Rule-Making Power Of Legislature Cannot Be Nullified By Application Of Concept Of ‘Functus Officio’: Apex Court
The Supreme Court allowed Civil Appeals preferred against the Judgment of the Telangana High Court, relating to regularisation of services.
The Supreme Court observed that the rule-making power of the legislature cannot be curtailed or nullified by application of the concept of ‘functus officio’.
The Court observed thus in a batch of Civil Appeals preferred against the Judgment of the Telangana High Court by which it quashed the Government Office Memorandum (GOM) issued by the Andhra Pradesh State.
The two-Judge Bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta held, “It cannot be disputed that the rule-making power of the legislature cannot be curtailed or nullified by application of the concept of functus officio. The principle of functus officio normally applies to a judicial forum or a quasi-judicial authority and would have no application to the rule-making authority which is within the domain of the State Government by virtue of Article 245 of the Constitution of India.”
The Bench reiterated that if the doctrine of ‘functus officio’ were to be applied to the sphere of administrative decision-making/rule making power of the State, the executive power would be virtually crippled and the State would find itself paralyzed, unable to change or reverse any policy or policy-based decision and its functioning would be brought to a grinding halt.
Senior Advocates Gaurav Agarwal, B. Adinarayana Rao, and Guru Krishnakumar represented the Appellants while Advocate K. Lakshmi Narsimha represented the Respondents.
Facts of the Case
The Appellants holding the qualification of B. Tech (Bachelor of Technology), were selected and appointed as Work Inspectors in the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes Cooperative Development Corporation in 1990 and were serving in the said department. The State Government issued a GOM, sanctioning posts of Assistant Executive Engineers (AEEs) for achieving Phase-II of the Andhra Pradesh Primary School Project which was initiated in collaboration between the State Government and the Government of United Kingdom in the year 1983. The said project was time-bound and hence, directions were issued by the State to the Chief Engineer, to fill up the posts immediately from the list available with the Andra Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC), and if the list was not adequate then the Chief Engineer was permitted to recruit the candidates through the employment exchange. Since the list available with the APPSC was inadequate to fill the posts required for the project, the Chief Engineer wrote to the State Government and in response thereof, GOM was issued by the Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, directing that these vacancies may be filled up from the Work Inspector/Draughtsman/Tracers who were already serving in the Panchayat Raj Department and possessed a graduation degree in Engineering i.e. B.E./B.Tech.
Thereafter, another GOM was issued by the said Department, whereby 386 posts of AEEs were sanctioned under the Cyclone Emergency Reconstruction Project (CERP). The Appellants who were already serving as Work Inspectors were appointed as temporary AEEs in 1992. Subsequently, the Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalization of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994 was enacted to streamline the recruitment process. Resultantly, 729 posts of AEEs were created and the Technical Grade-I Inspectors filed an Original Application before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (APAT) to consider their cases for appointment as AEEs. The APAT directed the State to consider the case of Work Inspectors and then GOM was issued for filling up the vacancies of AEEs. In 1995, a notification was issued for the appointment and the Respondents were appointed in 1997 upon due selection.
Being aggrieved by the non-consideration of their representations for regularisation, the temporary AEEs approached APAT and it directed the State to take a decision. However, the State rejected the prayer seeking regularisation and hence, the temporary AEEs again approached APAT. However, during the pendency of their Applications, the State regularised their services. Though satisfied with the regularisation but aggrieved by the denial of seniority, the Appellants made various representations to the State Government and it accepted the same. As a result, the Respondents approached the APAT which dismissed their Applications. The case went to the High Court which allowed their Writ Petitions and hence, this was challenged by the Appellants before the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, said, “It is trite that once the services of employee(s) are regularised, the ad-hoc or stop-gap nature of the appointment does not survive. In this regard, we may gainfully refer to Santosh Kumar v. State of A.P.22, wherein, while dealing with a similar issue and the self-same service rules, this Court upheld the regularisation of services of temporary employees with retrospective effect and granted them seniority from the date of initial appointment holding that their case falls under Proposition(B) of Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers’ Association(supra).”
The Court further noted that the Division Bench gave imprimatur to the contention of the Respondents (the regularly appointed candidates of the 1997 batch), that the issuance of GOM rendered the State Government ‘functus officio’, thereby precluding it from both revisiting or reopening the matter and issuing the revised GOM.
“Therefore, we are unable to concur with the reasoning assigned by the High Court that the State Government became functus officio after issuance of G.O.M. No. 234 dated 27th June, 2005 and could not have issued the revised G.O.M. No. 262 dated 17th June, 2006. The view so taken by the Division Bench is untenable and ultra vires the Constitution of India”, it added.
The Court also reiterated that while administrative actions and statutory rules that impact citizens’ rights are subject to judicial review, the notion that the State must provide a prior hearing to affected individuals during the exercise of its rule-making power is fundamentally flawed.
“We are also of the considered view that the reasoning assigned by the High Court, in the impugned judgment that the private respondents herein, as affected parties, were required to be heard before the issuance of the revised G.O.M. No. 262 dated 17th June 2006, is unsustainable and contrary to the established legal principles. Such an interpretation by the Division Bench has far reaching and potentially disastrous implications”, it remarked.
The Court observed that if the State Government is compelled to afford an opportunity of hearing to every individual or entity likely to be affected by its administrative decision-making, it would effectively paralyze governance by imposing an undue procedural roadblock and this would place the State in a position where its rule-making authority would be severely constricted, defeating the very purpose of efficient policy implementation and undermining its ability to discharge its administrative duties.
“In the wake of the discussion made above, we answer the issue in the affirmative and hold that the period of officiating service (i.e. period between 1990 to 2005) of the appellants and the batch of the AEEs appointed between 1990-1992 has to be counted as regular service for determining the seniority, entitling him/them to be placed above the 1997 batch of regularly appointed candidates (private respondents herein) in the seniority list. The State Government was fully justified in issuing the revised G.O.M. No. 262 dated 17th June, 2006, which is unassailable in the eyes of law”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeals and set aside the impugned Judgment.
Cause Title- P. Rammohan Rao v. K. Srinivas and Ors. Etc. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 212)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocates Gaurav Agarwal, B. Adinarayana Rao, Guru Krishnakumar, AORs Devina Sehgal, Tatini Basu, P. Mohith Rao, Advocates S. Uday Bhanu, Byrapaneni Suyodhan, Rao Vishwaja, P Vamshi Rao, J Akshitha, Eugene S Philomene, and Ashwin K.
Respondents: Advocates K. Lakshmi Narsimha, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Bina Madhavan, and Tushar Singh.
