M. VENKATESWARLU ETC. versus THE GOVERNMENT ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. ETC.

M. VENKATESWARLU ETC. versus THE GOVERNMENT ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. ETC.

Rule 22 of the General Rules applies to appointments by promotion or transfer, allowing carry forward of reserved vacancies. Government is empowered to grant retrospective relaxation under Rule 47 for service requirements in the interest of justice and equity. Notice to affected persons is not mandated by Rule 47.

Parties
Appellant: M. Venkateswarlu; Respondents: The Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.; Respondents: State of Andhra Pradesh; Respondents: Contesting Respondents
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
12 March 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Order of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Reservation in Promotion, Relaxation of Service Rules, Carry Forward Vacancies
Service Law Constitutional Law Reservation in Promotion Relaxation of Service Rules Carry Forward Vacancies

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M. Venkateswarlu

Appellant

The Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.

Respondents

State of Andhra Pradesh

Respondents

Contesting Respondents

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Order of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Rule 22 of the General Rules applies to carry forward vacancies in promotion or transfer.
  2. 2 Whether retrospective relaxation of service rules under Rule 47 is permissible.
  3. 3 Whether notice is required to affected persons before exercising the power under Rule 47.

Ratio Decidendi

Rule 22 of the General Rules applies to appointments by promotion or transfer, allowing carry forward of reserved vacancies. Government is empowered to grant retrospective relaxation under Rule 47 for service requirements in the interest of justice and equity. Notice to affected persons is not mandated by Rule 47.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Promotion of appellant is upheld.
  • Retrospective relaxation of service period requirement is valid.