The High Court · 2025

affidavit filed in support of the petilion, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the lnterim orders passed by Hon'ble Court in |.A.NO. 1 of 2024 in WP.No.5477 of 2024 d1.12-06- 2024 and also dismiss the Writ Petition as it is devoid of merits. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI M. SURENDR RAO, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI SRINIVASA RAO MADIRAJU Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 & 2: SRI SATYANARAYANA RAO, GP FOR SERVICESE - I Counsel for the Respondent No.3 & 4: SRI R.V. RAMANA The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSTTY AI{D THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO I{AITDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO.5477 OF 2024 ORDER: hrer Hon'bte Srl Justice Ndrsing Ro.o [email protected].) This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief: (tt) to declare that Rute 3 of Telangana State Comrnercial Tax "(i) Seruice Rules issued uide CO Ms.No.360, dated 23.04.1994 (adapted ba Gouernment o/ ?, S. &c 101 of A.P.Re-Organization Act) in so far as it prouides for appointment bg transfer from category of Section Officers and Priuate Secretaies to Secretary to Gouefltment of Telangana Slqte and. note thereunder reseruing l Ook percentage of the posts of CTO to them as illegal os th.ey are uiokttiue of T.S-Pr-tblic EnploAment OLC & RDR Order, 2018 and also in uiolation of Article 371(D) of the Constitution of htdia. (iil FurTher declare that continuing the sand proviston in the seruice rules despite the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Coufl in V.Jqgnnadha Rao tt. Stz,te of A.P and others, as illegal and in uiolatiue of para-11 of thE Presidential Order, 1975 and para- 1 1 of Telangana Presidential Order, 2018. Further declare thet U-O Note No-839O/ SU-I/41/ 2023, daled 12.12.2023 calling for uillingness of Section Olllcers and Priuate Secretaries for appointment bg transfer to *Le post of CTOS is illegal and controry to the ciraiar U.O. Note daled 15.02.2023 and the judgment mentioned aboue. (iu) Further declare tllqt qll the 68 ua.ancies of CTOS auailable in Multi Zone- 11 shall be filled either bg direct recntitntent or bg promotion from the category of DCTOs only."

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are working as Deputy Commercial Tax Oflicers (DCTOs) it Zone-Yl uide proceedings No.CCTS Ref.No.TS / D2 I D2 / 7 08 / 21a, dated

19.I2.2O2O and their narnes were shown at S1.Nos.6, 36 and 74 respectively in the provisional selection list. As per Para No.3 of the Telalgara Public Employment (Organization) of Local 2 PSKI & NNR) wPNo sa77 of 2o2+ 1 \ Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment Order, 20 18, the Telangana State Government had approved the scheme for Organization of Local Cadres in each and every Department by issuing separate Government Orders (GOs).

3. In respect of Commercial Tax Department, Government issued G.O.Ms.No.2O9, General Administration (SPF-ll) Department, dated O4.O8.2021 approving the scheme of Organization for Local Cadres in Commercial Taxes Department. In terms of the said G.O., the posts of DCTOs and CTOs fall unrler Multi-Zonal Cadre. It is also stated that as per the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagannadha Rao's case (supra) the Government of A.P.. GAD (SPF) Department issued Circular U.O. Note No.44232- B/SPF.A/2002, dated 15.O2.2OO3, giving instructions to all the Departments of Secretariat and Heads of Departments to stop appointment b], transfer of Section Officers/ Assistant Section Officers, Superintendents etc., working in the Secretariat and Heads of Department Offices to the Executive Cadre posts localized under Presidential Orders in the Districts, till further orders. 3 wPNo.5477 o1202+

4. It is further stated that the Gazetted Level Posts in Commercial Tax Department in the combined State of Andhra Pradesh were governed by the Rules called the Andhra Pradesh Commercia,l Taxes Rules issued uide G.O.Ms.No.360, Revenue (CT.l), dated 23.O4.1994 (adapted by Government olTelangana State in terms of Section 101 of the Andhra Pradesh State Re- Orga-nization Act, 2014). The posts of CTOs and DCTOs come under Category-S and Category-6 of said G.O.Ms.No.360, dated

23.04.1994. Rule-3 of the Andhra Pradesh Commercial Taxes Ruies deals with method of appointment of certain posts, which reads as under:

51.Ito. (1t 1 I Z I

3. 4 5 CateSory t2l Addl. Commissioner, Commercial Ta-xes Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Dy.Commissioner, Commercial Taxes I Asst. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Commercial Tax Officer I I 6 Dy.Commercial Tax Officer promotion M€thod of appoirtItrcltt l3l promotion By Categorv {2) By promotion Cateeon {3} By promotion Categor! {4) By Catesory (5) (i) By direct recruitment; (iilBy promotion from category of Section Officers/ Private Secretaries Secretaries, Government of A.P., Secretariat (except Law and Finance and Planning (Finance Wing) Department (i)By transfer from the category Asst.Commercial Tax the A.P. Officers in Commercial Taxes Subordinate Service. I I \ ---' ,r 4 PSru & NNRJ WPNo.5477 ol2O2tt - (ii) By transfer from the category Superintendents/ Special Category stenographers of the C)flices of the Commissioner Commercial Taxes and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal.

5. It is further stated that the total cadre strength of Commercial Tax Officers in Telangana State is 153 and to fill up the said posts, the respondents called for service particulars of Section Officers ald Private Secretaries to Government, uide U.ONote No.B39O/SU.I/At12023, dated 12.12.2023, u'hereunder rt is stated that the Section Officers / Private Secretaries in Telangana Secretariat are not Members in any cadre in the Department ol Commercial Taxes; and that the persons holding the posts in the loca-l cadres in the Department of Commerc ial Taxes alone are entitled to be considered for appointment to higher posts in the Department of Local Cadres (District Zore and Multi Zone) in terms of para-S ol the Presidential Order, 1975. The scope ol para-s of the Presidentia.l Order, 1975 has been interpreted by this Court and also b1- the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagannadha Rao,s case (supra). Subsequent to the said landmark .judgment, the Governmen t of Andhra Pradesh also issued Circular vide 5 PSKJ & NNAJ wPNo.5477 oJ 202+ U.O.Note No.44232-8/SPF.A/2002, dated 15.02.2003 instructing all the Departments of Secretariats and all Heads of the Departments to stop appointments by transfer of Sections Officers/Assistant Section officers, Superintendents etc., working in the Secretariat arrd Heads of Department of office to the Executive Cadre posts localized under the said Presidential Order. Thus, it is clear that Section Officers / Private Secretaries to the Telangana Secretariat calnot be appointed by transfer as the post of Commercial Tax Officer is an Executive Cadre post organized in Multi Zonal Cadre.

6. Heard Sri M.Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsei representing Sri Srinivasa Rao Madiraju,learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Satyanarayana Rao, learned Government Pleader for Services-l appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri R.V.Ramana learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4.

7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that any provision in the Service Rules or any other 1aw to the extent is not in consonance with the provisions of the Presidential Order in terms of Article 371 (D)(10) of the Constitution of India and in terms of Para-l1 of the Presidential Order, as the posts of DCTOs and CTOs are 6 PSN & NNR) WPNo.5a77 o12024 Multi-Zone P,:sts and the post of CTOs can be filled with by promotion from DCTO or by Direct Recruitment only. But, it cannot be filled n'ith by way of appointment by transfer of Section OiTicers and Private Secretaries to Secretariat, Telangana Grrvernment as it is not a post Organized in Local Cadres in the Department of Commercia-l Taxes. In support of his contentic,ns, he also placed reliance on the judgment of erstvrhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Ilyderabad IN G.RaJababu u. Gouerrtment of Andhra Pradesh, rep bg its Secretary, & otherst, r.r,herein it was held thus 'lt is tnrc t hat the factual matrix in the present case is not identical to that oJ' V.Jagannad.ha Rao. While, in th.e present case, the nethod o.l appointtnent under the Rules is appointm.ent bA transkr from posts ut the trcad office to the post of tle Assistqnt Labour Olficer h the subordinate olfce oJ the sane depafitnent, in V.Jaganrt(tdlto Reo appotttment bg transfer uos from posts in one departm.\tt to posts in another. This distinction is, hotoeuer, insignificatLt. The Supreme Court in V. Jagannadln Rao I , tlhile exc,ntin]]4l tlte ualiditg of certain provisions of tle A.P. Labour Suborditate Seruice Rules, interpreted the provisions of the Presidenlral Order and the construction placed bg the Supreme Court, on the prouisions of the Presidential Order, is bindmg on the High Coun and must be folLouted. Clause i'1. of the irlstructior-s in G-O.P. No.729 dated 1.11-1975, relates to recruitment fo posrs in offues of heads of departments an<l speoficctlly prouides that tte scheme of reseruation in .fauour of Local candtdetes, as prescibed in the Presidenti<tl Order, would not ' zooz(:) arr sro (:.g) 7 PSru & NNB) wPNo-sa77 of 202\ appllJ to sLch posts. It needs no reiteration that il is onlA to the lrmited ertent that Article 37 l-D of the Constitution of India requires, anrd the Presidential Order so provides, can different local cadres be organized for different parts of the State. But for the prouiston of Article 371-D, and the Presid.ential Order, ang such local qrea reseruotion, or reseruation on the basis of residenie in a part of the State, uould haue fallen foul of Articte 16(2) and tuould be uoid in vieu of Article 13(2) of the Constitution. In so far posts in the olfice of the heads of departments are concented, since Para 14 itsef prouides that ttle Presidenttal Order hqs no application to such posrs, local area reseruation/ reseruation on the basis of residence in a part of the Stclje, cannot be prouided to posts in head oJfices as it would then be in vioLation of Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India. It is onlg uhen the source of power to so prouide is referable to a specific prouision in the Presidentlal Order itself would exercise of sttch power be entitled for protection under clause (1O) of Article 371-D of the Constihttion of India. Sirtce the source of pouter of the State gouernnEnt, in maktng ntles prouiding for oppointment ro posts in a local zonal cqdre bg tronsfer from posts in the olfices of heads of departments, is not referable to ang of the proutsions of the Presidential Order, such rules are not protected under Afticle 371- D(10) of the Constitution of India and, consequenth!, ore liabLe to be stntck down as ultrauires Article 16(2) of the Constitution. Clause 21, of the instructions in G-O.(P) N o. 7 2 9 dated O 1. 1 1. 1 9 7 5, is but a reiteration of this prtnciple and reliance placed tlereon, to contend thrjt emplogees holding posts in the olfices of heads of departments qre entitled to be appotnted bU transfer to local cadre posts, (distict/ zone), is mtspLaced-. The mere fact tlnt posrs, in olfices of the heads of departnents, do not come within the puruiew of the Presidentiat Order uould not entitle emplogees holding such posts to claim oppointment bg transfer fo posls in a local cadre for, under Para 5(1) of the Presidential Order, each part of the State for which a locsl cadre has been organizeL in respect of ang cqtegory o/posts, shall be a separate unit for purposes of recruitment, appointmenL discturge, senioritg, promotion, transfer etc., Appointment by I \ -- ] l wPNo.sa77 ol20+ - .a zonal cadre post, tn uieu of para 5(1), con onl!, be transfer tc, made from persons witltirr the said zonal cadre and uho rttrm patt thereof. Snrce emploAees appointed in posts in the olfices of tte heads of departments do not foin part of the loca] zonal cadre they are not ettitled to be appointed bg transfer to posts in the said local zorral cadre as anA such appointment uould be in uiolation of Para 5(1) of the Presidential Order. Since posts in the offce of the Heads of Depatltletll are outside the puruieu oJ tlV Presidential order, locnl area reseruation/ reseruation on the basis of residence in q part of the State, cqnnot be provid.ed. for such posts and consequettlg etnptogees Jrom alt ouer the State, including those in subordinate offices who form part of a zonal cadre, cannot be excluded from cotlsideration, for appotntment to posts in the ofrtces of heods of deportmenls, merelg on the basis of residence. Reliance placed ort Notes (l) and (2) of Rute 3 oj tLe Ministeial Seruice Rules 1998 is, therefore, misplaced. The mere fad tfat persons from subordinale offices are entitled to be appointed on transfet to posts in olFces of heads of departments would not confer a similar ight on emptoyees, appointed ,o posrs in olfrces of the lxzads of depdrtments. to be considered for appointment bA transfer to posts in subordinate olfices, uhtch are organized as zonal cad.res under Para 3(3) of the Presideriial Order. The distinction is obuiotts. While posts, uhich are not gouenled bg the provi-sions of the PresidentioJ Ord.er, callnot be ertended tlrc beneft of local area reserllation, or reseruatiol on the basis of resrdence in o part of lhe State. nor can empLoyees, uho fom Dart of a local zonal cadre, be exctuded from consideration, for appointmeni to such posts, merely on the basis of residence in o part of the State, persons lnlding posts, u,hich fall outside tLtr, scope of the Presidentiof Order, cannot claim paritg ond seek appaintnent ,o posts in a tocalized zonal cadre, for a local cadre, under Para 5(1) of the Presidenttal Order, is a sepo.rate qnd distinct urtit for the purpose of promotiory appointment, senioitg etc,. Persorts txho do not belong to the locat zonal cadre are tat entitled to claim paitg under ArTicle 14 rmd 16 of the Coistitution of India, ,for being considered for appointment bg transfer to posts in such ioc'al cadres, since clause (1O) of Articte 371-D giues ouer- riding eflect to the Presidential Order ouer other provisions of the ( 9 PSK] & NNR/ WPNo-5477 ol 202r.1 Con-sfttulr'on including Part III thereof. The plea of discimination must, therefore, fail. Under Clause 2(a) of Article 371-D an order made bg the President, under clause (1) of Article 371-D, mag require the State Aouenlment to organize any class or classes of posts in any ciutl seruice of the State, or ro such class or classes of ciuil posts under the State, tnto dilferent local cadres for different parls of tLLe State and allot, in accorda nce with such principLe and procedure as may be specified in the order, the persons holding stch posts to th.e local cadres so organized. Under Clause 2(b)(iii) the order made bg the Prestdent, under clause (1) of Article 371-D, mag speciJy any part or parts of the State uhich shall be regarded as a local area for the purpose of admission to arut Uniuersittt within th.e State or ong other educational [nstitution which is subject to the control of the State Couemment. While organization of local cadres falls under c'.Ittuse 2(a) arul 2(b)(t) of Articte 371-D, Iocal orea reseruation ./or adrnissions to uniuersities, or ottler educational insrifutions subject to the control of the Stote Gouernment, falls under clause 2(b)(iii) of Article 371-D- Since the areas of operatton diffeL separate ord.ers uere made bV the President i.e., (1). The A.P. Educatonql lnsriturions (Regutation of Admission) Order, 1974; aruJ (2). The A.P. Public EnvloAment (organtzation of locaL carTres atLd rerylation of direct recnitment) Order, 1975. As both these orders operate in different areas, the prouisions of one order cannot be rectd into the other. Reading the prouisions oI *Le educationnl order into the prouisions of the public emplogment order uould, in elfect, amount to adding or substihtting words in the pubtic emplognrcnt order. No ight, must less a fundamental rtght, can be claimed bA ang person to be treated as belonging to a local carlre uttder the Presidential Order nor can Para 8, uthich prescribes th.e ertent of reseruation to posts to be filled in bg direct rectuitment, be read. into Para 5(1), either lor promotion or appointment bA transfer. It is a cardinal principle of interpretation oJ statutes that the tuords of a statute must be understood in their natural, ordinary or populor sense and cottstnt"ed according to their grammatical meaning. (Guntdeudatta yKSSS Maryqdit t/s. State of I 10 wPNo.sa77 of 20+ I Moharashtrq. The legistature may be safelg presumed to haue tntended what the words plainlg sag. (Bhaiji Vs. Sub-Avisional Officer, Thandla). What is to be boflrc in mind rs uhat hos been said tn tlrc statute and uhat has not been said. A construction tlhich requires, for its support, addition or subsfitutrbn o.f word.s or tuhich resirlts in rejection of Luords, has to be auoid,ed. (Gualior Rayons Silk Mfg (Wug.) Co. Ltd. Vs. Custodian of Vested Forests, Shyom Ki.shoi Deut Vs. Patrw Municipal Corpt\ A.R. AtttulaA Vs. Randas.Snruu-,cs NaAak, Dental Councit of India Vs. Hoi Prakash , J. P. Borrsd Vs. State of Rajasttan and. State of Jtwrkhand Vs. Gouind Sirrgh). The pimary rule of construction is th.at the ntention of the Legislation must be fouttd itr the uords used bg the Iagi.slature ttself. The Etestion is not what maA be supposed and hr:s been intertded but tuhat ho.s been said.. (Uniqte Butyle Tube Industries Pul. Ltd. Vs. Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporotion. It is not lor C:ourts to supply uords to Para 5{1) of the Presid.ential Order. Courts should nol, ordinailg, add uords to a statule or reod uords into it tthich are not there, especicltlg when a literol reading th.ereof produces an tntelligible resutt. (Delhi Fin(]ncio,l Corpn Vs. Rajiu Anand. There is a line, though thin, uthich separates adjudicatron from legislation. That line shouW not be crossed or ero.sed. Courts expound the lau', the11 do not legtslate. (State of Kerala Vs. Mathai Verghese, Union of India Vs. Deokt Nandan Aggortual). A Judge is not entttled to ctdd something nrcre than uhat is tltere in tlle Statute by utag of a supposed intention of the legislahre. (Union of India Vs. Elphinstone Spinning and Weauing Co. Ltd). The legtslatiue casus omissus cannot be supplted bg judicial interpretqtiue process. (Llaruti Wire Industies Put. Ltd. Vs. S.T.O., L5.7, Circle, Mattancherry, Gouind Singtt In interpreting a statute th.e court cannot add or amen./l bg consttuctiott to make up defictencies whtch are lefr there. (State of GuJclrat Vs. AnipbhaiNathjibLni Patet). Courts dre not entitted to read taords into an Act unless cleat rea-sons for it is to be found uithrrt the four conrers of tle Act itself. (The Union of India Vs. Braj Nandan Singh). 1,1 wPNo.5477 o1202+ Since a local cadre (distict,/ zone) constitutes a separate unit for the purpose of appointment, promotion, senioritg etc., it is or y from urithin the said local cadre can emplogees be mnsidered for promotion/ appointment bg transfer to higher posts in the local cadre. On the other hand, emplogees from outside the local, codre are not entitled to be considered and anA rule uhtch so prouides is lioble to be struck down o.s ullrauires Para 5(1) of the PresidentiaL Order. It is necessary, in this contert, to note that the A.P. Labour Subordinate .Seruice Rules tuere made in exerci-se of the pouers confened bg the Prouiso to Article 309 of the Constitution. The opening LDords of Article 309, "subject to the prouisions of thts Constitution', limtt the amplitude of thqt polaer. (8.5. Yadau Vs. State of Haryana l25l ). Exercise of pouer bA tle State Legislature to make laws urrder Article 3O9, or of the Gouemor to make rules under its prouiso, are open to challenge on tlle grouru7 of uiolation of the provisions of the Constitution. (Chatrman, Railtlag Board Vs. C.R. Rangadhamaiah). The legislatiue authoitg and the Rule moking power to regulate recruitment qnd conditions of serutce of persons appointed to public serutces and posts in connectton uith the affairs of a State under Article 3O9, b also qtalified bg the declaration made tt ArticLe l3(2), that anA lau, u.thtch takes a u;ag or abidges the igllts conferred bg Part III shall be uoid. (Behram Khurshid Pesikaka ys. Stofe of Bombag). Since the rules, made in exercise oJ the powers cotferred bg the Prouiso to Article 309 of the CotLstitutiorl of India, ore "strbject to the prouisions of the Constitlttion' and urlder Clause (10) of Attble 371-D, the prouisions of the Presidential Order shall haw effect notwithstondirLg anAthitlg contqined in ang oth.er provision of the Constitution" a ruLe made under the proriso to Article 3O9 contrary to the Presidential Order is liable to be stnrck doun."

8. Learned Senior Counsel finally prays this Court to declare Rule-3 of the Telangana State Commercial Tax Services Rules issued uide G.O.Ms.No.360, dated 23.O4.i994 (adapted by Government of Telzrngana State under Section 1O 1 of A. P 72 WPNo.5477 of 202+ State Re-Orgernization Act, 2Ol4l insofar as it provides for appointment by transfer from categorv of Section Ofltcers / Private Secretaries in Telangana Secretariat {lrrd thereby reserving 109i, of the posts of CTOs, as arbitran,, illegal and consequently to call for willingness of Section Officers / Private Secretaries for appointment by transfer to the post of Commercial Tax Officers, uide, U.O.Note No.8390/SU.I / Ar I 2023, dated 12. 12.2023

9. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing lor respondent Nos. i and 2 submits that appointmenl by transfer of Section Officers/ Private Secretaries to the post of Commercial Tax Officer and the note thereunder reserving l.Ooh for the post to Section Officers/ Private Secretaries to Telangana State Secretariat is existing as per Rule 3 of the Telangaxa State Commercial Tax Service Rules. In fact, para-S (1) of the PresidentialOrder, 2Oi8 states that each part of the State has a local cadre in respect of any category of posts and shall be a separate unit for the purpose of recruitment, appointment, discharge and such other post as may be specified by the State Government in respect of that category of post ( 13 WPNo-5477 ol 2021+ 1O. Learned Government Pleader further contended that in earlier Presidential Order, 1975, Rule (5)(1) defines Local Cadres ald Transfer of Persons, which reads that "Each part of State, for which a local cadre has been organrzed in respect of any category of posts, shall be a separate unit for the purpose of recruitment, appointment, discharge, seniority, promotion ald trarsfer, and such other matters as may be specified by the State Government." Whereas Rule 5(1) of the present Presidential Order i.e., the Telangana Public Employment (Organization of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order-2O 18, defines Local Cadres and Recruitment or appointment ol persons, which reads thus "Each part of State for which a local cadre has been organized in respect of any category of posts, sha-ll be a separate unit for the purpose of recruitment, appointment, discharge and such other matters as may be specified by the State Government."

11. l,earned Government Pieader further contended that the petitioners misinterpreted Rule (5) of Presidential Order 2018 and failed to note that there is enabling provision provided in para 5(2)(b) of the Presidential Order, 2018 that the transfer ora ointment tralsfer of a erson from an local cadre to I 14 PSKI & NNR.I - wPNa.5477 oJ 2O2+ anlr office or establishment to which this Order doeS epply-- ulce- uersa. As srrch, the persons from the post of Section Officer/ Privat,: Secretaries, Telangana Sate Secretariat, the I Presidential Order, 2018 does not apply either by transfer or appointment by transfer to the post organized under local cadres. L2, Lenrned Government Pleader also further contended that the (iovernment uide G.O.Ms.No.2O9, G.A.(SPF-II) Department, dated 04.08.2021 approved the scheme of local cadres in respect of Commercial Tax Department and the post of CTO falls in Multi Zonal Cadre and the contention of the petitioners ttrat the persons holding post in the local cadres of Commercial 'Iax Department a-lone are entitled ro be considered for appointment to higher post in Department in the local areas (District Zone and Multi Zone) is factuall-y not correct and it is against para 5(2)(b) of Presidential Order, 20 18.

13. Learned Government Pleader further contended that the Honble Supreme Court in Jagannadha f,tao's case (supra) held that employees working in the posts which are not localized cannot be appointed by transfer to the post organized into local cadre, as such appointments are against the \\- 15 PSK] & NNR) wPNo.s477 ol202+ provisions of the Presidential Order, I975. He further submitted that the Government had issued circular U.O.Note No.44232-8/SPF-A/2002, G.A.(SPF-A) Department, dated

15.02 .2023 and instructed all the Secretariats and Heads of Departments to stop appointment by transfer of Section Officers, Assistant Section Officers, Superintendents etc., working in Secretariat and Heads of Departments to the post of Executive localized under Presidential Order , 197 5. However, the said Presidential Order 1975 is superseded by the Presidential Order 20 18. L4. Clause 5 2 (b) of the Presidential Order 2018 deals with the Local Cadres and Recruitment or Appointment of Persons, which reads thus: 'Clause 5 2(b) transfer or appointment by transfer of the person from any local cadre to an_y office or Establishment to which this Order does not appl)', or Vice Verso."

15. Before going further, it is imperative to look at para No.5 of the Presidential Order, 1975 as well as Presidential Order, 2O 18. For more clarity, Para No.5 of trvo Presidential Orders extracted below for easv reference: Presidential Order L975 5. Local Cadres and Transfer of L__ Presidential Order. 2O 18 5. Local Cadres and _ t Recruitment or Appo ] 15 wPNo.sa77 of 2o2+ Persons:- Persons.- (1) Eoch part of the State, for uthich a local codre has been organized in respect of onA category of posts, shatl be a sepdrate unit for purposes of recruitment, appointment, discharge and such other matters as tn.aA be specified bg the State Gouemment, in respect of that category o/posts. (2) Nothing in this Order shall preuent the Stote tlouemment from making proui.sion for, (a) equitable opporlunities to persorls in all local cadres in the matter of promotion to higher posts; I (b) the transfer or o,p.rointment ba transfer of a yterson from any local cadre ta any office or Establishment to Lthich this Order does not appLg, or Vice Versa; (c) transfer ol'a person from one local cadre lo another locol codre on a recipr<tcaL basis subject to the condition tttqt the person so transferred shctll be assigned senioity in the lotter cndre uith reference to the date of hk transfer to that cadre. (1) Each port of the $.ote, for u-hich a local cadre hos been organized in respect of anA attegory of posts, shnll be a separate unit for purposes of recntitment, clppointment, discharge, senioitA, promotion and transfer, and such other matters as maA be specifted bg the State GoL'ernment, in respect of that category of posts. (2) Nothing in preuent the Slttte making prouision for this order shnll Gouernment from (a) the tran-sfer of a person from any local codre to anA Olfice or Establishment to u.thich this Order d.oes not applA, or Vice Versa. (b) the transkr of a person from local cadre compisinq posts in any Office or Estoblishment exercising territoial jurisdiction ouer a part of the Stote to anu other locol cadre comprbing posts in such part of Vice Versa. (c) the transfer of a person from one local cadre to another local cadre u.there no qualiJied 1,. suitable person is auailable in the' latter cadre for uhere such transfer is otheru-tbe considered necessary in th<t htblic interest- (d) the transfer of a person from one local cadre to another local cadre on a reciprocal basis subject to the condition that the person^s so transfened shalt be assigned seniority in the latter cadre tuith reference to the date of his transfer to that codre.

16. The Supreme Court of India in the judgment of Jagannadha Rao's case (supra) at paragraph Nos.21 arrd 22 it r.l,as held as under: 11 wPNo.sa77 oJ 2o2+ '21. In Sadanandam's case (supra), uthile constdeing the legalitg of amended prouisions of the Rules framed by the State Gouenlment and in sustaining tlLe samq this Court LUas of the opinion tltat a,s tlrc aforesaid ruLes had. been framed under Section (3) of the Andhra Pradesh Ordinance 5 of 1983 read with paragraph 5(2)(a) of the PresidentiaL Ord.er, the conclusion of the Tribunal in stnl,rng down the ruLe is erroneous, The Court uas of the opition that mode of recruitment and cotegory from uthich the recruitment to a seruice should be made are policg matters exclustuelg witltirt the purvieu and domain of the executtue and it would not be appropiate for judicial bodies to stt in judgment ouer the uisdom of the exealtive irt choosing the mode of recru{tment or the categories frorn which the recruitment should be made In our considered opinion, both tlte a,foresaid reasons do not constitute a tnrc interpretation of the prodsions of the Presidenttal Order. At the outset, it maA be noticed that Article 371-D (10) oJ the Constitution unequiuocally indicqtes that the so'id Arlicle and ang order made by the Prestdent thereunder shatl haue effect notwithstonding angthing in anA other prouision of the Cortstitution or in ang other lana for the time being tn force. lVecessarilg, therefore, tf it is construed and held that the PresidentiaL Order prohibits consideration of tlw employees from the feeder category from other units then such a rule made bg the Gouernor under the proviso to Article 3O9 of the Constitution will haue to be stnrck doun. Then again in exercise of powers under paragraph 5(2) of the Presid.etlttal Order if the State Gouerrlment makes anlJ provLsion, ohich is outside the puruiew of the authoitg of the Govemment under para 5(2) of the Order itself, then said prouision clso has to be struck down. Having constnled the rutes framed bg the Gouentor under proviso to ArTicLe 309 of tte Constitution from the aJoresaid stand point, the conclusion is irresrstrble thnt ttle soid ntle to the exient indicated bg the Tibunal is constitutionally inualid and its conclusion is unassailable. ln the case in hand, the impugned prouisions do not appeor to haue been framed in exercise of pouers und.er paragraph 5(2) of the Presidential Order and as such the same being a rule made under prouiso to Atticle 3O9 of the Constitution, the Presidential Order would preuail, as prouided under Article 371-D (1O) of the Con.stilution. Euen if it is construed to be an order mqde under Paragraph 5(2) of the 18 wPNo.s477 ol 2o2qt Presidential Order, then also the so,7r"e uould be inualid being begond the pennissible limits prouided under said paragraph- In this vteut of the matler, the Tibunal nghtlg held tle provision to the ertent it pr-ouides for consideration of emplogees of the Factoies and. Boilers units to be irualid, for the purpose of promotion to the ligher post tn the Labour unit qnd os such u)e see no justification for our interference with the said conclusion of the Tnbunal and the earLier judgment of this Court in Sadanandam's cctse (supra) must be held lo hnue not been cofiecth.l decided. As a cnnsequence, so would be the cose uith SatganaraAana Rao's case (supra).

22. NottL'ithstanding our aforesaid conclusion, it uould be in the interest o-f tlrc Administration to traue a channel of promotion for euery service, .so as to auoid stagnation at a partiaiar leuel, subject hotueuer to tlle condition that the incumbents of a service are othenuise qualified to shoulder tle responsibilities of the higher promotiottal post. The appropriate authoritA of the Gouemment, therefore. slrould beqr this in mind and cottsider the Jeosibilitg and desirobihtg of continuing tte superrtunErary posts qlreadg created itL the Boilers and Factories Department on a permanent lrosis, so tha, the emploVees from the louer echelon in the said Departntent laue a promotional cLtannel or, to make suitable promotional auenue at leo,sl upto some leuel, so that tLere uould not be ang discontentment amongst the emplogees in the concerned Department. The appeals are without ang meit and are accordinglg dismissed.'

17. 'I'he Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed aforesaid judgment on 07.1 1.2OOl based on the Presidential Order, 1975, wherein it has categorically held that that "i it is construed and held tlnt the Presidential Order proLlibits consideration of the emDlouees fiom the feeder cateaoru fro m other utlits then such a ntle made b Lt the Gouernor undqr the prouiso to Ariicle 3O9 of the Constitution .will haue to be struck dou.tn," ( 7 19 wPNo s4/7 oJ 2o2+

18. As there was no reference in the Presidential Order about appointment by transfer', the Honble Supreme Court held that the impugned provisions do not appear to have been framed in exercise of power under para 5(2) of the Presidential Order, 1975, the word 'appointment by transfer' 1S incorporated in Clause 5(2)(b) of the Presidential Order, 2O 18. Therefore, the petitioners cannot rely on the judgment passed bv the Honble Supreme Court in Jagannadha Rao's case (supraf .

19. Having regard to the above, this Bench is of the I I opinion that the mode of recruitment and category from which the recruitment should be made are policy matters exclusively within the purview and domain of the executive body and it would not be appropriate for judicial bodies to sit in judgment over the wisdom of the executive in choosing the mode of recruitment or the categories from which the recruitment should be made. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid reasons do not constitute a true interpretation of the provisions of the Presidential Order, 2018. At the outset, it may be noticed that Articie 37 l-D (10) of the Constitution of India unequivocally indicates that the sajd Article and any order 20 \ .--..1 PSKJ & NNru _ WPN,.5a77 of 2O2+ - .{ made by the President thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding alything in any other provision of the Constitution or in any other law for the time being in force.

20. lt is pertinent to mention here that in the Presidential Order, 1975, there is no provision of promotion by transfer. The Andhra Pradesh Commercial Taxes Services Rules were issued u,rde G.O.Ms.No.36O, Revenue (CT-l), dated

23.O4.1,994, u,hich were adopted by the Government of Telangana under Section 101 of the A.P. State Re-Orgalization Act, 2014. Rule 3 of the said Rules deals with method of appointment. As per the said Rule, the provision of appointment by transfer was made applicable to the Section Oflicers and Private Secretaries to Government to the post of Commercial Tax Oflicer, providing 1O7o reservation. Subsequently, Clause 5 (1) of the Presidential Order, 2Ol8 i.e., the Telangana Public Employment (Organization of Loca-l Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order-2O18, provides for transfer or appointment by transfer. It is also pertinent to mention here that neither the said clause 5 (1) of Presidential Order, 2O18 nor G.O.Ms.No.l36O issued on 23.04.1994, which was adopted by the Government of Telangana under Section I 01 of the A.P. 7 21 PSIO & NNru wPNo 5477 ol 2o2\ State Re-Or gasrzation Act' 2014) was also never questioned having kept silent for all these years and present Writ Petition has been filed' 2^' lt is seen that Rule 3 of the Telangana State Commercial Tax Services Rules were issued vide G.O.Ms'No'360' dated 23'04'lgg4 is under challenge before this Court' Though preceding Presidential Otder' 1974 of clause 5 (1) which is in consonance with para 5 (1) of the Presidential Order' 2018 as that being not in contravention to any of the provisions of the Presidential Order' 2018 or 1975' as such' the contention of the petitioners cannot be accepted on this ground also and the rerief sought by the petitioners cannot f { be considered' 22' For the aforesaid reasons' this benctr is of the opinion that as per Presidentiat Order' 2018' the respondent authorities have power to call for service particulars of Section Offrcers / Private Secretaries in Telangan" "-"crtt"rr1t'^::. transfer or appointment by transfer of a person from any local cadres to arry oflice or Establishment' U'O'Note No'839O/SU 'll2OO3' dated' i12'12'2OO3 calling for witlingness of Section Officers and Private Secretaries for Therefore' Circular \ 22 PSKJ & NNR! wPNo-547/ ol2024 -r\' appointment by transfer to the post of CTOs as per Rule-3 of the Telangarra State Commercial Tax Service Rules is in accordance with the Presidential Order, 2018.

23. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. I.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2024 are ordered and the interim order grarted by this Court on 12.06.2024 shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. / SD/. S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR a SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY' One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice P. SAM KOSHY (For His Lordships Kind Perusal) AND One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA (For His Lordships Kind Perusal) \ To, .1 . 'l 1 LR Copies 2. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi. Buildings, Hyderabad.

3. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library High Court 4. One CC b SRI SRINIVASA RAO MADIRAJU Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-|, High Court for the State of Telangana. 6. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE ,High Court for the State of Telangana. 7. One CC to SRI R.V. RAMANA, Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CD Copres l\,4[,47 {,,ft 4 HIGH COUIRT DATED:25t0712025 ORDER WP.No.54i'7 of 2024 DlSMlSSlf\lG THE WRIT PET ITION WITHOUT COSTS @ 9sl@ la,r q illE 5 t ( t t \ 28 0[r M a t.lTcHEg p I