bifurcation of lower judiciary by State wise strength of combined State of Andhra Pradesh, consequent to the Andhra Pradesh Reorgnisation Act, 2014 = 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.” 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.

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
3. The writ petition has been filed by the Telangana Judges
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.
The State of Telangana was created as the 29th  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
S.No. Draft framed by DOPT As modified by
High Court
Remarks/Observa
­tion of DOPT
reference Col.
(3)
24
1. ... ... ...
2. ... ... ...
3. ... ... ...
4. ... ... ...
5. The allocation shall
be   done   keeping   in
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.
No Change Accepted
ii. Officers will be
considered   for
allocation   in   the
following   order(a)
those who have opted
for   the   State   in
which   the   district
declared   by   them   at
the time of entering
service   falls,
failing   which   as
determined   as   per
para   5(vii);   (b)
those who have opted
and   are   senior;   (c)
if   allocable   posts
still   remain   then
allocation   would   be
done   in   the   reverse
order of seniority.
Officers will be
considered     for
allocation   in
the   following
order   (a)   those
who   have   opted
and   are   senior;
(b)   those   who
have   opted   for
he   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.
Since   the
modifications
have   been
approved by the
full   court   we
may   accept   as
approved by the
High Court.
.. .. .. ..
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 Constitution
(32nd Amendment) Bill was considered.
77.  One test which may profitably be applied to ascertain
whether the High Court staff and the subordinate
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 instrument
for achieving the object which the legislature
  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 areas,
  could   be  achieved   under   those   rules   which,   as
subsequently   clarified   by   this   Court   in  State   of
Andhra Pradesh v. V. Reddy, 1973 (1) SCC 99, continued
to be in force as valid law in the territories of
the former State of Hyderabad even after the constitution
of the State of Andhra Pradesh.
78.  Let us now apply another test which in the circumstances
of the case will be decisive. In that connection,
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 subordinate
  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 Subordinate
  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 Government,
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 independence
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 interpretation
which will defeat or render otiose the scheme
of Chapters IV and V, Part VI particularised in Articles
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, respectively,
  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 applicable
to Judicial Service, arguments based on Article 371D
cannot help the petitioner. In this context, one of the submissions
raised by the petitioners was that Kamalanathan Committee
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 referred
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 Employment
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.   Parties
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 employment
into the State Judicial Services as District Munsifs
is unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
 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 person
who applies for appointment to the post of a District
Munsif, should have been enrolled as an Advocate
  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 classification
between one class of Advocates and the rest
and the said classification must be said to be irrational
inasmuch as there is no nexus between the basis
  of   the   said   classification   and   the   object   intended
  to   be   achieved   by   the   relevant   scheme   of
rules. That being so, it must be held that the decision
of the Andhra High Court in the case of Nallanthighal
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 Parliamentary
Law is relied by the petitioner, which provides residence
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 residence
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 people
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 betterment
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 employment,
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 option
as contemplated by Section 77(2). “Option” has been defined
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 period
the option is valid because it is supported by
consideration.”
53. Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar defines “option”
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 pre­determined
price. 
The word ‘option’ is a synonym for ‘choice’ or ‘preference’.
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 criteria
for accepting the option.  The seniority in a service is a
valuable   right   of   an   employee   or   officer.     In   service   jurisprudence,
several benefits and perquisites are attached to
the seniority. The petitioners are asking that option be accepted
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 senior
 officers  are  accepted  and  they are posted  in  State of
Telangana, the future prospects of promotion of the petitioners
shall be marred. Whether the officers, who in the seniority
list, which was prevalent on the date of formation of new
State, i.e. on 02.06.2014 where senior should loose their seniority
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 country.
 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 guidelines
has tried to balance the right of option of each Judicial
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 promotion
is not protected.  In the above case, following has been
laid down in paragraph 10:­
“10. It is then urged on behalf of the respondents
that by changing the system from districtwise
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 persons
would naturally have better chances of promotion
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 argument
because chances of promotion are not conditions
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 service
in regard to promotion applicable to non­graduate
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   pronouncements
of this Court on the point and particularly
the decision in  Mohammad Bhakar  v.  Y. Krishna
Reddy1 where this Court, speaking through Mitter, J.,
said: “Any rule which affects the promotion of a person
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 service.
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  service,
mere chances of promotion are not. A rule which
merely   affects   chances   of   promotion   cannot   be   regarded
as varying a condition of service. What happened
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 contention
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 conditions
of service have been changed to their disadvantage.
  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 onethird
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 promotion
were severely reduced. This did not constitute
variation in the condition of service applicable immediately
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.