  But the  benefit  of the order was confined  to  selection  made through  the  State  Public Service  Commission.  The  State Administrative Tribunal held that the order applies to’  all selections irrespective of the body that makes selection  in the  State  and  extended the benefit of the  order  to  the selection  of the Sub-Inspectors of Police made through  the State  level  Recruitment Board. Against the  order  of  the Tribunal,  the  State of Andhra Pradesh filed an  appeal  to this Court. Allowing the appeal, this Court,     HELD:  1.  The  Tribunal exceeded  its  jurisdiction  in lifting  the  restriction imposed by the Government  in  the matter of benefit of 5% marks. The order of the Tribunal  is vacated. [567D-E]     2.  The  State  Government is the authority  to  take  a policy  decision. Whether the decision is tenable or not  in law, is not to be decided by the Court. Since Government  in their  wisdom have specifically confined the application  of the  Notification  to recruitment through the  State  Public Service Commission, the decision of the Tribunal that it was also  available to be extended to selection  through  bodies other  than the State Public Service Commission,  cannot  be appreciated. [566H, 567A] 565     3. When the Notification is specific and is intended  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

apply to a specified group of cases for selection, it  would not be open to the Tribunal to extend its application beyond what  has  been clearly specified. It is one matter  to  say that the Notification applied in a limited way may he hit by law;  it is another to say that contrary to the  restriction imposed,  the Tribunal would allow the Notification to  have general application. [S67C]

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal  Nos.  1694- 1709 of 1991.     From the Judgment and Order’ dated 23.1.1990 of the A.P. Administrative   Tribunal,  Andhra  Pradesh  in  R.P.   Nos. 13986/89,  24045-50/89,  25091/89, 1027 &  2111/.89,  28925- 26/89, 28929 to 31/89 and O.A. No. 1918 of 1990. K. Madhava Reddy and G. Prabhakar for the Appellants.     M.K. Ramamurthi, S. Markandeya and Ms. C. Markandeya for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered:     This  is  an appeal by the State  Government  of  Andhra Pradesh  by special leave: Challenge is to the order of  the State  Administrative Tribunal directing the benefit of  the Government  Order of 18.11.1981 to be extended to  selection of  the Sub Inspectors of Police which is done  through  the State  level Recruitment Board. The Government  Order  which has been extracted in the Order of the Tribunal reads thus:               "Notwithstanding  anything in the Andhra  Pra-               desh  State and Subordinate Service  Rules  or               the Special Rules, candidates seeking appoint-               ment  of  all the non-gazetted  posts  of  all               services,  and seeking eligibility in  general               educational  test who have obtained the  basic               educational   qualifications  prescribed   for               direct  recruitment eligibility for  promotion               in  the  special rules governing  such  posts,               through Telugu medium, shall be given  weight-               age  in the matter of selection to such  posts               by  awarding  them 5% of the  total  aggregate               maximum  marks  of  the  relevant  competitive               examination held by the Andhra Pradesh  Public               Service  Commission for recruitment  acquiring               eligibility to such posts.               566               "Having  regard  to the avowed policy  of  the               Government  to introduce Telugu  progressively               in the State in the coming years and as Telugu               has  been ’introduced as official language  at               Directorage level and also in the lower courts               in certain Districts of the State and so as to               give  preference  to candidates who  have  ob-               tained  the  basic  educational  qualification               through the medium of Telugu, Government  have               after careful examination decided in consulta-               tion  with the Andhra Pradesh  Public  Service               Commission   that  such  candidates  to   give               weightage of 5% of the total aggregate maximum               marks  of all the competitive examinations  of               the  Andhra Pradesh Public Service  Commission               for recruitment to all the non-gazetted  poStS               of all services. There is no dispute that the Order in its own terms  applies to  selection  carried on through the State  Public  Service Commission;  nor is there any dispute that the selection  of

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

Sub Inspectors, for the relevant period was being carried on by a body other than the State Public Service Commission.               The Tribunal observed as follows:               "We  cannot the rule too literally and  defeat               the object and purpose with which it has  been               made.  If the object and purpose are  kept  in               view,  then’ we have no hesitation  m  holding               that it applies to all selections irrespective               of  the  body  that makes  selections  in  the               State.  We  see no merit in the  literal  con-               struction suggested by Sri Sagar."     We are told that the validity of the Government  Notifi- cation  under  challenge on the ground that  the  Government have  no authority to make such a direction and  that  chal- lenge is in an independent petition pending disposal  before this  Court. Since this petition is not one challenging  the Notification but seeking its extension to areas not  covered by the Notification in terms, disposal of this petition  has no  bearing on the petition which challenges  the  Notifica- tion.     The  State Government is the authority to take a  policy decision. Whether the decision is tenable or not in law,  as we  have  just pointed out, is not to be decided  here.  But since Government in their wisdom have specifically  confined the  application of the Notification to recruitment  through the State Public Service Commission, we have not been 567 able to appreciate the decision of the Tribunal that it  was also  available to be extended to selection  through  bodies other than the State Public Service Commission.     Mr. Ramamurti appearing in. support of the  respondents’ cause has pointed out that if the Government Notification is confined  to  selection  through the  State  Public  Service CommissiOn,  the  Government-Notification would  be  hit  by Article 14 of the Constitution. Therefore, according to  Mr. Ramamurti,  it  was open to the Tribunal to  read  down  the requirement  by saying that the benefit of the  Notification would be applicable to all categories of selection.     We  have not been able to agree with Mr. Ramamurti  that when  the Notification is specific and is intended to  apply to  a  specified group of cases for selection, it  would  be open  to the Tribunal to extend its application-beyond  what has  been clearly. Specified. It is one matter to  say  that the Notification applied in a limited way may be hit by law; it  is another to say that contrary to the  restriction  im- posed,  the  Tribunal would allow the Notification  to  have general  application.  We  are inclined to  agree  with  Mr. Madhava  Reddy for the State that the Tribunal exceeded  its jurisdiction  in  lifting the restriction imposed.  by  the, Government in the matter of benefit of 5% of total aggregate marks  to those candidates who wrote their papers in  Telugu language. The appeal is allowed and the order of the  Tribu- nal         stands        vacated.         No         costs. ’ T.N.A.                                          Appeal   al- lowed. 568