Holding

‘Transfer’ under paragraph 5(2) of the Presidential Order denotes a lateral movement within the same cadre and does not include promotion; the Special Rules are ultra vires and void.

Summary

The appellants, senior assistants of the Factories and Boilers Department, challenged Special Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 that allowed their transfer to higher posts in the Labour Department. The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal had declared those Rules void for violating the Presidential Order issued under Article 371‑D, which organizes local cadres and restricts transfers. The Supreme Court examined whether the term “transfer” in paragraph 5(2) of the Presidential Order includes promotion and whether the Special Rules could be validly made. It held that “transfer” means a lateral move within the same cadre and does not encompass promotion, and that the Special Rules were beyond the scope of the Presidential Order and therefore unconstitutional. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

The meaning of “transfer” in paragraph 5(2) of the Presidential Order – does it include promotion?
Whether the Special Rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 are valid in view of the Presidential Order under Article 371‑D
Whether Article 371‑D(10) makes the Presidential Order prevail over other statutes

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Art. 309, s. Art. 371-D
Fundamental Ruless. Rule 15, s. Rule 2(18)
General Clauses Act, 1897

Subjects

service lawtransferpromotionArticle 371-DPresidential Orderlocal cadresstatutory interpretationconstitutional lawpublic employmentAndhra Pradesh

Judgment

V. JAGANNADHA RAO AND ORS. A
v.
STATE OF A.P. AND ORS.

NOVEMBER 7, 2001

[G.B. PATTANAIK, RUMA PAL AND ARUIT PASAYAT, JJ.] B

Service Law :

Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and
Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Ore/er, 1975 : c
Presidential Ore/er-Paras 3(3), 5(1 )--Presidental Ore/er issued under
Art. 371-D to provide for equitable opportunities and.facilities for the people
belonging to different parts o.f the State in the matter o.f public employment,
edurntion etc.-Ministerial posts o.f Factories and Boilers Department were
organised into Local Cadres pursuant to the Presidential Ore/er-Government D
issued Special Rules under proviso to Art. 309 making Senior Assistant belong-
ing to the Factories and Boilers DepclTlments as well as Labour Department
eligible .for appointment by trans.fer to the post of Assistant Labour Officer/
Assistant Inspector o.f Factories in the Andhra Pradesh Labour Suborclinate
Service - State Administmtive Tribunal declared that the impugned Rules to the
extent they enabled the ministerial em11loyees of the Factories and Boilers
Department or any other Department to be considered for appointment to the
posts in Labour Department are violative o.f paras 3 and 5 o.f the Presidential
Ore/er and, therefore, were void-Correctness of-Held: Art. 371-D( 10) and
any ore/er made by the President thereunder shall prevail over any Rule made F
-- under proviso to Art. 309 if such Rule is not .framed in accorclance with the
Presidential Ore/er-The Special Rule to the extent indicated by the Tribunal is
constitutionally i1ll'alid and rightly struck down-Constitution of India, 1950,
Arts. 309 arul 371-D-Fundamental Rules, Rr. 2(18) and 15(a).
G
Para 5(2)--Tran.~fer-Scope and ambit of-Held: Transfer means a
change of place o.f employment within an organisation-It is an incidence o.f
public service-It is essentia/y to a similar post in the same cadre and does not
incluc/e promotion-Trans.fer is a lateral and not a vertical movement within the
employer's organisation. Interpretation o.f Statutes : H
179
180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A Rules qfconstruction-Intention qflegislature-Detennination qf-Held:
Has to be determined.from the la~g~wge'o.f the statute-A cnmtructinn requir-
ing addition or l'Ubstitution o,f words .or rejection of ~vords as n1eaningless has
to be avoided. '' .

Words and Phrases :
B I ,
"Tran~fer"-Meaning of-In the context qfpara 5(2) qf Andhra Pradesh
Public Employment (Organisation of local Cadres and Regulation of Direct
of Recruitment) Order, 1975.

The Labour and Factdries Department of the State of A.P. con·
c sisted of 3 units, namely, La.hour, Factories and Boilers: Subsequently,
one more unit, namely, Establishment Unit was created. A Presidential
Order,· namely, Andhra Prailesh Public Employment (Organisation) of
Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitn;erit) Order, 1975 was
~ ,. I
issued under Article 371-D of the Constitution
-
to
, ·. ' -: . .. ' -
provide for e9uitable
D opportunities and facilities for the people belonging to differeni'parts of
the State in the matter of pu'blk employment, education etc. Minis.terial
posts of Factories and Boile'rs' Department were. organised info Local
Cadres pursuant to the Presidential Order. The Government issued Spe·
cial Rules under proviso to Article 309 making Senior Assistant belonging
E to the Factories and Boilers Departments as well as Labour Department
eligible· for appointment by' transfer· to the post of· Ai;sistant Labour
Officer/Assistant Inspector of Factories in the Andhra Pradesh Labour
Subordinate Service. The Ministerial employees of°the Labour Depart·
ment challenged the said Special Rules before the Stale Administrative
F Tribunal. The Tribunal declared that the impugned Rules lo the extent
they enabled the ministerial·employees of the Factories and Boilers De·
partment or any other Department to be c~risidered for appointment to
the posts in Labour Department are violative of paras 3 and 5 of the
-
Presidential Order and, therefore, were ·void. Hence this appeal.
G '
On behalf of the appellants it was contended that the expression
'transfer' used in para 5(2) pf the .Presidential Order had to be given a
wider meaning .and that pro!Dolional prospects were clearly inter-linked
prospects and could not be divested from a transfer.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court
\
V. JAGANNADHA RAO v. STATE 181
HELD : 1. The object or enacting Article 371-D in the Constitution A
is two-fold:

(a) to promote equal development or the backward areas of the

- State or Andhra Pradesh, so far as to secure balanced development of the
State as a whole.
B
(b) To provide equitable opportunities to different areas or the State
in the matter or education, employment and career prospects in public
service. [198-H; 199-A)

Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh v. L. V.A. Dikshitulu, AIR (1979) SC
193, relied on. c
-2. Para 5(1) or the President Order, namely, Andhra Pradesh PUb-
lic Employment (Organisation or Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct
Recmitnient) Order, 1975 is in terms or para 3(3) the~f. Para 3(3)
postulates that each department in each. zone shall. be or'g~;nseii. into a
D
separate cadre. Para 5(1) speaks of separate unit ror;~rl>oses "ofl"eC:ruit·
ment, appointment, clischarge, seniority, promotion and tr&nSrer and
· · such other matters as may be specified by th~ Stat.; Gov'ern~e~t in
. -·-· - ' . . ' ' ,. : '·' ·\, . :·.
respect of the category of posts and each part of the State. for which local
cadre has been organised ln respect of any category .of jio~ts is .;;,quired to
have a separate unitror the aforesaid purposes. Pa.:S 5(2) is in the nature E
of an enabling provision, which authorises. Ute State Gove...;'meitt to· make
provisions for transfer in certain ·specified circumstances. The .present
dispute relates to para 5(2)(c); it speaks of a "tra~er''. An enlarged
meaning to the expression "transfer'' to include pr~motional aspects
cannot be given. The appellants' contention that though para 5(2) .treats ·F
promotion and transfer separately, yet that distinction would not be
applicable to cases covered by para 5(2), is clearly untenable. [194·C·D]

3.1. Transfer in relation to service reduced to simple terms means a
change or place of employment within an organisation. It is. an incidence
of public service and generally does not require the consent or the em· G
ployee. In most. service rules, there are express provisions relating to
transfer. [199-F)

New Oxford English Dictionary, 1993 Edn., Vol. 2, 3367, referred to.

3.2. Though definitions may differ and in many cases transfer is H
182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A conceived in wider terms as a movement to any other place or branch of
the organisation, (transfer) it essentially is to a similar post in the same
cadre. [200-E]

8. Varadha Rao v. State of Kamataka, AIR (1987) SC 287, relied on.

B 3.3. It is now well settled that a government servant is liable to be
transferred to a similar post in the same cadre which is a normal feature
and incidence of government service and no governmtnt servant can
claim to remain in a particular place or in a particular post unless, of
course, his appointment itself is to a specified non-transferable post. No
C transfer is made to a post higher than what a government servant is
holding. In other words, it is generally a lateral and not a vertical move-
ment within the employer's organisation. [200-F]

4.1. Para 5(2) of the Presidential Order speaks of transfer and not of
promotion. It would be haz~rdous to accept the contention of the appel-
D lants that promotion is included in the expression 'transfer' and no assist-
ance can be availed of from the distinction ma.de in para 5(1) of the Order.
No provisions or word in a statute have to be read in isolation. In fact the
statute has to be read as a whole. A statute is an edict of legislature. It
cannot be said that without any purpose the distinction was made in para
E 5(1) between transfer and promotion and such distinction was not in-
tended to be operative in para 5(2). The intention of the legislature is
primarily to be gathered from the language used, which mean that atten-
tion should be said as to what has been said as also to what has not been
said. As a consequence a construction which requires for its support addi-
tion or substitution of words or which resorts for rejection of words as

-
F meaningless has to be avoided. [201-G-H; 202-A,B]

Mohd. Ali Khan v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, AIR (1997) SC 1165
and Institute of Charted Acco~ntants {)(India v. Mis. Price Water House, AIR
(1998) SC 74 and State of Gujarat v. Dilipbhai Nathibhai Patel, JT (1998) 2
G SC 253, relied on.

Robert Wigram Crawford v. Richard Spooner, [1846] 6 Moore PC 1,
referred to.

4.2. It is contrary to all rules of construction to read words into an
H Act unless it is absolutely necessary to do so. Similarly, it is wrong and
V. JAGANNADHA RAO v. STATE 183
dangerous to proceed by substituting some other words for words of the A
statute. In other words, there should be no attempt to substitute or
paraphrase of general application. Attention should be confined to what
is necessary for deciding a particular case. Much trouble is made by
substituting other phrases assumed to be equivalent, which then are
reasoned from as if they were in the Act. [202-D]
B
Stock v. Frank Jones (Tiptan) Ltd.. [1978] 1 All ER 948 (HL) and
Pinner v. Everett, [1969] 3 All ER 257, referred to.

4.3. It is incumbent on the Court to avoid the construction if reason-
ably permissible on the language, which would render a part of the statute
devoid of any meaning or application. In the interpretation of statutes, the
c
Courts always presume that the Legislature inserted every part thereof for
a purpose and the legislative intention is that every part of the statue
should have an effect. Therefore, the expression "transfer" does not take
within its scope promotion. [202-F]
D
Union of India v. Deoki Nandan Afigarwal, AIR (1992) SC 96, relied
on.

5. Article 371-0(10) of the Constitution unequivocally indicates that
the said Article and any order made by the President thereunder shall
have effect notwithstanding anything in any other provision of the Consti· E
tution or in any other law for the time being in force. Necessarily, there·
fore, if it is construed and held that the Presidential Order prohibits
consideration of the employees from the feeder category from other units
then such a rule made by the Governor under the proviso to Article 309 of
the Constitution will have to be struck down. Then again in exercise of F
powers under paragrnph 5(2) of the Presidential Order if the State Gov-
ernment makes any provision, which is outside the purview of the author·
ity of the Government under para 5(2) of the Order itself, theu the said
provision also has to be struck down. Having construed the rules framed
by the Governor nuder proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution from the
aforesaid standpoint, the conclusion is irresistible that the said rule to the G
extent indicated by the Tribunal is constitutionally invalid and its conclu·
sion is unassailable. In the case in hand, the impugned provisions do not
appear to have been framed in exercise of powers under paragraph 5(2) of
the Presidential Order and as such the same being a rule made under
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, the Presidential Order would H
si.IPREM!lcoURT RiroR.Ts' r [2001) SUPP. 5 s.e.R.
~ • ·~,_,.,,,, ~.• ,,.,.,.~ ,,,.,,l
.... ' - • • ' • " ,- ··-_, '> ! -
1· A''" prevail; as provided tinder Article 371-D(lO) or the eonstitution.·Even if it
• • ,-. '-. - ·.···;: .. ~ ---- " . , i , .. ; .··-- ,.t ,, •. , .. •;:.:
·; ' is construed to be an Order made under paragraph 5(2) of the Presidential
< ,, • ,-" • _.- - • • _:. • -- •' ,, "• ., ' ----:~:i-···-·i· ,.
lh;Order;then also the same would· be invalid being beyond the pemussible
1 • ' • : ~
- ' ,- .- . ----·-' - - • • . "'.. - -: • ... ·; • - ,. ... ' ·''
'(•-'limits provided tinder the said paragraph. The Tnlmnal 'rightly held that
Ji the provislOn io' the extent it provide5forconsideraiio'n~r eriipl~y~~S'rir the
. ' ·-'•. ---~- - ' ·-· . ' ' "' '" ,_, " f .. " ' " ,,.,-!
d B Factories and Boilers units lo be invalid for the purpose of promotion lo
the higher post in the LabOur unit and as such no interference with the said
· ''' cohctllSi~r'i'oithe Tnbu~ar ~'caned r~~- rio3~n; F-Hl ; : . . , < ,
;•,JI :<.'":,l_::~-,1 ,"' >-:. 'i;-' ,.u. •. '.'-'" • i ' ' ' ' •' · •' - ... ,

State ofAndhra Pradesh Y• V.Sadanandam & Ors., (1989) Supp. 1 SeC
: . ''.·- ! 1· .: ; ~<"- :1 -~:; .;; '; '· ;, · ' • ' ., __ ;- • ' ·· -- · - • ·' -' ~ -- · · -" · · - · · - -
· !I: -- -'"' •:-1
574 and B. Satyanarayana Rao, [2000] 4 sec 262, overruled.,,,,,, ,<,:,,
)c ·~ ! : : ; ;,_ :~ .:"';l!. ;.'.:, ;.- ·_~:;· -! '.:_-: ':-:." ~; :·.. ~: l .-.-~i ;~ ~:: j~~ -~ ~·- ,~-:.: ~ l; .: ~' .. ~: :., -~ ; ·; • ':, '. ;.; ,: ! ~!
'. ' _-· ·:: -_ -". --. ; '._•

.,.,. >
':' "· 6: II would be ID the 1Dleresl ofthe Administration lo have a channel
·,. . . h•-_,· . . ,_.., -l~/,-.,.:.-,«~-~.,·.,:•;,,j) -·i ;•cr_.-~--,i.-1;_:;0::~_!"•'>_>
• 'of... promotion '. ,,_ -:
for every service; so as to avoid stagnation at a particular
. - -, ..... , ·" - ' ... ,_ ii -.. -.. :• . '., ,- - _.;. -,, '" " ,._,, ! ,, -:_ . ._.,, ! ,;,,_;
.,, lever;· stibject, however, to the condition thaf the'inciimbents of a.service
«

~-:-. " -- ,._,. .--·-,~----: ,.,. "._-·1· '•-"f·.,''"i•,:-;' ••.. ~;-1;·· ;_t")•j_•i·;;'..-.
" are othernise·
-- ,_ ... _ •
qtialified
·__ ,.._.-_
lo shoulder
- . -··
the .responsibilili.S
; ·>-''!' ' -·)'· -- .
of the higher pro-
.. ,.,,_«,; -}: l i ; . f '~ .,-~

. motional post. The appropriate aulhorit.Y" of the Government, therefore,
1
: D should bear' this, in mind and ·consider the feasibility. and, desirability of
l;·;;,.)'j ·-·-.: _.;~_ ~ ··-<!.• -!•""' ...... '.•. ,_,. .....·-- - . '.
continuing the supernumerary posts already created in the Boilers and
Factories Depart°'.ent ·on~ permanent basis, 5'.'.thai !1'e."ltlpl,oy_ees from
1
··Jhelower.echelon ID the said Department have a promotional channel or,
~' 1o make suibble promotionalavenueat least up to some level; 5o ·that there
. E .: would not be any disconientment amongst the employees in the concerned
.-,Department.[204-B-D] ;•( •;;;'.;;! ''" ;; ,:•1 ·•,:I ,,,., "'· ·
.-;;,:!;~.r:<: 1-.'.,-·,L} ,-,'~ ·_...iti ~.:·ii 1;.-i" ;.1- .. ;-, .. ':;:·<"-: _,.: :i
. .. . CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICJl.ON ; .Civil Appeal Nos. 9643-9644
·;'_.~.r.:~~9?.¥:;·;·_~· ~:~: 0:.;~,~~~~-. ~;ft·'.·;:_~-;.'.,",_~.. <·~i_)!).1;_;_,i ,_;;l, ;,, .,;)-;!c' ,'., ·.. .,,. · ::~
~·t '.,._,;..~-· .,..~ ·,t;'-~r;·.;;,.: ;1.!•It ·:1-,.-/.-.t·,--.,1'!:-/.:·1-:. ;.:~ (:J 0
:-;·_.;'.. ;i-- ::-~:.':'-·
F . : · ';)(!
_<--;~
From the Judgment and:Order dated.17.4.95 of the Andhra Pradesh
~
... •;:;j .,, ;'_t;.-\J (_,,,.; ,-,,:."· . .,;1'i .. "<·-' ~.<> · ... - -·.. .

Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad in R.P. No. 2462_.. and·'2671.of.1987.
:<'l.IZJJ-;-:,.d11.r.-,'1.•l.'t .._,1-.H'. ,_, ..... , ...,_~, l••'-_,·-. "-'; -' ..
; .- r. •>1._"•; --· ·,-.'~ ,.;_: ;-, 1~·:·::.·1.-t··; ::·r·.1;; '; ·-:'''"'i-'.:··.,; ·-<· :· ·'''
""' "' · P.N: Mishra; a:: Seshagiri' Rao· and S: ·Muralidhar for the Appellants.
1 1-;r:~·srf .1·./;r:··.;:llJ L>:'!J·~1:~·.- ;!_.;i,n:;l. _Hrt•:>~_i ,!_-_,;;.ii<.·;;. ·-1 "''·" ··.· · '1 · --

G ..• , ••·:~.N:'Rio;'s. sari~~'krisii~ru.;1,~.'~aj,'~-~::,su~s~~:'s .. ~day
•Kumar· Sagar' and K.R..Nagaraja· for'the' Respondents;... ,...... ·
·'·,l'., !: 11-'{. ;·;i"!'"!·i "(t•-;,,-;;1·i.i-:."''i/J;.i!.·;-.1<:<:1 ;-i~ -'? :;-~;)_):!'..': ·; , -

· '" .-:. SmL·K.> Amareswari,iR;'Madhavi .Latlia for T.V. Ratnam for Govt of
A.P.:... i·;- :;:.-~ - .;, .... ;.·,.,.,.,:·'.L:.,·;.-· -'':·.· ""'-:', . '
'"·•·,

H . . , The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ·
V. JAGANNADHA RAO v. STATE [ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 185
ARUIT PASAYAT, J. I.Doubting correctness of the view expressed A
i~ two decisions rendered by two Hon'ble Judges in Stare of Andhra Pradesh
and Anr. v. V. Sadanandam & Ors., [ 1989] Supp. 1 SCC 574 and Govt. of
A.P.. & Anr. v. B. Suryanarayana Rao (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors., [2000] 4 SCC
262 regarding scope and ambit of para 5(2) of the Presidential Order issued
under Article 37 ID of the Constitution of India 1950 (in short the "Constitu- B
tion") a reference has been made to a three Judges Bench, and that is how the
matter was listed before us.

The question for consideration in these appeals is whether the judgment
of Andhni Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (in short "Tribunal") striking
down certain provisions of the Special Rules framed under Article 309 of the C
Constitution holding them to be violative of the Presidential Order issued
under Article 37 ID of the Constitution is correct.

2.Background facts in a nutshell are as under:-

Prior to the formation of the State of Andhra Pradesh on 1.11.1956 and D
. thereafter, the Labour and Factories Department consisted of 3 units, namely,
Labour, Factories and Boilers. The employees belonging to the ministerial
.cadres in all the 3 units had a channel of promotion to higher non-technical
executive posts like Assis\ant Inspector of Labour, District Inspector of Labour
. etc. Further promotional avenues Jed to the posts of Assistant Commissioner E
of Labour, Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Joint Commissioner of Labour
and Additional Commissioner of Labour. On 16.9.1963 Factories Unit in the
department was bifurcated and subjects relating to Shops and Establishment
Act, Minimum Wages Act, Motor Transport Workers Act and Payment of
Wages Act in respect of non-factory establishments were transferred to the
Labour unit. On 8.12. l 965 one more unit, namely, Establishment Unit was
F
c~eated in the Labour Department by transferring non-technical posts of
District Inspector of Labour (re-designated as Labour Officer) and Assistant
Inspector of Labour (re-designated as Assistant Labour Officer) from the
Fa~tories \Ying. Prior to this arrangement the aforesaid non-technical posts
were .under the control of the Factories Wing. On 15.9.1966 Government G
. issued Rules under the prcviso to Article 309 making Superintendents in the
. Factories and Boilers Wings and Assistant Inspectors of Labour retained in that
Wing (re-designated as Assistant Inspector of Factories) eligible for appoint-
ment by transfer as District Inspector of Labour (now Labour Officer). On
28.1.1971 Government ordered that the ministerial staff in all the 4 units, H
186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A namely, Labour, Factories, Boilers and Establishment at the headquarters
were to be treated as one unit. On 6.8.1974 Government ordered that the
Factories and Boilers units were to function with Chief Inspector of Factories
and Boilers as the head of the department, and the Labour and Establishment
units were to function under the control of Commissioner of Labour. It was
B clarified that the ministerial staff in all the 4 units were eligible for appoint-
ment by transfer to the post of Assistant Inspector of Labour (re-designated
as Assistant Labour Officer) and District Inspector of Labour (re-designated
as Labour Officer). On 18.!0.1975 the Presidential Order was issued under
Article 371-D of the Constitution to provide for equitable opportunities and
facilities for the people belonging to different parts of the State in the matter
c of public employment, education etc. On 20.5.1976 ministerial posts of
Factories and Boilers Department were organized into Local cadres pursuant
to the Presidential Order. Similarly, the posts in the Labour Department were
also organised into local cadres. On 11.5.1977 posts of Labour Enforcement
Officer (previously designated as Deputy Inspector of Labour and subse-
D quently re-designated as Labour Officer) were organized into multi-zone
cadre posts. On 2.9.1977 by the Rules made under proviso to Article 309,
UDC's of the Labour Department and Factories and Boilers Department were
made eligible for recruitment by transfer to the posts of Assistant Inspector
of Labour/Assistant Inspector of Factories. On 20.7.1982 in G.0.503 the
E Government directed that the concessions given in G.0.607 dated 6.8.1974
to the effect that the ministerial staff in the Factories and Boilers Department
shall be eligible for appointment by transfer to the post of Assistant Inspector
of Labour (Assistant Labour Officer) and District Inspector of Labour (Labour
Officer) shall continue to the last person in the department as on 20.7.1982
F and the concession will be withdrawn in respect of persons appointed there-
after in the Factories and Boilers department. The said concession was ex-
tended to the last person in the department by a memorandum dated 19.5.1983.
By G.O.Ms.No.72 Government issued Rules under proviso to Article 309
making Senior Assistant belonging to the Factories and Boilers departments
as well as Labour department eligible for appointment by transfer to the post
G of Assistant Labour Officer/Assistant Inspector of Factories. These were
treated to be zonal non-gazetted posts, unit of appointment being the zone. In
G.O. Ms 170 Rules under proviso to Article 309 were issued constituting the
posts of Labour Officer into multi-zonal cadre posts.

H 3. Ministerial employees of the Labour department challenged the Rules
V. JAGANNADHA RAO v. STATE [ARIJIT PASAYAT, l.] 187
issued in G.0.Ms 72 dated 25.2.1986 and G.0.Ms.117 dated 28.5.1986 before A
the Tribunal. A Full Bench of the Tribunal allowed the petitions and declared
that the impugned Rules to the extent they enable the ministerial employees of
the Factories and Boilers department or any other department to be considered
for appointment to the posts in Labour department are violative of paras 3 and
5 of the Presidential Order and, therefore, were void. However, liberty was B
given to the Government to create posts in the Factories and Boilers Depart-
ments for persons who were regularly appointed more than 3 years prior to the
filing of the petitions before the Tribunal in the Executive posts in Labour
Department, without affecting the rights of the employees of the Labour De-
partment in the respective zones.
c
4. Tribunals' conclusions essentially are as follows:-

The Presidential Order was enforced on 18.10.1975. The post of Senior
Assistant is required to be organised in a zonal cadre and for the Labour
Department there has to be an additional city cadre. Organising cadre in each
department under para 3 includes determination of cadre strengths both in D
respect of permanent and temporary posts. In accordance with definition of
cadre in the fundamental rules the first step which was required to be taken
for implementation of the Presidential Order was localization of cadres by
determining cadre strength of each post required to be organised in local
cadre. In Schedule Two of the Presidential Order, the requirements indicated E
include geographical spread of the zone and the ratio and also the adminis-
trative needs of the department. The local cadre is the unit under para 5(1)
of the Presidential Order for recruitment, appointment, seniority, promotion
and transfer. Therefore, the zone is the unit for the organised cadre of the
zone. Para 9 speaks of the carry forward of a post and not a vacancy.
F
According to para 5(1) the essential cadre of the department will be unit for
the purpose of recruitment, appointment, seniority, promotion, transfer etc.
Even a transfer to an equivalent post is required to be restricted within the
zone. Para 5(2) enables to the State Government to make provisions for
transfer of a person from and to a post in a category and a post in the same
category outside the zonal cadre. It is to be noted that the essential cadre of G
each department is the unit not only for direct recruitment but also for recruit-
ment by transfer, seniority and promotion in the department. An additional
feeder category of ministerial employees organised in six separate cadres of
another department will violate the requirements of para 3(3) and 5(1), as the
seniority in the departmental cadre should be the criteria for the purposes of H
188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A promotion and appointment to higher posts in the department.· Accordingly, the
Rules were held to be violative of Article 371-D.

5. When the matter was placed for hearing after grant of leave reliance .
was placed by learned counsel for. the appellants on .the. decisions in . V. '
Sadanandam (supra) and B. Satyanarayana Rao (supra} to contend that this
B Court has upheld similar provisions which have been• struck down by the
Tribunal as void. However, the Bench hearing the appeals expressed doubt
about the correctness of the view expressed in these cases and as noted above·
the appeals were directed to be placed before a 3 Judges Bench.

c 6. Mr. P.N. Mishra, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants
submitted that the two decisions referred to above were squarely applicable
to the facts of this case. In any event the Rules have been made in consonance
with the Presidential Order and there is no inconsistency. Para 5(2} of the
Presidential Order authorises the State Government to pass nec;,i;sar)' or'ders
in the circumstances indicated in the said paragraph. According to him, ·
D
public interest is paramount in the case and taking into account "the back-
ground facts it was felt by the 'Government that in order to provide ·for
equitable opportunities and facilities for the people belonging to different
parts of the State in the matter of public employment, impugnea Rules were
formulated. If the interpretation by the Tribunal is accepted it would mean
E the denial of opportunities and would be against the very spirit of the Presi-
dential Order. It was also submitt~d that the expression 'transfer' used in para
5(2) has to be given a wider meaning, and promotional prospects are clearly.
inter-linked and cannot be divested from a transfer. If necessary, according
to him, a purposive interpretation has to be made.
F
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents who were the
petitioners before the Tribunal submitted that the very object of the Presiden-
tial Order is to provide better employment facilities to persons of neglected·
areas and the scope for a departure is rather limited and if the State wanted
to make a departure it is authorized to do so within the four corners of"the
G prescriptions in the Presidential Order. Transfer according to him, is permis-
sible in respect of similar posts, and by no stretch of imagination this is
permissible to include a promotional prospect or avenue.

7 .Learned counsel for the State of Andhra Pradesh submitted that
H though it is contended by appellant about States' stand before the Tribunal
V. JAGANNADHA RAO r. STATE [ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 189
being correctness of the impugned Rules, yet on a closer reading• of the A
provisions it has be.en noticed that the Tribunal's Judgment does not suffer from
any infirmity and, therefore, appeals were not filed by the State. It is also
pointed out that supernumerary posts have been created. tCl effectuate the
Tribunal's judgment.

In order to appreciate the rival submissions, it would be necessary to note B
a few statutory provisions which have' reliance so far as the' dispute' is con-
cerned. Article 371-D so far as relevant reads as follows:'
-l ··,,.
"3710.(1) The President may by order.made with respect to the State
of Andhra Pradesh provide, having regard to the requirements of the C
State as a whole, for. equitable opportunities and .facilities for the
people belonging to different parts of the State, in the matter of public
employment and in the matter of education, and different provisions
may be made for various parts 'ofihe Siate. · ' ''

(2) An order made under clause (I) may, in particular' D
(a) require the StateGovernm.ent to organize any class or. classes of
posts in a civil service of, or any class or classes.of c_ivil posts. under,
the State i~to different local cadres for differentparts 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 E
cadres so organized;

(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 F
organised in pursuance of an order under this Article or consti-
tuted otherwise) under the State Government;

(ii) for direct recruitment to posts in any cadre under any local
authority within the State; and G
(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 H
190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A 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 sub-clause (b) as may be specified in this behalf
in the order;
B
(ii) in the matter of admission to any such University or other
educational institution referred to in sub-clause (b) as may be
specified in this behalf in the order, 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, Univer-sity or other
c
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 to exercise
such jurisdiction, powers and authority [including any jurisdiction,
D power and authority which immediately before the commencement '
of the Constitution (Thirty-second Amendment) Act, 1973, was ex-
ercisable 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 maters, namely:-
E (a) appointment, allotment or promotion to such class or cla,ses of
posts in any civil service of the State, or to such class or classes
of civil posts under the State, or to such class or classes of posts
under the control of any local authority within the State, as may
be specified in the order;
F
(b) seniority of person appointed, allotted or promoted to such;
class or classes of posts in any civil service of the State, or to
such class or classes of civil posts under the State, or to such
class or classes of posts under the control of any local authority
within the State, as may be specified in the order;
G
(c) such other conditions of service of persons appointed, allotted or
promoted to such class or classes of posts in any civil service of
the State or to such class or classes of civil posts under the State
or to such class or classes of posts under the control of any local
authority within the State, as may be specified in the order.
H
V. JAGANNADHA RAO v. STATE [ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.) 191
(4) A
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
B
(9) Notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court,
tribunal or other authority -

(a) no appointment, posting, promotion or transfer of any person -

(i) made before the !st day of November, 1956, to any post c
under the Government of, or any local authority within,
the State of Hyderabad as it existed before that date; or

(ii) made before the commencement of the Constitution (Thirty-
seconJ Amendment) Act, 1973, to any post under the D
Government of, or any local or other authority within the
State of Andhra Pradesh; and
•
(b) no action taken or thing done by or before any person referred to
in sub-clause (a), shall be deemed to be illegal or void or ever to have
become illegal or void merely on the ground that the appointment, E
posting, promotion or transfer of such person was not made in accord-
ance with any law, then in force, providing for any recquirement as to
residence within the State of Hyderabad or, as the case may be, within
any part of the State of Andhra Pradesh, in respect of such appoint-
ment, posting, promotion or transfer. F
( 10) The provisions of this Article and of any order made by the
President thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything in any
other provision of this Constitution or in any other law for the time
being in force."
G
"Impugned Rules: (so far as relevant read as follows).

- ORDER

The following notification shall be published in the Andhra Pradesh
Gazette:- H
192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A NOTIFICATION

In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309
of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Andhra Pradesh hereby
makes the following· Special Rules for the posts of Assistant labour
Officers in the Andhra Pradesh Labour Subordinate Services:
B
The rules hereby made shall be deemed to have come into force
with effect from the 2nd September, 1985;

RULES

c 1. CONSTITUTION: this category shall consist of Assistant Labour
Officers including Labour Inspectors of factories in the Andhra
Pradesh Labour Subordinate Service.

2. APPOINTMENT: Appointment to the category shall be made':

D (i) by direct recruitment;

(ii) by recruitment by transfer from the categories of senior assist-
ants and senior stenographers of the Labour Department and
Factories and Boilers Department in the Andhra Pradesh Min~
isterial Services restricted to those working in the zones in
E which the vacancies arise;

(iii) by recruitment by transfer from among the personnel working
in the Labour Welfare Centres of the Labour Department under
the Andhra Pradesh General Subordinate Service, restricted to
F those working in the· zones in which the vacancies arise.

Provided that all appointments by transfer to the category shall be
made on grounds of seniority cum efficiency. >-

Provided further that among the senior assistants, senior stenog-
G raphers and the personnel working in the Labour Welfare Centres, in
the Labour Department, the appointment to the post of Assistant ,,_ ·
Labour Officers shall be made in the ratio of 8: 1: I respectively in
the following rotation:- ,.
1. Senior Assistant
H 2. Senior Assistant
V. JAGANNADHA RAO v. STATE [ARIJIT PASAYAT, !.) 193
3. Senior Assistant A
4. Labour Welfare Centre Staff
5. Senior Assistant
6. Senior Assistant
7. Senior Assistant
B
8. Senior Stenographer
9. Senior Assistant
JO. Senior Assistant;

Provided also that in a unit of 10 vacancies other than leave C
vacancies, the 1st, 4th, 7th and 10th vacancies shall be filled in by
direct recruitment and the remaining six vacancies shall be filled in
the .appointment by transfer.

Provided also that among the Senior Assistants and Senior Ste-
nographers of the Directorate and the senior assistants and senior D
stenographers of the subordinate offices, the appointment shall be in
the ratio of 2:3 respectively in the following rotations:

!st vacancy - Subordinate Office
2nd vacancy - Directorate Office E
3rd vacancy - Subordinate Office
4th vacancy - Directorate Office
5th vacancy - Subordinate Office

Provided also that if an eligible candidate belonging to Directorate F
Office or Subordinate Office including Labour Welfare Centre Staff,
is not available for appointment in the turn allotted for them in the
order of rotation, the turn allotted for them in the order of rotation, the
turn shall lapse and the vacancy shall be filled in by candidate of next
turn in the order of rotation. G

3. APPOINTING AUTHORITY: the Deputy CommissionerofLabour
in the respective zones concerned shall be the appointing authority for
the posts of Assistant Labour Officers.

4. UNIT OF APPOINTMENT: For the purposes of recruitment, H
194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A appointment, discharge for want of vacancy, seniority, promotion,
transfer and appointment as full member, there shall be seven separate
units as detailed below:

ZONE - I : Comprising the districts of Srikakularn, Vizianagararn
and Visakhapatnarn.
B
ZONE - II : Comprising the districts of East Godavari, West
Godavari and Krishna.

ZONE - III : Comprising the districts of Guntur, Prakasarn and
Nellore.
c
ZONE - IV : Comprising the districts of Kurnool, Cuddapah,
Anantapur and Chittor.

ZONE - V : Comprising the districts of Adilabad, Karimnagar,
Warangal and Khammam.
D
ZONE - VI: Comprising the districts of Ragareddy, Nalgonda,
Mahaboobnagar, Medak and Nizarnabad.

ZONE - VII : Twin cities of Hyderabad and Secundrabad."

E PRESIDENTIAL ORDER : (so far as relevant) reads as follows:

"The following Order of President of India, G.S.R. 524(E), dated
the 18th October, 1975 is republished :-

THE ANDHRA PRADESH PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT (ORGANI-
F SATION OF LOCAL CADRES AND REGULATION OF DIRECT
RECRUITMENT) ORDER, 1975.

ORDER

G.S.R. 524(e): - In exercise of the powers conferred by clauses
G (I) and (2) of Articles 371-D of the Constitution, the President hereby
makes, with respect to the State of Andhra Pradesh, the following
Order, namely:-

H
I. Short title, extent and commencement - (i) This Order may be
called the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation of
'
V. JAGANNADHA RAO v. STATE [ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.J 195
Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975. A
(2) It extends to the whole of the State of Andhra Pradesh.

(3) It shall come into force at once.

2. Interpretation - (1) In this Order, unless the context otherwise
B
requires -

- (a)

(b)

(c) 'local area', in relation to any local cadre, means the local area c
specified in paragraph 6 for direct recruitment to posts in such
local cadre, and includes, in respect of posts belonging to the
category of Civil Assistant Surgeons, the local areas specified
in sub-paragraph (5),of paragraph 8 of this Order;
D
(d) 'local authority' does not include any local authority which is not
subject to the control of the State Government;

(e) 'local cadre' means any local cadre of posts under the State
Government organised in pursuance of paragraph 3, or consti-
tuted otherwise, for any part of the State; E
(f) 'local candidate' in relation to any local area, means a candidate
who qualifies under paragraph 7 as a local candidate in relation
to such local area;

{g) F
(h) 'Schedule' means a Schedule appended to this Order;

(i)

(j)
....:.J G
(k) 'State Government' means the Government of Andhra Pradesh.

- ...._
(I)

(m) 'Zone' means a zone specified in the Second Schedule compris-
ing the territories mentioned therein; H
196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A (2) The General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897) applies for the
interpretation of this Order as it applies for the interpretation of a
Central Act.

(3) Organisation of local cadre -

B (1) The State Government shall, within a period of twelve months
from the commencement of this Order, organize classes of posts
in the.civil services of, and classes of civil posts under, the State
into different local cadres for different parts of the State to the
extent, and in the manner, hereinafter provided.

c (2) The posts belonging to the category of lower divisoon clerk,
and to each of the other categories equivalent to, or lower than
that of a lower division clerk, in each department in each dis-
trict shall be organised into a separate cadre.

Explanation - For the purposes of this sub-paragraph, sub-
D
paragraph (1) of paragraph 6, and sub-paragraph (!) of para-
graph 8, a category shall be deemed to be equivalent to or lower
than that of lower division clerk if the minimum of the scale of
pay of a post belonging to that category or, where the post car-
ries a fixed pay, such fixed pay, is equal to or lower than the
E minimum of the scale of pay of a lower division clerk.

(3) The posts belonging to each non-gazetted category, other
than those referred to in sub-paragraph (2), in each department
in each zone shall be organised into a separate cadre.

F (4) The posts belonging to each specified gazetted category in
each department in each zone shall be organised into a separate
cadre.

G
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-paragraphs (3)
and (4), the State Government may, where it considers it expe-
dient so to do and with approval of the Central Government,
organize the posts belonging to any of the categories referred to
therein, in any department, or any establishment thereof, in two
or more continuous zones into a single cadre.
-
•

H (6)
..

V. JAGANNADHA RAO v. STATE [ARUIT PASAYAT, J.] 197
(7) In organizing a separate cadre in respect of any category of A
posts in any department for any part of the State, nothing in this
Order shall be deemed to prevent the State Government from
organizing or continuing more than one cadre in respect of such
•
.category in such department for such part of the State.

(8) Where the Central Government is satisfied that it is not
B
.. practicable or expedient to organize local cadres under this para-
graph in respect of any non-gazetted category of posts in any
department, it may, by notification, make a declaration to that
effect and on such declaration the provisions of this paragraph
shall not apply to such category of posts. c
4.

5. Local cadres and transfer of persons:

(I) Each part of the State, for which a local cadre has been or- D
ganised in respect of any category of posts, shall be a separate
unit for purposes of recruitment, appointment, discharge, sen-
iority, promotion and transfer, and such other matters as may be
specified by the State Government, in respect of that category
of post. E
(2) Nothing in this Order shall prevent the State Government
from making provisions for :

(a) the transfer of a person from any local cadre to any Office
or Establishment to which this Order does not apply, or F
vice-versa;

(b) the transfer of a person from' a local cadre comprising
posts in any Office or Establishment exercising territorial
\ jurisdiction over a part of the State to any other local cadre
G
comprising posts in such part, or vice-versa; and

(c) the transfer of a person from one local cadre to another
local cadre where no qualified or suitable person is avail-
able in the latter cadre or where such transfer is otherwise
consi!lered necessary in the public interest." H
198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A 6. Local areas:

( 1) Each district shall be regarded as a local area -

(i) for direct recruitment to posts in any local cadre under the
State Government comprising all or any of the posts in any
-
B department in that district belonging to the category of a
lower division clerk or to any other category equivalent to
or lower than that of a lower division clerk;

(ii) for direct recruitment to posts in any cadre under any local
-
authority within that district, carrying a scale of pay, the
c minimum of which does not exceed the minimum of the
scale of pay of a lower division clerk or a fixed pay not
exceeding that amount.

(2) Each Zone shall be regarded as a local area;
D (i) for direct recruitment to posts in any local cadre under the
State Government comprising all or any of the posts in any
department in that zo;1e belonging to any non-gazetted
category other than those referred to in such paragraph (I);

E (ii) for direct recruitment to posts in any local cadre compris-
ing all or any of the posts in any department in that zone
belonging to the categories of Tahsildars and Junior Engi-
neers;

(iii) for direct recruitment to posts in any cadre under any local
F authority within that zone, carrying a scale of pay, the
minimum of which exceeds the minimum of the scale of
pay of a lower division clerk but does not exceed Rs.480

-
per mensem; or a fixed pay which exceeds the minimum
of the scale of pay of a lower division clerk but does not
G exceed Rs.480 per mensem;

8. The object of enacting Article 371-D appears to be two-fold:-

(I) To promote equal development of the backward areas of the
State of Andhra Pradesh, so far as to secure balanced develop-
H ment of the State as a whole.
V. JAGANNADHA RAO v. STATE [ARIJ!T PASAYAT, J.] 199
(2) To provide equitable opportunities to different areas of the State A
in the matter of education, employment and career prospects in
public service.

This was observed to be so in Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh v. L V.A.
Dikshitulu, AIR (1979) SC 193.
B
9. It is to be noted that para 5(1) of the Presidential Order is in terms of
para 3(3) thereof. Para 3(3) postulates that each department in each zone shall
be organised into a separate cadre. Para 5(1) speaks of separate unit for
purposes of recruitment, appointment, discharge, seniority, promotion and
transfer and such other matters as may be specified by the State Government C
in respect of the category of posts and each part of the State for which local
cadre has been organised in respect of any category of posts is required to have
a separate unit for the aforesaid purposes. Para 5(2) is in the nature of an
enabling provision which authorizes the State Government to make provisions
for transfer in certain specified circumstances. The present dispute relates to
D
para 5(2)(c). It speaks of a "transfer". Attempt of the appellants is to give
enlarged meaning to the expression to include promotional aspects. It has been
contended in that context that though para 5( 1) treats promotion and transfer
separately, yet that distinction would not be applicable to cases covered by para
5(2). The contention is clearly untenable.
E
10. Transfer in relation to service reduced to simple terms means a
change of place of employment within an organization, as stated in New
Oxford English Dictionary , 1993 Edition, Vol.2, p.3367. It is an incidence of
public service and generally does not require the consent of the employee. In
most service rules, there are express provisions relating to transfer. For exam- F
pie, Fundamental Rule 15 provides:

"F.R.15(a) The President may transfer a Government servant from one
post to another; provided that except -

(1) on account of inefficiency or misbehaviour, or G
(2) on his written request,

a Government servant shall not be transferred substantively to, or,
except in a case covered by Rule 49, appointed to officiate in a post
carrying less pay than the pay of the permanent post on which he holds H
200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A a lien, or would hold a lien had his lien not been suspended under
Rule 14.

(b) Nothing contained in clause (a) of this Rule or in clause (13) of
Rule 9 shall operate to prevent the re-transfer of a Government servant
to the post on which he would hold a lien, had it not been suspended
B
in accordance with the provisions of clause (a) of Rule 14."

· Service rules sometimes define transfer. For example, supplementary
Rule 2(18) of the Fundamental Rules governing Central Government servants
defines transfer in the following terms:
c
"Rule 2(18): Transfer means the movement of a Government servant
from one headquarter station in which he is employed to another such station,
either

D (a) to take up the duties of a new post, or
(b) in consequence of change of his headquarter."

Though, definitions may differ and in many cases transfer is conceived in wider
terms as a movement to any other place or branch of the organization, transfer
essentially is to a similar post in the same cadre as observed by this Court in
E
B. Varadha Rao v. State of Karnataka, AIR (1987) SC 287. It is now well
settled that a government servant is liable to be transferred to a similar post in
the same cadre which is a normal feature and incidence of government service
and no government servant can claim to remain in a particular place or in a
particular post unless, of course, his appointment itself is to a specified non-
F transferable post. No transfer is made to a post higher than what a Government
servant is holding. In other words, it is generally a lateral and not vertical
movement within the employers organization.

11. Strong reliance has been placed in para 15 of Sadanandam's case
G (supra) for contending that transfer also includes promotion. The para reads
as follows:

"In the first place, we must point out that the Tribunal has failed to
construe para 5(2) of the Presidential Order in its proper perspective
H and give full effect to the powers conferred thereunder on the State
V. JAGANNADHA RAO v. STATE [ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 201

Government to make provisions contrary to the scheme of local cadres A
prescribed under para 5(1). The words of sub-para (2) of para 5 viz.
"nothing in this order shall prevent the State Government from making
provision for" sets out the overriding powers given to the State Gov-
ernment under the sub-para. Such overriding powers have been given
to the State Government in express terms in recognition of the prin- B
ciple that public interest and administrative exigencies have prec-
edence over the promotional interests of the members belonging to
local cadres and zones. Since para 5(2) also forms a part of the
Presidential Order, it forms part of the scheme envisaged for creating
local cadres and zones. The Tribunal was, therefore, in error in taking
the view that if the State Government was to exercise its powers under c
para 5(2) and make provision for promotion of U.D. Assistants in the
Directorate and Assistant Section Officers in the Secretariat to be
transferred to posts in zones I to IV, it will be the very negation of the
creation of cadres and zones under para 5(1) and it will be destructive
of the scheme underlying the Presidential Order. In fact the Tribunal D
has realized the operative force of para 5(2) to some extent but it has
failed to give full effect to its realization of the scope of Section 5(2).
In para 12 of its judgment in R.P.No. 1595 of 1983 the Tribunal has
stated that since the amended rule refers to para 5(2) of the Presidential
Order "it will no longer be open to the petitioners to attack the
E
amendment as was done in respect of the earlier amendment in the
previous R.P." The Tribunal has thus noticed that the amended rule has
been brought about by the Government in exercise of its powers under
para 5(2) but it has failed to draw the logical inference following
therefrom."
F
It is to be noted that in the second case relied upon by the learned counsel
for the appellants reference was made to Sadanandam case (supra) and there
was no independent analysis of the legal provisions.

12. We find that para 5(2) of the Presidential Order speaks of transfer
and not of promotion. It would be hazardous to accept the contention of the G
appellants that promotion is incluc\ed in the expression 'transfer' and no assist-
ance can be availed from the distinction made in para 5(1) of the Order. No
provisions or word in a statute has to be read in isolation. In fact, the statute
has to be read as a whole. A statute is an edict of the legislature. It cannot be
said that without any purpose the distinction was made in para 5(1) between H
202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A transfer and promotion and such distinction was not intended to be operative
in para 5(2). The intention of the legislature is primarily to be gathered from
the language used, which means that attention should be paid as to what has
been said as also to what has not been said. See Mohd. Ali Khan v. Commis-
sioner of Wealth Tax, New Delhi,,AIR (1997) SC 1165 and Institute of Char-
tered Accountants of India v. Mis. Price Water House, AIR (1998) SC 74. As
B
a consequence a construction which requires for its support addition or sub-
stitution of words or which resorts for rejection of words as meaningless has
to be avoided. As stated by the Privy Council in Robert Wigram Crawford v.
Richard Spooner, (1846 (6) Moore PC 1) "We cannot aid the Legislature's
defective phrasing of an Act, we cannot add or mend and, by construction make
c deficiencies which are left there". The aforesaid decision was referred to by
this Court in State qf G~jarat and Ors. v. Dilipbhai Nathjibhai Patel & Anr.,
IT (1998) 2 SC 253. It is contrary to all rules of construction to read words
into an Act unless it is absolutely necessary to do so. (See Stock v. Frank Jones
(Tiptan) Ltd., [1978] l All. ER 948 (HL). Similarly, it is wrong and dangerous
to proceed by substituting some other words for words of the statute. (See
D
Pinner v. Everett, [1969] 3 All. ER 257. In other words, there should be no
attempt to substitute or paraphrase of general application. Attention should be
confined to what is necessary for deciding a particular case. Much trouble is
made by substituting other phrases assumed to be equivalent, which then are
reasoned from as if they were in the Act. In Union of India v. Deoki Nandan
E Aggarwal, AIR (1992) SC 96, it was observed that the Court cannot refrain the
legislature for the very good reason that it has no power to legislate. It is
incumbent on the Court to avoid the construction if reasonably permissible on
the language which would render a part of the statute devoid of any meaning
or application. Jn the interpretation of statutes, the Courts always presume that
F the Legislature inserted every part thereof for a purpose and the legislative
intention is that every part of the statute should have an effect.
'
We, therefore, find no reasons to accept this stand of the appellant that
the expression "transfer" takes within its scope a promotion.

G 13. We may note here that learned counsel for the State of Andhra
Pradesh submitted with reference to the counter affidavit filed in this Court
that the impugned Rules were not intended to carve out a class of employees
in terms of para 5(2) for "public interest". That being the position, we need not
go into the question whether a consideration on a case to case basis is called
H for in terms of para 5(2).
V. JAGANNADHA RAO v. STATE [ARUIT PASAYAT, J.] 203
14. In Sadanandam 's case (supra), while considering the legality of A
amended provisions of the Rules framed by the State Government and in
sustaining the same, this Court was of the opinion that as the 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 Order, the conclusion of the
Tribunal in striking down the rule is erroneous. The Court was of the opinion
B
that mode of recruitment and category from which the recruitment to a service
should be made are policy matters exclusively within the purview and domain
of the executive and it would not be appropriate for judicial bodies to sit in
judgment over the wisdom of the executive in choosing the mode of recruit-
ment or the categories from which the recruitment should be made. In our
considered opinion, both the aforesaid reasons do not constitute a true inter- c
pretation of the provisions of the Presidential Order. At the outset, it may be
noticed that Article 371-D( 10) of the Constitution unequivocally indicates that
the said Article and any order made by the President thereunder shall have
effect notwithstanding anything in any other provision of the Constitution or
in any other law for the time being in force. Necessarily, therefore, if it is D
construed and held that the Presidential Order prohibits consideration of the
employees from the feeder category from other units then such a rule made by
the Governor under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution will have to
be struck down. Then again in exercise of powers under paragraph 5(2) of the
Presidential Order if the State Government makes any provision, which is E
outside the purview of the authority of the Government under para 5(2) of the
Order itself, then said provision also has to be struck down. Having construed
the rules framed by the Governor under proviso to Article 309 of the Consti-
tution from the aforesaid stand point, the conclusion is irresistible that the said
rule to the extent indicated by the Tribunal is constitutionally invalid and its
conclusion is unassailable. In the case in hand, the impugned provisions do not
F
appear to have been framed in exercise of powers under paragraph 5(2) of the
Presidential Order and as such the same being a rule made under proviso to
Article 309 of the Constitution, the Presidential Order would prevail, as pro-
vided under Article 371-D(IO) of the Constitution. Even if it is construed to
be an order made under Paragraph 5(2) of the Presidential Order, then also the G
same would be invalid being beyond the permissible limits provided under said
paragraph. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal rightly held the provision
to the extent it provides for consideration of employees of the Factories and
Boilers units to be invalid, for the purpose of promotion to the higher post in
the Labour unit and as such we see no justification for our interference with H
204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. ·
A the said conclusion of the Tribunal and the earlier judgment of this Court in
Sadanandam 's case (supra) must be held to have not been correctly decided.
As a consequence, so would be the case with Satyanarayana Rao 's case
(supra).

15. Notwithstanding our aforesaid conclusion, it would be in the interest
B of the Administration to have a channel of promotion for every service, so
as to avoid stagnation at a particular level, subject however to the condition
that the incumbents of a service are otherwise qualified to shoulder the respon-
sibilities of the higher promotional post. The appropriate authority of the
Government, therefore, should bear this in mind and consider the feasibility
c and desirability of continuing the supernumerary posts already created in the
Boilers and Factories Department on a permanent basis, so that the employees
from the lower echelon in the said Department have a promotional channel or,
to make suitable promotional avenue at least upto some level, so that there
would not be any discontentment amongst the employees in the concerned
D Department.

The appeals are without any merit and are accordingly dismissed.

v.s.s. Appeals dismissed.