It was further held that under rule 47 power was given to the Governor personally to relax the rules and the impugned order dated June 30, 1971 which was passed number by the Governor really but by the Government of Andhra Pradesh was, as such, invalid.
The respondents before us filed a writ petition for quashing the order dated June 30, 1971 insofar as it relates to the said 63 employees who were impleaded as respondents Nos.
The Andhra Pradesh Civil Services Executive Branch Special Rules Revenue Depart ment, hereinafter referred to as the Special Rules, were made on July 17, 1952 but mane effective retrospectively from November 1, 1956.
Under rule 4 a the State Government has to prepare in companysultation with the Public Service Commission a list of persons eligible for appointment as Tahsildars, and numberDeputy Tahsildar is eligi ble for appointment as Tahsildar unless his name is included in such list.
The State Government in companysultation with the Government of India issued an order on April 7, 1960 stating that the first stage promotion of the employees of the erstwhile Government of Hyderabad, that is, promotion to posts one stage above those held by them prior to November 1, 1956, would be governed by the Hyderabad Cadre and Recruitment Rules for promotion which were ap plicable to them before that date, but subsequent promotions after the first stage of promotion would be governed by the relevant rules in force in the newly formed State.
By an order dated June 30, 1971 the Governor of Andhra Pradesh relaxed the provisions of rule 4 a of the Special Rules relating to the qualifica tions required of Duty Tahsildars for being appointed as Tahsildars in favour of these 63 employees and requested the Board of Revenue to make appointments to the post of Tahsil dar in the Telengana area according to the order in which the names had been indicated in the panels for the aforesaid years against the vacancies.
The two respondents before us were directly recruited to the post of Deputy Tahsildar in the year 1962 and companypleted their period of probation in 1965.
The order made on June 30, 1971 relaxed rule 4 a of the Special Rules in the case of these employees to validate the panels for the years 1965, 1966, 1968 and 1969.
The Government felt that they should number be left out of companysideration for appointment as Tahsildars and asked the Public Service Commission to companysider the names of such Deputy Tahsildars for inclusion in the lists of eligi ble candidates assuring the Public Service Commission that the Government would relax the requirement as to qualifica tion in favour of such Deputy Tahsildars provided they were otherwise found suitable by the Commission.
The order traces the back ground of facts and states the reasons for relaxation of rule 4 a of the Special Rules in the case of these employ ees.
The learned Judge who heard the writ petition allowed the same and directed that the claims of the petitioners for inclusion of their names in the panels from the respective dates they had acquired the requisite qualifications, should be companysidered on merits.
In the Letters Patent appeal preferred by the State, a Division Bench affirmed the Judgment of the single Judge.
The view taken by the High Court that the power company ferred by rule 47 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordi nate Services Rules is exercisable by the Governor personal ly is based on the Judgment of this Court in Sardari Lal v. Union of India ors.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 11 11 1974 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeal No.
Only those candidates who have passed a criminal judicial test can be invested with magis terial powers under the orders in force.
The material part of the order is as follows The Government have had under companysideration for sometime past the preparation of panels of Tahsil dars of the Telengana Region.
Later, this order dated April 7, 1960 was made a statutory rule, namely, rule 42 h i of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Rules which came into force on March 7, 1962.
They became eligible for appoint ment as Tahsildars on November 14, 1966 and June 18, 19 69 respectively.
By virtue of this order the aforesaid 63 employees were promot ed to the post of Deputy Tehsildar which was the first stage promotion for them.
It was held that rule 47 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Rub did number companyfer any power to relax a rule retrospectively as had been done by the order dated June 30, 1971.
4 to 66 in the writ petition.
The respondents and the said 63 Deputy Tahsildars all belong to the Telengana area of the State.
The writ petitioners companyplained that as a result of the order their claims for appointment to the post of Tahsildar had been passed over in favour of unqualified persons, and the petitioners asked for a direction on the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the Board of Revenue, and the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commis sion, who are the appellants before us, to include the names of the petitioners in the panel for the years 1968 and 1969, as the case may be, and fix their seniority at the appropri ate places which they would have occupied had they been promoted at the relevant time.
Both of them were de clared as approved probationers in 1965 and were invested with the powers of a Magistrate of the third class, and then of the second class.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Public Service Commission accordingly included the names of these 63 employees in batches in the lists prepared for the years 1965, 1966, 1968 and 1969.
The 63 erstwhile employees of the Government of Hyderabad did number have the opportunity to acquire the qualifications prescribed by rule 4 a of the Special Rules on their promotion as Deputy TahsiIdars.
These 63 persons were working as Upper Division Clerks in the erst while State of Hyderabad when, on November 1, 1956, the State of Andhra Pradesh was formed.
704 of 1975.
4 to 66 in the writ petition.
596/73 .
Subbarao, for the Respondents.
P. Rao and T.V.S.N. Chari, for the Appellants.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GUPTA, J. This appeal by special .leave arises out of a writ petition made by the respondents before us in the Andhra Pradesh High Court questioning the inclusion in the list of Deputy Tehsildars eligible for promotion to the post of Tehsildar of the names of 63 persons, impleaded as re spondents Nos.
