Supreme Court Upholds Employee Allocation to Telangana in State Reorganization Dispute: B. Subba Rayudu Case (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 14 September 2022

Citation: [2022] INSC 791

Judges: Indira Banerjee J. and V. Ramasubramanian J.

Can an employee be denied their choice of state allocation during state reorganization, especially when their spouse is allocated to a different state? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh into Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. The core issue revolved around the allocation of a Joint Director in the Animal Husbandry Department, with the court ultimately upholding the High Court’s decision to allocate the employee to Telangana. This judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice V. Ramasubramanian.

Case Background

The case involves B. Subba Rayudu, a member of a Scheduled Tribe, who was working as a Joint Director in the Animal Husbandry Department of the undivided State of Andhra Pradesh. His wife was also a state government employee. When Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated into Telangana and Andhra Pradesh on 2nd June 2014, a dispute arose regarding the allocation of employees between the two states. The Central Government issued guidelines for this allocation, aiming to distribute employees fairly, considering factors like seniority, local status, and spousal connections. Mr. Rayudu opted for allocation to Telangana, where he was working on deputation at the time of bifurcation. However, he was tentatively allocated to Andhra Pradesh, leading to a series of legal challenges.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the Central Administrative Tribunal issued an interim order stating that the final allocation of Mr. Rayudu to Andhra Pradesh would be subject to the final result of his application. The High Court then remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the High Court after the abolition of the Administrative Tribunal. The High Court ultimately set aside the Central Government’s order allocating Mr. Rayudu to Andhra Pradesh and directed his allocation to Telangana.

Legal Framework

The case is governed by the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, specifically Section 77(2) which states that the Central Government shall determine the successor state to which every person shall be finally allotted for service. The second and third provisos to this section state that employees of local, district, zonal, and multi-zonal cadres shall continue to serve in that cadre and be deemed to be allotted to the successor state where the cadre falls. Section 80 of the Act provides for the constitution of an Advisory Committee and the issue of allocation guidelines by the Central Government. The allocation guidelines issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh on 30th October 2014, which were prepared under Section 80 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, also play a crucial role in this case. These guidelines outline the principles and procedures for the final allocation of personnel.

The Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975, defines a ‘local candidate’. According to paragraph 7 of this order, a candidate is considered local if they have studied in an educational institution in the local area for at least four consecutive academic years or resided in the area for at least four years.

Arguments

Petitioners’ (State of Telangana & Anr.) Arguments:

• The allocation was made by the Government of India as per Sections 77(2) and 80 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, and the Final Allocation Guidelines.
• Allocation was to be made based on seniority as of 1st June 2014, but local candidates of the State for which they opted were to be considered first.
• The Respondent was a local candidate of Andhra Pradesh, and his spouse was deemed allocated to Andhra Pradesh as per Section 77(2) of the 2014 Act.
• There were no vacancies in Telangana to accommodate him.
• The High Court erred in describing the Respondent as a local candidate of Telangana.

Respondent’s (B. Subba Rayudu) Arguments:

• The High Court’s judgment was well-reasoned and did not require interference under Article 136 of the Constitution.
• The Respondent was a local candidate of Telangana, having studied there for seven consecutive years.
• His wife was a native of Telangana and posted there, making him eligible for allocation to Telangana under paragraph 18(l) of the guidelines.
• The Union of India gave no weight to the seniority of the Respondent and filled vacancies with persons who were natives of Telangana, contrary to clause 18(f) of the Guidelines.
• The denial of posting and salary from 8th March 2017 was illegal.

Sub-Submissions of the Parties:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue was whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the Central Government’s order and directing the allocation of the Respondent to Telangana. The sub-issues included:

1. Whether the Respondent was a local candidate of Telangana.
2. Whether the Respondent was entitled to allocation to Telangana based on his seniority and the fact that his spouse was a local candidate of Telangana.
3. Whether the allocation guidelines were correctly interpreted and applied.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Suriyakala v. A. Mohandoss and Ors. [(2007) 9 SCC 196]*: Cited to emphasize that Article 136 of the Constitution does not create a regular forum of Appeal and is a discretionary power.
• M/s Bengal Chemical and Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Their Employees [AIR 1959 SC 633]*: Cited to reiterate that the power under Article 136 is discretionary.
• Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala and Another [(2000) 6 SCC 359]*: Cited to support the discretionary nature of power under Article 136.
• State of Bombay v. Rusy Mistry [AIR 1960 SC 391]*: Cited to support the discretionary nature of power under Article 136.
• Municipal Board, Pratabgarh and Another v. Mahendra Singh Chawla and Others [(1982) 3 SCC 331]*: Cited to support the discretionary nature of power under Article 136.
• Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan [AIR 2003 SC 2889]*: Cited to support the discretionary nature of power under Article 136.
• Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India [AIR 1984 SC 1420]*: Cited to emphasize that there is only one domicile in India, i.e. the domicile of the country and not of a State.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The respondent’s local status in Telangana, based on his education.
• The respondent’s seniority in the cadre of Joint Director.
• The fact that the respondent’s spouse was a local candidate of Telangana.
• The need to interpret the allocation guidelines harmoniously with the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

The Court emphasized the factual aspects of the case, such as the respondent’s education, seniority, and spousal connections, along with the legal framework to arrive at the decision.

Logical Reasoning

Issue 1: Whether the Respondent was a local candidate of Telangana?

Issue 2: Whether the Respondent was entitled to allocation to Telangana based on his seniority and the fact that his spouse was a local candidate of Telangana?

Issue 3: Whether the allocation guidelines were correctly interpreted and applied?

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, stating that there was no infirmity in the well-reasoned order. The Court emphasized that the allocation guidelines should be interpreted harmoniously with the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The Court noted that the High Court had correctly found that the respondent was a local candidate of Telangana and was entitled to allocation as per his seniority. The Court also noted that the spouse of the respondent was a local candidate of Telangana. The Supreme Court observed that the Union of India had given a “strange interpretation” to the guidelines by ignoring the seniority of the Respondent and the fact that his spouse was a local of Telangana.

The Court quoted the High Court’s observation: “This suggests that the Union of India gave no weight at all to the seniority of the petitioner or to the fact that he was the senior most person in the cadre of Joint Director Class-A to opt for the State of Telangana, proceeded to fill up the vacancies allocated to the State of Telangana by persons who are ‘natives of Telangana’, and then took a stand that there are no vacancies in Telangana State, where the petitioner can be accommodated. This procedure is patently contrary to Para 18(f) of the Guidelines.”

The Court also quoted the High Court’s observation: “Therefore, the petitioner was entitled to be allocated to the State of Telangana even on spouse ground and the Union of India without taking note of the above facts erred in rejecting petitioner’s request for allocation to the State of Telangana even on spouse ground.”

The Court also agreed with the High Court’s finding that: “So the petitioner cannot be denied salary by the State of Telangana from 8.3.2017 till date on the basis of the said relieving order or the permanent allocation order F.No.29/01/2016 – SR(S) dt. 14.01.2016 (Order No.5(2)/2016) Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India.”

The Court held that the guidelines were directory and not inflexible. The Court found that the High Court had rightly concluded that the Respondent was a local candidate of Telangana and was entitled to allocation as per his seniority and on the basis of spousal preference.

Key Takeaways

• During state reorganization, employee allocation should consider seniority, local status, and spousal connections.
• Allocation guidelines must be interpreted harmoniously with the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
• Seniority should be given due weight in the allocation process, and local candidates should be given preference.
• Spousal connections should be considered while allocating employees between the successor states.
• Employees cannot be denied salary or posting while their allocation is under dispute.

Directions

The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, thereby upholding the High Court’s order to allocate B. Subba Rayudu to the State of Telangana with effect from 14th January 2016. The State of Telangana was directed to give a posting to the Respondent in the cadre of Joint Director Class A in the Animal Husbandry Department and also pay his salary within four weeks from the date of the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in matters of state reorganization, employee allocation must be done fairly, considering seniority, local status, and spousal connections. The judgment emphasizes the need to interpret allocation guidelines in a manner that is harmonious with fundamental rights. This case reaffirms the principle that guidelines are directory and not inflexible and that seniority must be given due weight in the allocation process. This case reinforces the principle that employees cannot be denied salary or posting while their allocation is under dispute. This case does not overrule any previous position of law.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, directing the allocation of B. Subba Rayudu to the State of Telangana. The Court emphasized the importance of considering seniority, local status, and spousal connections in employee allocation during state reorganization. The judgment serves as a reminder that allocation guidelines should be interpreted harmoniously with the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution and that employees cannot be denied their rightful dues during such disputes.