TELANGANA JUDGES ASSOCIATION vs. UNION OF INDIA .

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION  WRIT PETITION (C) NO.85 OF 2015 TELANGANA JUDGES ASSOCIATION & ANR. ... PETITIONERS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ... RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS.10170­10173  0F 2018 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(C)NOS.18787­18790 OF 2016) STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR. ... APPELLANTS VERSUS SARASANI SATYAM & ORS. ... RESPONDENTS J U D G M E N T ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. Leave granted. 2. The bifurcation of lower judiciary by State wise strength of combined State of Andhra Pradesh, consequent to the Andhra Pradesh Reorgnisation Act, 2014 is the issue which has arisen in   these   two   cases   which   have   been   heard   together   and   are being decided by this common judgment. Facts: Writ Petition (C) No.85 of 2015 Signature Not Verified 3. The writ petition has been filed by the Telangana Judges Digitally signed by ASHWANI KUMAR Date: 2018.10.03 16:22:41 IST Reason: Association,   a   registered   forum,   formed   to   protect   the interest of the Judicial Officers of State of Telangana. The 2 petitioner has challenged the recruitment process initiated by the High court of the Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana   and   the   State   of   Andhra   Pradesh   (hereinafter referred to as 'the High Court') for filling up the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). The petitioner's case is that consequent   to   the   Andhra   Pradesh   Reorganisation   Act, 2014(hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 2014') with effect from 02.06.2014   a   new   State   has   been   formed,   namely,   State   of Telangana without permitting the option envisaged in Section 77(2) of the Act, 2014 and without bifurcation of subordinate judiciary the recruitment process has been initiated which is not in accordance with law. Petitioner's case is that from the establishment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the year 1956, there has been inadequate representation of Telangana Judges   in   the   cadres   of   Junior   Civil   Judges,   Senior   Civil Judges, District Judges and even Judges  of  the  High  Court. The impugned notification issued by respondent No.2 without constituting Telangana State Judicial   Service   and   without   preparing   State   wise   cadre strength of respective States would affect the seniority as well   as   promotion   of   the   Telangana   State   Judicial   Officers whose   strength   is   at   present   25%   only   in   comparison   with 3 Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Officers.  4. An advertisement dated 01.02.2014 for recruitment for 97 vacancies of Civil Judges (Junior Division) was published. The preliminary written examination was notified for 27.04.2014. th The State of Telangana was created as the 29   State of the Union   of   India   by   the   Act,   2014   on   01.03.2014.   A representation was submitted to stop the recruitment process as the Central Government had announced, 02.06.2014, the date for the formation of Telangana State. The High Court put on hold the selection process till a clarification is obtained from this Court. An application was filed by the High Court in C.A. No.1867 of 2006 (Malik Mazhar Sultan & Ors. vs. Union Public   Service   Commission   &   Ors.)   on   which   this   Court   on 07.07.2014 passed an order permitting the status quo. However, this   Court   in   Malik   Mazhar   Sultan   passed   an   order   on 20.01.2015 clarifying that the process  already initiated for recruitment   of   Judicial   Officers   in   the   States   of   Andhra Pradesh and Telangana by the High Court be proceeded with. The Chief Justice of the High Court had constituted a Committee of Judges, which Committee decided to ask the Judicial Officers in the State of Andhra Pradesh to exercise option with respect to   the   newly   formed   States.   Writ   Petition(C)No.403   of 2014(Dumpala Dharma Rao vs. High Court of Andhra Pradesh & 4 Ors.) was also filed in this Court challenging the proposed action of the High Court   calling for the option of Judicial Officers. An application for impleadment by Telangana Judges Association has  been allowed in Writ Petition No.403 of 2014. Petitioners have also submitted suggestions for the purpose of final   guidelines   for   allocation   of   States   services   to   the Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh. Petitioners also   submitted   representation   to   the   Joint   Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training, Government of India dated 02.12.2014   requesting   that   the   guidelines   issued   by   the Government of India may be made applicable to the Personnel of Subordinate Judiciary and to take necessary expeditious steps for allocation of members of Subordinate Judiciary.  5. In the writ petition petitioner has made the following prayers: "(i) Issue writ/writs including a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to bifurcate the   Lower   Judiciary   from   the   erstwhile   Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service and to constitute the Telangana   Judicial   Service   under   Articles   233   and 234 of the Constitution of India and fix the cadre strength of each State; (ii) Issue writ/writs including a writ in the nature of   certiorari   quashing   the   Notification   dated 05.02.2015   and   Notification   No.54/2015­RC   dated 09.02.2015   issued   by   the   Hon'ble   High   Court   of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State  of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh; and (iii) pass such other order or orders as are deemed 5 fit and necessary in the interest of justice.” Civil   Appeal   Nos...............of   2018   (arising   out   of SLP(C)Nos.18787­18790 of 2018 6. These appeals have been filed by the State of Telangana against the Division Bench judgment dated 29.04.2016 of the High   Court   of   Judicature   at   Hyderabad   for   the   State   of Telangana   and   the   State   of   Andhra   Pradesh   (herein   after referred   to   as   'the   High   Court')   deciding   Public   Interest Litigation No.31 of 2015 with three other Writ Petitions. In the   Public   Interest   Litigation   filed   before   the   High   Court following prayer was made: "I therefore pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring   the   action   of   respondents   in   not bifurcating   the   Subordinate   Judicial   Officers   and other Judicial Officers of the  erstwhile  State  of Andhra  Pradesh as per Section77 of Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation   Act,   2014   and   not   distributing Subordinate Judicial Officers and other employees to the State of Telangana and to the State of Andhra Pradesh   and   issuance   of   impugned   notification No.15/2014­RC   dated   01.02.2014   and   consequential notification No.54/2014­RC dated 05.02.2014 of the second   respondent   as   null   and   void,   arbirary, illegal   and   violative   of   Articles   233   and   234   of Constitution   of   India   and   Part   VIII   of   A.P. Reorganisation   Act,   2014   and   consequently   direct respondents to distribute the subordinate judicial officers and  other  judicial employees to  both the States and only thereafter make recruitments to the Subordinate   Higher   Judicial   Service   and   Judicial Service and pass such other order or orders as this 6 Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.” 7. The   High   Court   after   elaborately   considering   all   the issues   dismissed   all   the   writ   petitions.   The   State   of Telangana   has   by   a   notification   adopted   Andhra   Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2007 without making any consultation with the High Court. The recruitment process initiated by the notification in the year 2014 for 97 posts of Civil Judges and recruitment   process   for   34   posts   in   pursuance   of   2015 notification   were   completed.     After   completing   the   entire process of selection during pendency of the writ petitions, the   High   Court   noticed   in   the   judgment   that   the   ratio   of Judicial Officers selected are in the ratio of 60 : 40 per cent. While dismissing the Public Interest Litigation and Writ Petitions, the High Court in paragraph 18 held: "18. In  the result,  the Public Interest Litigation and the Writ Petitions are dismissed. The respondent –   High   Court   shall   compete   the   process   of recruitment initiated in pursuance of 2014 and 2015 Notifications.   The   respondent   –   State   Governments are   directed   to   take   all   necessary   steps   for appointments of the selected candidates, recommended by the High Court at the earliest. 2015 Rules shall not be acted upon and shall not operate since they were not made in consultation with the High Court as provided for under Article 234 of the Constitution. It is open to the State of Telangana to take steps to   adapt   2007   Rules   afresh,   in   exercise   of   the powers under Section 101 of the Act, in consultation with the High Court.” 7 8. When these appeals(SLPs) were filed against the judgment of the High Court dated 29.04.2016, this Court on 15.07.2016 directed these appeals to be listed along with Writ Petition (C)No.85 of 2015. This Court on 18.07.2016 took up both, the writ petitions and these appeals and after hearing learned counsel for the parties passed a detailed order on 28.04.2017 where this Court issued following directions: “....In   the   background   of   the   above   mentioned suggestion, we deem it appropriate  to direct that the guidelines issued by the existing High Court be treated as the draft guidelines for the purpose of allotment of the judicial officers to the different cadres in two 4 states. Telangana Judges Association and the State of Telangana as well as the State of Andhra Pradesh and any one of the judicial officers subject to the control of the existing High Court and   not   belonging   to   Telangana   Judges   Association either   individually   or   in   their   representative capacity   may   make   suggestions   within   a   period   of four weeks from today. Any  representation made  by anyone of the above mentioned bodies shall be made both   to   the   Government   of   India   and   the   existing High Court and also the copies of the same shall be furnished simultaneously to all the parties before this Court in these two matters.  The Union of India shall thereafter examine the various   suggestions   made   by   anyone   of   the   above mentioned bodies and prepare the draft guidelines in consultation   with   the   existing   High   Court   on   or before the 17th of June, 2017 and place the draft guidelines   before   this   Court   on   the   next   date   of hearing for appropriate further orders.” 9. Consequent   upon   the   above   order   dated   28.04.2017   an 8 affidavit of compliance has been filed by the Union of India. In   pursuance   of   the   order   of   this   Court   dated   28.04.2017 respondent No.1 prepared a draft guidelines for allocation of Subordinate Judicial Officers which was submitted to the High Court.   The   High   Court   after   consideration   of   the   draft guidelines   and   other   inputs   decided   to   submit   a   revised guidelines. The revised guidelines as suggested by the High Court have been brought on record as Encl.E to the affidavit of   the   Union   of   India   filed   in   compliance   of   order   dated 28.04.2017. For the purposes of this case, we need only to notice the modified guidelines submitted by the High Court in reference to which submissions have been made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The draft sent by the Department of Personnel & Training and as modified by the High Court and final decision taken by the respondent has been filed in the Tabular form. Relevant part of paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the affidavit of Union of India may also be noticed which are as follows: “7. It is humbly submitted that the Ld. Registrar General of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, vide letter dated 8.7.2017, had forwarded the   modified   guidelines   and   the   option   form   as approved   by   the   Hon'ble   High   Court,   for   further necessary   action.   The   Draft   Guidelines,   thus   duly modified by the Hon'ble the High Court, as stated above, is annexed as ANNEXURE­D. 8. It   is   respectfully   submitted   that   while   the 9 Hon'ble   High   Court   has   accepted   most   of   the Principles   for   allocation   as   incorporated   by   the Central Government in the Draft Guidelines, a few modifications   have   been   made   by   the   Hon'ble   High Court.   The   significant   modification(s)   inter­alia include as under:­ a. ... ... ... ... b. ... ... ... ... c.   Modification in descending order of      Priority   of the principles to be           adopted for allocation of empoloyee    by the Full Court. The   Hon'ble   existing   High   Court   of Judicature   at   Hyderabad   has   modified   the Central Government guidelines and approved the principles of allocation as under: (a)   those   who   have   opted   and   are   senior; (b) those who have opted for the  State in which the district  declared by them at the time of  entering service falls; (c) if allocable posts still  remain, then allocation would be done in the reverse order  of seniority. The above modifications have been approved by the Full Court of the Hon'ble existing High Court.   The   DoPT,   Govt.   of   India   accepts   the above­mentioned   modifications   which   have   been approved by the Hon'ble existing High Court.  9. The   draft   guidelines   as   modified   by   the Hon'ble   High   Court   and   received   by   the   DoPT [vide   letter   dated   8/7/2017]   alongwith   the Department's proposed modification as mentioned in   para   8(a)   above,   is   submitted   for consideration   of   this   Hon'ble   Court,   in compliance   with   this   Hon'ble   Court's   order 10 dated 28/4/2017. This Affidavit is submitted on behalf   of   the   DoPT,   Govt.   of   India   in compliance with the order dated 28.04.2017 for kind   consideration   by   this   Hon'ble   Court towards   finalization   of   the   Guidelines   for allocation/   distribution   of   judicial   officers between the two States.” 10. Shri   Salman   Khurshid   and   Shri   Huzefa   Ahmadi,   learned senior counsel have appeared for the writ petitioners. Shri R. Venkatramani has appeared for the High Court. Shri Maninder Singh,   learned   Additional   Solicitor   General   of   India   has appeared for Union of India. Shri V.V.S. Rao, learned senior counsel has appeared for the State of Andhra Pradesh. Shri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned senior counsel has appeared for the Andhra   Pradesh   Judicial   Officers   Association.   We   have   also heard learned counsel for the State of Telangana.  11. Learned   counsel   for   the   parties   have   confined   their submissions only to the guidelines for allocation as modified by the High Court.  12. Shri   Salman   Khurshid   and   Shri   Huzefa   Ahmadi   learned senior   counsel   appearing   for   the   petitioners   contends   that modified guidelines issued by the High Court whereunder option of   those   who   are   senior   has   to   be   first   accepted,   causes prejudice to officers of Telangana. It is submitted that the ratio of Judicial Officers from Telangana as compared to those from State of Andhra Pradesh has always been less. The main 11 object of bifurcation of existing State of Andhra Pradesh and formation   of   Telangana   State   is   for   betterment   of socio­economic conditions and to fulfill the   political and other aspirations of the people of Telangana and to do the justice to the people of Telangana on various fronts. The High Court by modifying the guidelines for accepting the option had watered   down   the   enactment   of   Act,   2014.   The   guidelines proposed   by   DoPT   for   option   were   fully   acceptable   to   the petitioners where initially in accepting the option preference was to be given to those who had opted to the State in which District declared at the time of service falls, which has been subsequently modified by the High Court. He submitted that by permitting seniors to opt for State of Telangana, there being large number of senior Judicial Officers from Andhra Pradesh, the prospects of promotion of Officers who belong to Telangana region is being marred which will be nothing but perpetuating the injustice meted out to them. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also come up with a   submission   that   Judicial   Officers   belonging   to   State   of Andhra Pradesh may be accommodated in the State of Telangana on   deputation   basis.   The   Officers   who   have   opted State/District of Telangana can be sent back in the native State   of   Andhra   Pradesh.   It   is   submitted   that   by   the   said 12 suggestion   no   prejudice   will   be   caused   to   either   of   the parties. The petitioner has also relied on proviso to Section 77(2) of the Act, 2014 in support of their submission. 14. The petitioners have also relied on Article 371D of the Constitution which according to the petitioners was inserted to give recognition to the aspirations of the people of Andhra Pradesh.   Article   371D   permits   domicile   as   the   basis   for appointment to the services.  15. Shri Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General of   India   submits   that   Union   of   India   has   already   filed compliance   affidavit   in   pursuance   of   the   order   dated 28.04.2017   and   the   Union   of   India   will   implement   the guidelines for allocation which may be approved by this Court. Although, Department of Personnel & Training has accepted the revised guidelines submitted by the High Court submitted with the approval of the full Court as has been indicated  in the compliance affidavit. 16. Shri R.Venkatramani, learned senior counsel appearing for the High Court submits that it is the High Court which has control   over   the   Subordinate   Judiciary   as   per   the constitutional scheme which has to lay down the guidelines for allocation   of   State.   The   High   Court   while   finalising   the guidelines has taken a fair and equitable decision for all 13 Judicial Officers. It is submitted that domicile has not been provided as any special factor for allocation and the emphasis on   domicile   as   exclusive   criterion   to   allocation   cannot   be sustained. The declaration given by the Officers at the time of entering into the service relating to home District in the context   of   service   requirement   cannot   be   exhorted   to   the status of criteria or norm.  17. It   is   further   submitted   that   submission   of   the petitioner   that   Judicial   Officers   pertaining   to   State   of Telangana   are   much   less   as   compared   to   State   of   Andhra Pradesh,   is   not   fully   correct.   It   is   submitted   that recruitment   of   Judicial   Officers   is   on   all   India   basis, Officers from other States including Karnataka, Orissa, Bihar, Tamil Nadu are also in the service and in allocation of State, thus   nativity   or   home   District   declared   cannot   serve   any substantial basis. Shri Venkatramani submits that in effect there is no difference in allocation of cadre in respect to those who had declared District in the State of Telangana as there home District and under both, the guidelines that is unrevised and revised the result is same. During the course of submission, Shri Venkatramani was permitted to submit a chart reflecting the position of allocation of all Judicial Officers as per their options. The above chart has also been submitted 14 by the learned counsel for the respondent. 18. Shri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for Andhra Pradesh Judicial Officers Association submits that the   High   Court   has   exclusive   power   and   jurisdiction   over District   Courts   and   Subordinate   Courts   thereto.   In   the Constitutional scheme as delineated by Article 235, it is the High   Court   who   has   control   over   Judicial   Service.   In allocation   of   the   Judicial   Officers,   it   is   the   High   Court which   is   competent   to   finalise   guidelines   and   the   revised guidelines   submitted   by   the   High   Court   are   perfectly   in accordance with law. The due weightage to the seniority of the Judicial Officers have to be given which seniority cannot be taken away to prejudice the Judicial Officers. Those Officers who had been senior in the combined seniority list cannot be made junior by accepting guidelines for accepting options as contended by the petitioners. He further submitted that there is no relevance of place of birth in public employment. He submits that appointment for Judicial Service is made on all India   basis,   hence,   petitioners   cannot   claim   any   special privilege and right in the service only on the ground that they are native of District which now falls in newly created State of Telangana. Shri Rao further submits that scheme of allotment   as   envisaged   by   Part   VIII   of   Act,   2014   has   no 15 application   for   the   allotment   of   Judicial   Officers   of   the District   Courts   and   Courts   Subordinate   thereto.   He   submits that power under Article 2, 3 and 4 of the Constitution of India is not absolute.   He submits that revised guidelines approved by the full Court of the High Court are fully in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and protect   the   rights   of   Judicial   Officers   which   need   no interference in these writ petitions.  19. The submission on behalf of State of Telangana is that expression “Affairs of the State” featuring in Section 77 of the Act, 2014 necessarily have to be construed to mean all the three organs of the State including judiciary.   In order to render justice to the service personnel allotted to the two States   and   to   completely   eliminate   the   possibility   of discrimination   it   may   be   prudent   to   entrust   the   powers mentioned in Section 77 to the Central Government because the said power is in nature of a special power contemplated to meet   the   exigencies.   The   criterion   of   Domicile   is   in consonance with the Legislative intent and the Constitutional spirit embedded in principle of territoriality which is the heart and soul of any State Reorganisation Act.  20. It has also been brought to our notice that the State of Telangana has already framed new set of Rules, The Telangana 16 State Judicial Service Rules, 2017. In view of the framing  of the Rules, 2017 and further on completion of recruitment in pursuance of order of this Court which was challenged in the writ petition before the High Court, which has been dismissed, nothing survives in the SLP to decide.  21. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 22. The   issue   which   needs   to   be   considered   in   the   writ petition lies in the very narrow compass, i.e., whether the revised   guidelines   as   submitted   by   the   High   Court   to respondent No.1 for allocation deserve to be accepted or not. It is useful to notice the guidelines proposed by the High Court that is initially proposed and modified guidelines.  23. The High Court's guidelines which were initially proposed on 26.02.2016 are as follows: "1. The allocation shall be done in the order  of seniority as available on June 02,  2014.Preference shall be given first to  those   who   have   applied for the State in  which   the   District   declared   by them at  the time of entering service falls.” 24. The   guidelines   dated   26.02.2016   were   sent   to   the Department   of   Personnel   &   Training.   Representation   and objections were also submitted to the draft guidelines dated 26.02.2016   proposed   by   the   High   Court.   The   DoPT   after considering the objections and representation to the proposed 17 guidelines sent proposed guidelines by letter dated 29.06.2017 to the High Court. The High Court deliberated on the proposed guidelines sent by DoPT and vide its letter dated 08.07.2017 communicated the modified guidelines. The Union of India in its   affidavit   filed   in   compliance   with   the   order   dated 28.07.2017   has   brought   on   record   the   draft   guidelines   as proposed by DoPT, modified guidelines by the High Court and the   decision   taken   by   DoPT   in   a   Tabular   Chart   filed   in Annexure­E to the affidavit. 25. We   may   first   notice   the   relevant   provisions   of   Andhra Pradesh Re­organization Act, 2014 assented by the President of India and gazetted on 01.03.2014. By Section 3 of the Act, Telangana   State   was   formed   comprising   of   territories   of existing   State   of   Andhra   Pradesh   of   several   districts   as enumerated   therein.   Section   30   provided   that   on   and   from appointed day, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad shall be the common High Court for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh till a separate High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh is constituted. Part VIII of the Act dealt with provisions as to Services. Section 76 dealt with All India Services. Section 77 dealt with other services and Section 78 contains other provisions related to services. Section 77 and Section 78 which are relevant are extracted as below:­ 18 "77.   Provisions related to other services: (1) Every person who immediately before the appointed day is serving on substantive basis in connection with the affairs of the existing State of Andhra Pradesh shall, on and from that day provisionally continue to serve in connection with the affairs of   the   State   of   Andhra   Pradesh   unless   he   is required,   by   general   or   special   order   of   the Central   Government   to   serve   provisionally   in connection   with   the   affairs   of   the   State   of Telangana:  Provided   that   every   direction   under   this sub­section issued after the expiry of a period of   one   year   from   the   appointed   day   shall   be issued with the consultation of the Governments of the successor States. (2) As soon as may be after the appointed day, the   Central   Government   shall,   by   general   or special order, determine the successor State to which every person referred to in sub­section (1) shall   be   finally   allotted   for   service,   after consideration   of   option   received   by   seeking option   from   the   employees,   and   the   date   with effect   from   which   such   allotment   shall   take effect or be deemed to have taken effect: Provided   that   even   after   the   allocation   has been made, the Central Government may, in order to   meet   any   deficiency   in   the   service,   depute officers   of   other   State   services   from   one successor State to the other:  Provided   further   that   as   far   as   local, district,   zonal   and   multi­zonal   cadres   are concerned, the employees shall continue to serve, on or after the appointed day, in that cadre:  Provided   also   that   the   employees   of   local, district, zonal and multi­zonal cadres which fall entirely in one of the successor States, shall be deemed to be allotted to that successor State:  Provided   also   that   if   a   particular   zone   or multi­zone   falls   in   both   the   successor   States, then the employees of such zonal or multi­zonal cadre   shall   be   finally   allotted   to   one   or   the other successor States in terms of the provisions 19 of this sub­section.  (3) Every person who is finally allotted under the provisions of sub­section (2) to a successor State   shall,   if   he   is   not   already   serving therein,   be   made   available   for   serving   in   the successor State from such date as may be agreed upon   between   the   Governments   of   the   successor States or, in default of such agreement, as may be determined by the Central Government:  Provided   that   the   Central   Government   shall have the power to review any of its orders issued under this section.  78. Other Provisions relating to services:­ (1) Nothing in this section or in section 77 shall be deemed to affect, on or after the appointed day, the operation of the provisions of Chapter I of Part   XIV   of   the   Constitution   in   relation   to determination   of   the   conditions   of   service   of persons serving in connection with the affairs of the Union or any State: Provided   that   the   conditions   of   service applicable immediately before the appointed day in the  case of  any person deemed  to have  been allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh or to the State of Telangana under section 77 shall not be   varied   to   his   disadvantage   except   with   the previous approval of the Central Government.  (2)   All   services   prior   to   the   appointed   day rendered by a person,— (a) if he is deemed to have been  allocated to any State under section 77,  shall   be deemed to have been rendered in  connection with the affairs of that  State;  (b) if he is deemed to have been  allocated to the Union in connection  with   the administration of the successor  State   of Telangana, shall be deemed to  have   been rendered in connection with  the affairs of the Union,  for   the   purposes   of   the   rules   regulating   his 20 conditions of service.  (3)   The   provisions   of   section   77   shall   not apply   in   relation   to   members   of   any   All­India Service.” 26. Section   80   contemplated   establishment   of   Advisory Committees to assist the Government. Section 80 is as follows: "80.   Advisory   Committees: (1)   The   Central Government may, by order, establish one or more Advisory   Committees,   within   a   period   of   thirty days   from   the   date   of   enactment   of   the   Andhra Pradesh   Re­organisation   Act,   2014,   for   the purpose of assisting it in regard to––  (a) the discharge of any of its  functions under this Part; and  (b)   the   ensuring   of   fair   and   equitable   treatment to all persons affected by  the   provisions of this Part and the  proper   consideration of any  representations  made by such  persons.  (2) The allocation guidelines shall be issued by the Central Government on or after the date of enactment of the Andhra Pradesh Re­organisation Act, 2014 and the actual allocation of individual employees shall be made by the Central Government on the recommendations of the Advisory Committee: Provided   that   in   case   of   disagreement   or conflict of opinion, the decision of the Central Government shall be final: Provided further that necessary guidelines as and when required shall be   framed   by   the   Central   Government   or   as   the case   may   be,   by   the   State   Advisory   Committee which shall be approved by the Central Government before such guidelines are issued. 27. The   Central   Government   constituted   two   Advisory 21 Committees,   (i)   for   the   allocation   of   All   India   Services officers   born   on   undivided   cadre   of   the   State   of   Andhra Pradesh under the chairmanship of Shri Pratyusha Sinha, and, (ii) for other State cadre employees under the chairmanship of Shri   Kamlanathan.   Kamlanathan   Committee   submitted recommendations for allocation of other State Services. 28. The   High   Court   issued   guidelines   dated   26.02.2016 providing for procedure of allocation alongwith revised option form. The relevant provisions for allocation as contained in the guidelines in paragraph 1 provided, as follows: "1. The allocation shall be done in the order of seniority   as   available   on   June   02,   2014. Preference shall be given first to those who have applied   for   the   State   in   which   the   District declared by them at the time of entering service falls.” 29. On basis of aforesaid communication, Officers submitted their option which were compiled and send by the High Court. As noted above, in the mean time, Writ Petition No.403 of 2014 was filed by Dumpala Dharmarao, where he had challenged the action of the High Court in calling for option of the Judicial Officers in the State of Andhra Pradesh. This Court had passed an   Order   for   status   quo   on   07.07.2014.   Writ   Petition   was 22 subsequently dismissed as have been becoming infructuous after retirement of Dumpala Dharmarao. As noted above, in pursuance of   the   Order   dated   28.04.2017   passed   by   this   Court   in W.P.No.85 of 2015, the guidelines framed by the High Court were   treated   as   draft   guidelines   and   Union   of   India   was directed   to   examine   the   various   suggestions   made   through representations   and   place   the   draft   guidelines   before   this Court. As noted above, the Compliance Affidavit has been filed by   the   Union   of   India.   The   Union   of   India   has   in   its compliance   affidavit   noted   the   suggestions   on   guidelines issued   by   the   High   Court,   Telangana   State   Government, different associations, individuals and proposed guidelines of Department of Personnel and Training. 30. The   High   Court   vide   its   letter   dated   08.07.2017   again forwarded   modified   guidelines   for   allocation   of   Judicial Officer in category of District Judge, Senior Civil Judge and Junior   Civil   Judge.   High   Court   gave   suggestions   regarding constitution of Advisory Committee which may include Senior most Judges among the nominated Judges of the High Court being the   Chairman   of   the   Committee.   Paragraph   5   of   the   draft guidelines contains principles for allocation. Paragraph 5 (i) & (ii) which are relevant are quoted below:­ "5.   The   allocation   shall   be   done   keeping   in   23 view the following principles; (i) The allocation shall be done in the  order of seniority as available on June  01,2014   for each category of posts. (ii) Officers will be considered for  allocation in the following order (a)  those   who   have opted and are senior; (b)  those   who   have opted for the State in  which   the   district declared by them at  the time of entering service falls; (c)  if allocable posts still remain then  allocation would be done in the reverse  order of seniority.” 31. The   Government   of   India   has   brought   on   record   draft guidelines framed by the Department of Personnel and Training and   modified   guidelines   as   sent   by   the   High   Court   on 08.07.2017   and   the   decision   of   Department   of   Personnel   and Training. The draft guidelines as forwarded by the High Court in   Paragraph   5   (i)   &   (ii)   as   extracted   above   have   been accepted by Department of Personnel & Training, which is clear from Enclosure­E, filed alongwith the compliance affidavit. It is useful to extract relevant part of Annexure­E containing principles for allocations. Relevant part of the guidelines are as follows: "DRAFT GUIDELINES FOR ALLOCATION OF SUB­ORDINATE JUDICIAL OFFICERS

24

25 32. Now, we come to the challenges which have been raised by the   petitioners   to   the   guidelines   as   modified   by   the   High Court and accepted by the Department of Personnel & Training. Petitioners’ grievance is that draft framed by the Department of   Personnel   &   Training   protected   the   interest   of   Judicial Officers of Telangana whereas modification of the guidelines made by the High Court are prejudicial to the Rights of the Judicial Officers of the State of Telangana. The first ground of challenge which has been raised by the petitioner is that it   is   the   Central   Government   which   is   competent   to   issue guidelines   as   per   Section   77   read   with   Section   80.   The Petitioner submits that the guidelines which were prepared by the Advisory Committee i.e. Kamalanathan Committee, ought to have   been   applied   for   the   Judicial   officers   also.   The Parliamentary legislation i.e. Act, 2014, ought to have been implemented by the High Court by accepting the guidelines of Kamalanathan Committee. We need to examine the provisions of Act, 2014, in the above context. In the constitutional scheme, Sub­ordinate   Courts,   Judicial   Officers   working   therein   are under control of the High Court by virtue of Article 235 of the   Constitution.   The   Constitution   Bench   of   this   Court   in (1979) 2 SCC 34, Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh and other versus   L.V.A   Dixitulu   and   others,   had   occasion   to   consider 26 nature   of   control   of   the   High   Court   on   judicial   services. Article 371D as well as Article 229 and Article 235 of the Constitution   of   India   came   for   consideration.   Dealing   with Article   235,   Constitution   Bench   said   that   control   over   the sub­ordinate   judiciary   is   vested   in   the   High   Court   under Article 235 is exclusive in nature, comprehensive in extent and   effective   in   operation.   Paragraph   39   and   40   of   the judgment is as follows: "39. Article 235 is the pivot around which the entire scheme of the Chapter revolves. Under it, “the   control   over   district   courts   and   courts subordinate   thereto   including   the   posting   and promotions of, and the grant of leave to persons belonging to the judicial service of a State” is vested in the High Court. 40. The interpretation and scope of Article 235 has been the subject of several decisions of this Court.   The   position   crystalised   by   these decisions   is   that   the   control   over   the subordinate   judiciary   vested   in   the   High   Court under   Article   235   is   exclusive   in   nature, comprehensive   in   extent   and   effective   in operation.   It   comprehends   a   wide   variety   of matters. Among others, it includes: (a)   (i)   Disciplinary   jurisdiction   and   a complete control subject only to the power of the Governor in the matter of appointment, dismissal, removal,   reduction   in   rank   of   District   Judges, and initial posting and promotion to the cadre of District Judges. In the exercise of this control, the   High   Court   can   hold   inquiries   against   a member   of   the   subordinate   judiciary,   impose punishment   other   than   dismissal   or   removal, subject,   however,   to   the   condition   of   service, and a right of appeal, if any, granted thereby and to the giving of an opportunity of showing 27 cause as required by Article 311(2). (ii)   In   Article   235,   the   word   'control'   is accompanied by the word “vest” which shows that the High Court alone is made the sole custodian of the control over the Judiciary. The control vested in the High Court being exclusive, and not dual, an inquiry into the conduct of a member of the judiciary can be held by the High Court alone and no other authority, (State of West Bengal Vs. Nripendra Nath Bagchi; Shamsher Singh V. State of Punjab   and   Punjab   and   Haryana   High   Court   Vs. State of Haryana(sub nom Narendra Singh Rao). (iii) Suspension from service of a member of the judiciary with a view to hold a disciplinary inquiry. (b) Transfers, promotions and confirmation of such promotions, of persons holding posts in the judicial   service,   inferior   to   that   of   District Judge.(State of Assam Vs. S.N.Sen and State of Assam Vs. Kuseswar Saikia). (c)   Transfers   of   District   Judges.(State   of Assam   Vs.   Ranga   Mahammad   and   Chandramouleshwar Vs. Patna High Court.) (d)   Recall   of   District   Judges   posted   on ex­cadre posts or on deputation on administrative posts. (State of Orissa V. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra) (e) Award of selection grade to the members of the judicial service, including District Judges, being their further promotion after their initial appointment   to   the   cadre.(State   of   Assam   v. Kuseswar Saikia) (f) Confirmation of District Judges, who have been on probation or are officiating, after their initial appointment or promotion by the Governor to   the   cadre   of   District   Judges   under   Article 233.(Punjab and Haryana High Court Vs. State of Haryana) (g)   Premature   or   compulsory   retirement   of Judges of the District Courts and of Subordinate Courts.(State   of   U.P.   Vs.   Batuk   Deo   Pati Tripathi)” 28   33. The constitutional scheme for vesting the control of the High Court over the sub­ordinate judiciary was with object and purpose. The main object was to ensure that judiciary should be   independent   of   the   executive   which   is   constitutional objective and also a Directive Principle of State Policy as contained in Article 50. Referring of judgment of   State of U.P.   vs.   Batuk   deo   Pati   Tripathi,   (1978)   2   SCC   102 , Constitution Bench quoted with approval the law laid down by this Court in  Batuk Deo Pati Tripathi  in paragraph 43 which is as follows:­ "43.   Recently,   in   State   of   Uttar   Pradesh   Vs. Batuk   Deo   Pati   Tripathi(Supra) ,   this   Court succinctly   summed   up   the   whole   position   as follows: [(1978) 2 SCC 102, 112(para 14]   The   ideal   which   inspired   the   provision   that the   control   over   District   Courts   and   courts subordinate thereto shall best in the High Courts is that those wings of the judiciary should be independent of the executive...It is an order to effectuate that high purpose that Article 235 as construed   by   the   Court   in   various   decisions requires   that   all   matters   relating   to   the subordinate   judiciary   including   compulsory retirement   and   disciplinary   proceedings   but excluding the imposition of punishments falling within   the   scope   of   Article   311   and   the   first appointments and promotions, should be dealt with and   decided   upon   by   the   High   Courts   in   the exercise of the control vested in them.” 34. The   nature   of   control   of   the   High   Courts   over   the 29 judiciary   again   was   elaborately   considered   by   Constitution Bench of this Court in  State of Bihar and Another Versus Bal Mukund   sah   and   Others,   (2000)   4   SCC   640 .   The   Constitution Bench again reiterated that the Judicial independence is the very   essence   and   basic   structure   of   the   Constitution.   In paragraph 34 and 35, following has been held:­ "34.   It   has   also   to   be   kept   in   view   that judicial   independence   is   the   very   essence   and basic structure of the Constitution. We may also usefully   refer   to   the   latest   decision   of   the Constitution   Bench   of   this   Court   in Registrar(Admn.),   High   Court   of   Orissa   v.   Sisir Kanta   Satapathy   wherein   K.Venkataswami,   J., speaking   for   the   Constitution   Bench,   made   the following pertinent observations in the very first two   paras   regarding   Articles   233   to   235   of   the Constitution of India; "An independent Judiciary is one of the basic features   of   the   Constitution   of   the   Republic. Indian   Constitution   has   zealously   guarded independence   of   Judiciary   is   doubtless   a   basic structure of the Constitution but the said concept of independence has to be confined within the four corners of the Constitution and cannot go beyond the Constitution.” The Constitution Bench in the aforesaid decision also relied upon the observations of this Court in All   India   Judges   Assn.   wherein   on   the   topic   of regulating the service conditions of the Judiciary as permitted by Article 235 read with Article 309, it had been observed as under; (SCC p.297, para 10) "The mere fact that Article 309 gives power to the Executive and the Legislature to prescribe the service conditions of the Judiciary, does not mean that   the   Judiciary   should   have   no   say   in   the matter.   It   would   be   against   the   spirit   of   the Constitution to deny any role to the Judiciary in 30 that   behalf,   for   theoretically   it   would   not   be impossible for the Executive or the Legislature to turn and twist the tail of the Judiciary by using the   said   power.   Such   a   consequence   would   be against   one   of   the   seminal   mandates   of   the Constitution, namely, to maintain the independence of the Judiciary.” In   view   of   this   settled   legal   position, therefore, even while operating in the permissible field of regulating other conditions of service of already­recruited judicial officers by exercising power under Article 309, the authorities concerned have to keep in view the opinion of the High Court of   the   State   concerned   and   the   same   cannot   be whisked away. 35.   In   order   to   fructify   this   constitutional intention   of   preserving   the   independence   of   the Judiciary   and   for   fructifying   this   basic requirement,   the   process   of   recruitment   and appointment to the District Judiciary with which we are concerned in the present case, is insulated from   outside   legislative   interference   by   the Constitution­makers   by   enacting   a   complete   code for that purpose, as laid down by Articles 233 and 234,   Consultation   with   the   High   Court   is therefore, an inevitable essential feature of the exercise contemplated under these two articles. If any outside independent interference was envisaged by   them,   nothing   prevented   the   Founding   Fathers from making Articles 233 and 234 subject to the law   enacted   by   the   Legislature   of   States   or Parliament   as   was   done   in   the   case   of   other articles as seen earlier.....” 35. The   Andhra   Pradesh   Re­organisation   Act,   2014,   is   a parliamentary   enactment   for   the   re­organisation   of   existing State as referred to in Article 2, Article 3 and Article 4 of the Constitution of India. Article 4 of the Constitution is as follows:­ 31 “4.   (1)   Any   law   referred   to   in   article   2   or article  3  shall  contain  such  provisions  for  the amendment   of   the   First   Schedule   and   the   Fourth Schedule as may be necessary to give effect to the provisions of the law and may also contain such supplemental,   incidental   and   consequential provisions   (including   provisions   as   to representation   in   Parliament   and   in   the Legislature or Legislatures of the State or States affected   by   such   law)   as   Parliament   may   deem necessary.  (2) No such law as aforesaid shall be deemed to be   an   amendment   of   this   Constitution   for   the purposes of article 368.” 36. The   power   under   Articles   2   &   3   is   subject   to   other provisions   of   the   Constitution   and   is   not   unfettered.   This position   of   law   has   been   considered   and   elucidated   by   a Constitution   Bench   judgment   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of Mangal Singh Vs. Union of India, (1967)2 SCR 109 , at page 112, in the following words: "..........On the plain words of Article 4, there is no warrant for the contention advanced by counsel for the appellants that the supplemental, incidental and   consequential   provisions,   which   by   virtue   of Article 4 the Parliament is competent to make, must be supplemental, incidental or consequential to the amendment of the First or the Fourth Schedule. The argument that if it be assumed that the Parliament is invested with this wide power it may conceivably exercise   power   to   abolish   the   legislative   and judicial   organs   of   the   State   altogether   is   also without   substance.   We   do   not   think   that   any   such power is contemplated by Article 4. Power with which the   Parliament   is   invested   by   Articles   2   &   3,   is power to admit, establish, or form new States which conform to the democratic pattern envisaged by the 32 Constitution; and the power which the Parliament may exercise   by   law   is   supplemental,   incidental   or consequential   to   the   admission,   establishment   or formation   of   a   State   as   contemplated   by   the Constitution,   and   is   not   power   to   override   the Constitutional scheme.........”(Emphasis supplied) 37.   Article   4   sub­clause   (1)   contemplates   that   any   law referred to in Article 2 or Article 3 shall contain provisions which   may   also   contain  such   supplemental,   incidental   and consequential provisions as Parliament may deem necessary. The supplemental,   incidental   and   consequential   provisions   are contemplated   to   effectuate   the   reorganisation   of   existing State   or   formation   of   a   new   State   in   accordance   with   the Constitutional   Scheme   as   contained   in   the   Constitution. Sub­clause   (2)   of   Article   4   clarifies   that   no   such   law   as referred to in Article 2 and Article 3 shall be deemed to be an amendment of this Constitution for the purposes of Article 368. Thus the provision of Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014,   has   to   be   interpreted   in   the   manner   so   that   any provisions   of   the   Act,   2014,   does   not   run   contrary   to   the existing Constitutional Scheme.  38. It   is   true   that   Section   77   contemplates   allotment   of State after consideration of option received by an officer but for   interpreting   Section   77   and   Section   80,   the   existing constitutional   scheme   that   control   of   Judicial   Officer   is 33 vested in the High Court can neither be ignored nor given a go by. From the facts on record, it does appear that Department of   Personnel   and   Training   has   understood   the   provisions   in such manner and has communicated to the High Court to submit a list   after   taking   options   from   the   officers.   The   reply affidavit filed by Union of India also clearly indicates that stand taken by Union of India is that allocation/distribution of   District   Judges   and   Judicial   Officers   belonging   to sub­ordinate judiciary had been carried out under the aegis and   supervision   of   the   respective   High   Courts,   on   earlier occasions   when   the   reorganisation   enactment   was   passed. Paragraph   10   of   the   reply   affidavit   filed   by   the   Union   of India is extracted as follows:­ ”10. It is most humbly submitted that in so far as the allocation of subordinate judicial officers between the two States in question are concerned, it is necessary to set out factual position and background   facts.   It   is   submitted   that   even   on earlier   occasions   of   passing   of   Reorganisation enactments, the task of allocation/distribution of District Judges and judicial officers belonging to the subordinate judiciary – had been carried out under the aegis and supervision of the respective High   Courts.   For   example,   in   the   case   of Reorganization   of   the   State   of   Madhya   Pradesh, State of Uttar Pradesh as well as State of Bihar, such   process   had   been   followed   for   the allocation/distribution   of   District   Judges   and judicial   officers   belonging   to   the   subordinate judiciary.” 34 39. We thus are of the view that for preparing guidelines for allocation of the Judicial officers, the views of the High Court are not to be ignored and the Union of India, Department of Personnel & Training, has rightly given due weight to the views of the High Court for allocation. However, the scheme of Act,   2014   indicates   that   final   allocation   Order   is   to   be issued   as   per   the   statutory   provisions,   by   the   Central Government. The coverage of Section 77 is “Every person who immediately before the appointed day is serving on substantive basis in connection with the affairs of the existing State of Andhra Pradesh...” The coverage of Section 77 is in very wide term which includes every person who is serving in connection with the affairs of the existing State. There can be no denial that Judicial Officers working in the Sub­ordinate Judiciary are serving in connection with the affairs of the existing State. Thus, there cannot be any denial that Section 77 also clearly   covers   the   sub­ordinate   judiciary   of   the   State   and final   allocation   Order   has   to   be   issued   by   the   Central Government after due consultation with the High Court.  40. We   are   thus   of   the   view   that   High   Court   in   preparing draft   guidelines   and   thereafter   issuing   modified   guidelines for allocation of cadre of Judicial Officers was well within its jurisdiction and its views required due weight in giving 35 effect to the provisions of Section 77 of the Act.  41. The   guidelines   as   modified   by   the   High   Court   are challenged   by   the   petitioner   on   several   grounds   including violation of their rights under Article 14 and as to whether the guidelines are fair and equitable to persons affected by the guidelines.  42. Section 80 expressly indicates that in carrying excise by the Central Government as contemplated under Section 77, there has to be fair and equal treatment to all persons affected by the provisions of Part VIII of the Act. The guidelines for allocation of cadre should ensure fair and equal treatment to all persons affected and they should also conform the equality clause as enshrined in Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. We have thus to scrutinize the guidelines in this context so as to enable us to come to a decision that whether guidelines are to be implemented or not. 43. Now, we come to the core issue raised by the petitioner. The   petitioner   submits   that   Act   6   of   2014   was   enacted   to redress a historic discrimination faced by the residents of State   of   Telangana   of   being   denied   their   fair   share   of representation in the matter of public services, education and in the matters of governance and in all other matters such as 36 Legislative and Executive powers which are normally attributes of any State.  The petitioners have also referred to Statement of Objects of the Act, 2014.  Statement of Objects of the Act notices:­ “1.   The creation of a separate State of Telangana for the betterment of the social, economic, political and other aspirations of the people of that region has been a long standing  demand. Pursuant thereto, the   Government   of   India   on   9th   December,   2009 announced   that   the   process   for   formation   of   a separate State of Telangana would be initiated. After wide­ranging consultations on 3rd October, 2013, the Government of India decided to bifurcate the existing State of Andhra Pradesh.  2.     The   Andhra   Pradesh   Reorganisation   Bill,   2014 seeks to give effect to the aforesaid decision. It aims at reconstituting the existing State of Andhra Pradesh into two separate States, namely the State of Andhra   Pradesh   and   the   State   of   Telangana.   The proposed   reorganisation   will   meet   the   democratic aspirations   of   the   people   of   Telangana   region   and ensure peace, goodwill, progress and prosperity among all   the   sections   of   the   people   of   both   successor States.” 44. One   more   article   of   the   Constitution,   which   has   been relied by the petitioners needs to be noted is Article 371D. Article 371D was inserted in the Constitution by Constitution (Thirty­second Amendment) Act, 1973.  Article 371D contains a special   provision   with   respect   to   State   of   Andhra   Pradesh. Now, by virtue of Act, 2014 in place of the State of Andhra Pradesh   “the   State   of   Andhra   Pradesh   or   the   State   of Telangana” has been substituted.  Article 371D sub­clause(1), 37 sub­clause(2) and sub­clause(3) provides:­ “ 371D.   Special provisions with respect to the State of Andhra Pradesh or the State of Telangana.­­   (1) The President may by order made with respect to the State of Andhra Pradesh or the State of Telangana, provide,   having   regard   to   the   requirement   of   each State, for equitable opportunities and facilities for the   people   belonging   to   different   parts   of   such State, in the matter of public employment and in the matter of education, and different provisions may be made for various parts of the States.  (2)   An   order   made   under   clause   (1)   may,   in particular,—  (a)   require   the   State   Government   to   organise   any class or classes of posts in a civil service of, or any   class   or   classes   of   civil   posts   under,   the State   into   different   local   cadres   for   different parts   of   the   State   and   allot   in   accordance   with such principles and procedure as may be specified in the order the persons holding such posts to the local cadres so organised;  (b) specify any part or parts of the State which shall be regarded as the local area—  (i)   for   direct   recruitment   to   posts   in   any local cadre (whether organised in pursuance of an   order   under   this   article   or   constituted otherwise) under the State Government;  (ii)   for   direct   recruitment   to   posts   in   any cadre   under   any   local   authority   within   the State; and  (iii)   for   the   purposes   of   admission   to   any University   within   the   State   or   to   any   other educational institution which is subject to the control of the State Government;  (c)   specify   the   extent   to   which,   the   manner   in which   and   the   conditions   subject   to   which, preference or reservation shall be given or made—  (i)   in   the   matter   of   direct   recruitment   to posts   in   any   such   cadre   referred   to   in sub­clause   (b)   as   may   be   specified   in   this behalf in the order; (ii)   in   the   matter   of   admission   to   any   such University   or   other   educational   institution referred   to   in   sub­clause   (b)   as   may   be specified in this behalf in the order,  38 to or in favour of candidates who have resided or studied for any period specified in the order in the local area in respect of such cadre, University or other educational institution, as the case may be.  (3)   The   President   may,   by   order,   provide   for   the constitution   of   an   Administrative   Tribunal   for   the State   of   Andhra   Pradesh   and   for   the   State   of Telangana to exercise such jurisdiction, powers and authority   [including   any   jurisdiction,   power   and authority which immediately before the commencement of   the   Constitution   (Thirty­second   Amendment)   Act, 1973, was exercisable by any court (other than the Supreme Court) or by any tribunal or other authority] as may be specified in the order with respect to the following matters, namely:—  Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx” 45. Special provisions were introduced by way of Article 371D of   the   Constitution   of   India.     This   amendment   was   made   in order to provide for equitable distribution of opportunities and facilities to the people belonging to the different parts of   the   State   of   Andhra   Pradesh   in   matters   of   public employment,   education   etc.     The   President   is   empowered   to issue   an   order   to   organise   the   civil   posts,   create   local areas, provide for preference or reservation in the matter of direct   recruitment   to   services   and   in   admission   into educational   institutions.     In   exercise   of   the   power   under Article 371D the President had issued Andhra Pradesh Public Employment   (Organisation   of   Local   Cadres   and   Regulation   of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as “Presidential   Order”   for   brevity).     The   said   Presidential 39 Order   provided   for   organising   the   classes   of   posts   in   the civil services of the State into various local cadres under para 3 and para 4 provide for allotment of persons to such cadres.     Paras   6   and   7   deal   with   local   cadre   and   local candidates and Para 8 provide for reservation to such local candidates.   The said Presidential Order thus is limited in its application to the civil posts under the State and local bodies   and   had   no   application   to   the   Courts   subordinate thereto.   46. The   basis   for   Article   371D   is   to   provide   equal opportunity   to   the   people   of   Andhra   Pradesh   by   introducing domicile   as   the   basis   for   appointment   to   services   and admissions   in   educational   institutions,       however,   Article 371D has no application in respect of the appointment to the posts of District Judges and Judges Subordinate thereto, in view of the constitutional scheme of separation of powers and express provisions having been made by the Constitution.  The issue was authoritatively settled by the Constitution Bench of this   Court   in   Chief   Justice   of   Andhra   Pradesh   &   Ors.   Vs. L.V.A. Dixitulu & Others, (1979) 2 SCC 34 .   47. In   the   above   case,   one   of   the   questions   came   for consideration before this Court was as to whether members of Judicial   Services   of   the   State   are   amenable   to   the 40 jurisdiction   of   the   Administrative   Tribunal,   which   was constituted   by   the   President   issuing   an   order   under sub­clause(3) of Article 371D.   The Administrative Tribunal has passed an order on an application filed by a member of Judicial   services   setting   aside   the   order   of   compulsory retirement passed by High Court. Matter was taken by the Chief Justice   of   Andhra   Pradesh   in   this   Court   challenging   the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.  It was contended that Judicial Service   is   not   contemplated   to   be   included   in   the   meaning covered by the expression “any civil service of the State”. This Court held that Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill   for   insertion   of   Article   371D   does   not   indicate   that there   was   any   intention   on   the   part   of   the   Parliament   to impair or derogate from the scheme of securing independence of the   Judiciary   as   enshrined   in   Articles   229   and   235   of   the Constitution. Court further held that amendment or abridgement of   this   basic   scheme   was   never   an   issue   of   debate   in Parliament   when   the   Constitution   (32nd   Amendment)   Bill   was considered.   The Constitution Bench of this Court in   Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. Vs. L.V.A. Dixitulu (supra) laid down following in Paragraph Nos. 76, 77, 78 and 80:­ “76.   The Statement of Objects and Reasons does not indicate that there was any intention, whatever, on the   part   of   the   legislature   to   impair   or   derogate from the scheme of securing independence of the judi­ 41 ciary as enshrined in Articles 229 and 235. Indeed, the amendment to abridgment of this basic scheme was never an issue of debate in Parliament when the Con­ stitution (32nd Amendment) Bill was considered. 77.   One test which may profitably be applied to as­ certain whether the High Court staff and the subordi­ nate judiciary were intended to be included in clause (3) of Article 371­D is: Will the exclusion of the judiciary from the sweep of this clause substantially affect the scope and utility of the article as an in­ strument for achieving the object which the legisla­ ture had in view? The answer cannot but be in the negative.   The   High   Court   staff   and   members   of   the Subordinate Judiciary constitute only a fraction of the   number   of   persons   in   public   employment   in   the State. Incidentally, it may be mentioned that one of the primary purposes of this article viz. to secure equitable   share   in   public   employment   to   people   of certain local areas in the State on the basis of the Mulki Rules requiring 15 years residence in those ar­ eas, could be achieved under those rules which, as subsequently   clarified   by   this   Court   in   State   of , 1973 (1) SCC 99, Andhra Pradesh  v.  V. Reddy  contin­ ued to be in force as valid law in the territories of the former State of Hyderabad even after the consti­ tution of the State of Andhra Pradesh. 78.  Let us now apply another test which in the cir­ cumstances of the case will be decisive. In that con­ nection, we have to see what consequences will flow if   we   give   this   general,   undefined   and   flexible phrase,   “civil   services   of   the   State”   in   Article 371­D(3), the wider construction so as to include in it the High Court staff and the members of the subor­ dinate judiciary. The inevitable result of  such an extensive   construction   will   be   that   the   control vested  in the Chief  Justice  over  the  staff  of the High Court, and in the High Court over the Subordi­ nate  Judiciary  will become  shorn  of its substance, efficacy and exclusiveness, and after being processed through the conduit of the Administrative Tribunal, will pass on into the hands of the Executive Govern­ ment, which, under Article 371­D(5), is the supreme authority, having full power to confirm, not to con­ 42 firm,   modify   or   annul   the   orders   of   the   Tribunal. Such a construction will lead to internecine conflict and contradiction, rob Articles 229 and 235 of their content, make a mockery of the Directive Principle in Article 50 and the fundamental concept of the inde­ pendence of the judiciary, which the Founding Fathers have with such anxious concern built into the basic scheme of the Constitution. Parliament, we are sure, could never have intended such a strange result. In our   quest   for   the   true   intention   of   Parliament, therefore, we must eschew this wide liberal interpre­ tation which will defeat or render otiose the scheme of Chapters IV and V, Part VI particularised in Arti­ cles 229 and 235, and instead, choose the alternative interpretation according to which members of the High Court staff and the subordinate judiciary will not fall within the purview of the phrase “civil services of the  State”. Such a restricted construction will ensure smooth working of the Constitution and harmony amongst its various provisions. 80.  In our opinion, non­use of the phrases “judicial service of  the State” and “District Judges” (which have been specifically defined in Article 236), and “officers and servants of the High Court” which has been designedly adopted in Articles 235 and 229, re­ spectively, to  differentiate  them in  the scheme of the Constitution from the other civil services of the State, gives a clear indication that posts held by the High Court staff or by the Subordinate Judiciary were  advisedly  excluded from the  purview of clause (3) of Article 371­D. The scope of the non obstante provision in clause (10) which gives an overriding effect to this article is coterminous with the ambit of the preceding clauses.” 48. Article 371D having been held by this Court not to be ap­ plicable to Judicial Service, arguments based on Article 371D cannot help the petitioner. In this context, one of the sub­ missions raised by the petitioners was that Kamalanathan Com­ mittee while framing guidelines for allocation of members of 43 Civil Service has taken into consideration the local area or local cadre etc.  No exception can be taken to the guidelines finalised by Kamalanathan Committee for allocation of cadre of members of Civil Services of the State, other than Judicial Service, taking clue from Article 371D.  Petitioners have re­ ferred to guideline No. 18(f) of the Kamalanathan Committee determining principles guiding allocations read with guideline No. 18(n), which also read with the Andhra Pradesh Public Em­ ployment Order, 1975 gives preference in allocation to those who have opted and who are local candidates to be allocated to that State in which they are local candidates.  The said order dated 29.10.1975 issued under Article 371D has been relied.   49. For the reasons already indicated above, the guidelines formulated by Kamalanathan Committee in context of other Civil Services are not relevant nor any support can be taken on the basis of said guidelines.  50. It is true that issue of public employment with regard to Telangana region has a long history.   During the period of Nizams under Mulki Rules, 15 years residential qualification was required for public employment.  For the purposes of this case, we need not dwell any further with regard to residential requirement of a public employment since in the present case, we are concerned with the post of Judicial Service and this 44 court has already held that for appointment to the post of Munsifs, no residential requirement can be prescribed.   Par­ ties are not at variance that recruitment to Judicial Service is on all India basis.  This Court has held that prescribing a particular place of practice as a prerequisite for seeking em­ ployment into the State Judicial Services as District Munsifs is unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Consti­ tution.  In  J.Panduranga Rao Vs. Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, 1963 (1) SCR 707 , this Court laid down following:­ “If the basis of the impugned rule is that a per­ son who applies for appointment to the post of a Dis­ trict Munsif, should have been enrolled as an Advo­ cate  of  a High  Court, that  basis  can  be  satisfied even if the person is enrolled as an Advocate not of the Andhra High Court but of any other High Court. All the High Courts have the same status; all of them stand for the same high traditions of the Bar and the administration of justice, and advocates enrolled in all of them are presumed to follow the same standards and to subscribe to the same spirit of serving the cause of the administration of justice. Therefore, in our opinion, the impugned rule has introduced classi­ fication between one class of Advocates and the rest and the said classification must be said to be irra­ tional inasmuch as there is no nexus between the ba­ sis   of   the   said   classification   and   the   object   in­ tended   to   be   achieved   by   the   relevant   scheme   of rules. That being so, it must be held that the deci­ sion of the Andhra High Court in the case of Nallan­ thighal Bhaktavatsalam Iyengar is not correct.” 51. The nativity for public employment runs counter to the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16(2) except when 45 it is provided by a Parliamentary Law as per exception carved out in Article 16(3) of the Constitution of India.  No Parlia­ mentary Law is relied by the petitioner, which provides resi­ dence as an eligibility to the employment in Judicial Service. In Act, 2014, there is no provision, which expressly provides for allotment of the State on the basis of place of birth or residence.  Sections 77, 78 and 79 of the Act do not refer to allotment on the basis of place of birth.  When for entering into Judicial Service, no condition can be put regarding resi­ dence of particular area for allocation of a State, consequent to Act, 2014, nativity cannot be sole basis, as is contended by the petitioner.   It is true that the State of Telangana stand formed to realise the democratic aspirations of the peo­ ple of Telangana.   We have noticed the Statement of Objects and Reasons of Act, 2014, which clearly establish that the creation of a separate State of Telangana is for the better­ ment of the social, economic, political and other aspirations of the people of that region, which contemplated allocation of separate State of Telangana.  The entire Statement of Objects and Reasons does not indicate that with respect to public em­ ployment, nativity is to play a dominant role.   It is true that Judicial Officers belonging to Telangana territorial area may have desired or expectation to choose or to opt for their 46 cadre in Telangana area, which is a legitimate aspiration, but giving pre­dominance to nativity only is not spelled from any statutory provision or scheme.   52. Section 77 of the Act contemplate a right of giving op­ tion as contemplated by Section 77(2). “Option” has been de­ fined in Black’s Law Dictionary, Tenth Edition, Page 1268:­ “ 1.  The right or power to choose; something that may be chosen the lawyer was running out of options for settlement,   2.  An offer that is included in a formal or informal contract; esp., a contractual obligation to keep an offer open for a specified period, so that the offeror cannot revoke the offer during that pe­ riod the option is valid because it is supported by consideration.”  53. Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar defines “op­ tion” in following manner:­ “ Option.   For the purposes of these guidelines— ‘OPTION’ means a right but not an obligation granted to an employee to apply for shares at a pre­deter­ mined price.   The word ‘option’ is a synonym for ‘choice’ or ‘pref­ erence’. OPTION, CHOICE. We speak of option only as regards one’s freedom from external constraint in the act of choosing : one speaks of choice only as the simple act itself.  The option or the power of choosing is given: the choice itself is made : hence we say a thing is at a person’s option.”   54. When a Judicial Officer has been given a right of option 47 to choose either of the successor State, right of option has to be given same meaning and content.  Right of option can be defeated only when there is some impediment in accepting the option.  The seniority of a Judicial Officer is a first crite­ ria for accepting the option.  The seniority in a service is a valuable   right   of   an   employee   or   officer.     In   service   ju­ risprudence, several benefits and perquisites are attached to the seniority. The petitioners are asking that option be ac­ cepted not on the basis of seniority but only on the basis of nativity, i.e. those who are senior even if they opt the State option,   their   option   should   not   be   selected   and   option   of those should be first accepted, who are natives of Telangana. The petitioner’s apprehension is that in event option of se­ nior officers are accepted and they are posted in State of Telangana, the future prospects of promotion of the petition­ ers shall be marred .  Whether the officers, who in the senior­ ity list, which was prevalent on the date of formation of new State, i.e. on 02.06.2014 where senior should loose their se­ niority or their seniority cannot be said to play any role on account of formation of two successor States is the question to be answered. The aspiration of petitioners that no senior officer,   should   come   to   State   of   Telangana,   which   may   mar their prospect of promotion is neither in accord with the con­ 48 stitutional scheme nor as per ethos of culture of this coun­ try.  The modified guidelines submitted by the High Court and accepted by the DoPT itself at second place give preference to nativity.  Thus, the High Court while formulating the guide­ lines has tried to balance the right of option of each Judi­ cial Officer.   It is relevant to notice that this Court has held in  The State of Mysore and another Vs. G.N. Purohit and others, (1967) SLR 753   that although right to be considered for promotion is a right, but right to have a chance of promo­ tion is not protected.  In the above case, following has been laid down in paragraph 10:­ “10. It is then urged on behalf of the respon­ dents that by changing the system from district­ wise to state­wise the respondents have been very hard hit and have become very junior. It appears from the figures supplied by the respondents that there   were   665   Junior   Health   Inspectors   in   the old   State   of   Mysore   on   November   1,   1956   while only 48 Junior Health Inspectors were allotted to the new State of Mysore after the Act. So long as the district­wise system continued these 48 per­ sons would naturally have better chances of pro­ motion in their districts but when the cadre was made state­wise, these 48 were likely to go down in   the   seniority   as   the   list   of   1963   actually shows. It is urged that this has affected their chances of promotion which were protected under the proviso to S.115(7) of the Act, which lays down   that   the   conditions   of   service   applicable immediately before the appointed day to the case of any person allotted to the new State shall not be   varied   to   his   disadvantage   except   with   the previous approval of the Central Government. It is   said   on   behalf   of   the   respondents   that   as their   chance   of   promotion   have   been   affected 49 their conditions of service have been changed to their disadvantage. We see no force in this argu­ ment because chances of promotion are not condi­ tions of service. It is enough in this connection to refer to the State of Orissa v. Durga Charan Dass (A.I.R. 1966 SC 1547).”    55. To   the   similar   effect   is   judgment   of   this   Court   in Mohammad Shujat Ali and Others Vs. Union of India and Others , in which in Para 15, following has been held:­ “15.   In the first place, it is not correct to say that there was any variation in the condition of ser­ vice in regard to promotion applicable to non­gradu­ ate Supervisors from the erstwhile State of Hyderabad immediately   prior   to   November   1,   1956.   It   is   true that a rule which confers a right of actual promotion or a right to be considered for promotion is a rule prescribing a condition of service. This proposition can  no  longer be  disputed in  view of  several  pro­ nouncements of this Court on the point and particu­ larly the decision in   Mohammad Bhakar   v.   Y. Krishna 1 Reddy  where this Court, speaking through Mitter, J., said: “Any rule which affects the promotion of a per­ son relates to his condition of service”. But when we speak of a right to be considered for promotion, we must not confuse it with mere chance of promotion — the latter would certainly not be a condition of ser­ vice. This Court pointed out in   State of Mysore   v. G.B. Purohit, (1967) 1 SLR 753  that though a right to be considered for promotion is a condition of ser­ vice, mere chances of promotion are not. A rule which merely   affects   chances   of   promotion   cannot   be   re­ garded as varying a condition of service. What hap­ pened in  State of Mysore  v.  G.B. Purohit  was that the district   wise   seniority   of   Sanitary   Inspectors   was changed to State wise seniority and as a result of this change, the respondents went down in seniority and became very junior. This, it was urged, affected their chances of promotion which were protected under the proviso to Section 115 sub­section (7). This con­ tention was negatived and Wanchoo, J. as he then was, 50 speaking   on   behalf   of   this   Court   observed:   “It   is said   on   behalf   of   the   respondents   that   as   their chances of promotion have been affected their condi­ tions of service have been changed to their disadvan­ tage.   We   see   no   force   in   this   argument   because chances of promotion are not conditions of service”. Now, here in the present case, all that happened as a result of the application of the Andhra Rules and the enactment of the Andhra Pradesh Rules was that the number of posts of Assistant Engineers available to non­graduate Supervisors from the erstwhile Hyderabad State for promotion, was reduced: originally it was fifty per cent, then it became thirty­three and one­ third per cent, then one in eighteen and ultimately one in twenty­four. The right to be considered for promotion was not affected but the chances of promo­ tion were severely reduced. This did not constitute variation in the condition of service applicable im­ mediately prior to November 1, 1956 and the proviso to   Section   115   sub­section   (7)   was   not   attracted. This view is completely supported by the decision of a   Constitution   Bench   of   this   Court   in   Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar  v.  The State of Maharashtra, (1974) 1 SCC 317 .” 56. The petitioners submission that High Court has modified the guidelines for accepting option without there being any valid reason and further no valid reasons have been indicated by   the   High   Court   for   modifying   the   guidelines.     In   this context, it is relevant to notice that the draft guidelines, which   were   initially   circulated   by   the   High   Court   on 26.02.2016 has in the first sentence stated “the allocation shall   be   done   in   the   order   of   seniority   as   available   on 02.06.2014.”   The second sentence read “Preference shall be given first to those who have applied for the State in which 51 the District declared by them at the time of entering service falls”.   The above draft guidelines has only been amplified retaining the initial concept of accepting option on the basis of   seniority.     Both   the   concept   as   noted   above   are   now reflected   in   modified   guidelines   as   guideline   No.   5(1)   and 5(2) as extracted above. Thus, the argument of the petitioners that guidelines have been substantially changed by the High Court without there being any reason cannot be accepted.  The substance   of   the   guidelines   are   same,   which   were   initially contained in the draft guidelines and modified guidelines.  It was   the   DoPT,   which   has   proposed   guidelines,   where   content clause 5.2 was 5.1 of modified guidelines were proposed as 5.1 was 5.2, which was not accepted by the High Court and Full Court reiterated their earlier principle, which was initially encapsuled  in draft guidelines.  57. We,   during   course   of   the   submissions,   had   asked   Shri Venkatramani, learned senior counsel appearing for the High Court to give a chart indicating the details of options and chart showing details of Judicial Officers working in both the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana from 02.06.2014 and the acceptance position of their option.  Detailed chart has been submitted by the High Court, which indicate that all Judicial Officers   belonging   to   territorial   area   of   Telangana   region 52 have been allocated Telangana State and the option of all the Judicial   Officers,   who   have   opted   for   Telangana   State   have been accepted.  A list of all officers belonging to District Judge   Cadre;   Civil   Judge   Senior   Division   cadre   and   Civil Judge,   Junior   Division   cadre   has   been   submitted,   which indicate all officers, who have opted for Telangana State have been allocated Telangana State.  58. All   the   Judicial   Officers   belonging   to   Telangana   State having opted and allocated the Telangana State, practically, we   do   not   find   any   error   in   the   operation   of   guidelines finalised by the High Court.  59. In view of foregoing discussions, we are of the view that modified guidelines as submitted by the High Court vide letter dated 08.07.2017, which has been accepted by DoPT does not suffer from any illegality or error.  The above guidelines is to   be   accepted   and   approved.     In   view   of   the   foregoing discussions, we dispose of the writ petition with direction to respondents to finalise options of all the Judicial Officers as   per   the   above   guideline   and   complete   the   process   of allocation within a period of two months from today. 60. Now, coming to the Civil Appeals arising out of S.L.P. (C)   No.   18787­18790   of   2016,   the   appellants   themselves   in their submissions have not pressed the quashing of Recruitment 53 2014   and   2015.     Further,   Andhra   Pradesh   Judicial   Service Rules,   2007   as   adopted   by   State   of   Telangana,   which   was quashed by the High Court is now substituted by fresh Rules namely, Telangana State Judicial Service Rules, 2017.  All the issues   raised   in   the   above   Civil   Appeals   arising   out   of special   leave   petitions   have   become   academic   and   needs   no consideration. The   Civil   Appeals   having   become   virtually infructuous are dismissed accordingly. The parties shall bear their own costs. ..................J. (A.K. SIKRI) ...................J. (Ashok Bhushan) NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 03, 2018.