Holding

The 1984 ordinance is a valid exercise of the Governor's power under Article 213, its abolition of part‑time village officer posts is final and cannot be revived by legislative disapproval, and the successive ordinances are permissible.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of the Andhra Pradesh Abolition of Posts of Part‑time Village Officers Ordinance, 1984, which abolished a large number of part‑time village officer posts and created new full‑time Village Assistant posts. The petitioners challenged the ordinance on grounds of lack of application of mind, the lapse of the ordinance without replacement by an Act, alleged violation of Article 21, and the propriety of successive ordinances. The Court held that an ordinance promulgated under Article 213 has the same force as an Act until it ceases to operate, and that the abolition of posts was a completed transaction that could not be revived merely by legislative disapproval. It further ruled that the Governor could issue successive ordinances to maintain the effect of the original ordinance and that the abolition did not infringe the petitioners' right to life or liberty. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed.

Issues considered

The ordinance is constitutionally valid despite the claim of lack of application of mind by the Governor.
Whether the lapse of the ordinance without replacement revives the abolished posts.
Whether the abolition of posts violates Article 21 of the Constitution.
The permissibility of issuing successive ordinances to sustain the effect of the original ordinance.
The scope of the Governor's power under Article 213 in relation to legislative authority.

Legislation cited

Andhra Pradesh Watans (Abolition) Act, 1978
Government of India Act, 1915s. 72
Government of India Act, 1935s. 42, s. 88, s. 89, s. 90
Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act, 1895

Subjects

OrdinanceConstitutional validityArticle 213Article 123Part‑time village officersAbolition of postsLegislative powerArticle 21Revival of abolished postsSuccessive ordinancesSeparation of powers

Judgment

$09

T. VENKATA REDDY ETC. ETC,

v. B

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

March 27, 1985

[Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J., D.A. DESAI, 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY,
E.S. VENKATARAM!AH ,\ND RANG ANATH MISRA, JJ .] c
Constitution oflndia, 1950, Articles 123 and 213

Ordinance issuance of-Propriety, expediency and necessity not for
determination of courts-Go~ernor issuing an ordinance abolislting certain posts-
Ordinance lapsing and not rep/aced by Act-Posts abolished by Ordinance-
D
Whether dee111ed to be revived.

Andhra Pradesh Abolition of Post nf Part-time Vil/age Officers Ordinance
1984, constitutional validity of-Ordinance lapsing-Not replaced by Act-Posis
abolished by Ordinance-Whether revived.

The State of Andhra Pradesh was constituted under the States Reor-
ganisation Act. 1956 consisting of two areas known a:s the 'Andhra Area', and
E
the 'Telangana Area'. There were different laws governing the village adminis-
tration in th~ two areas. The village establishment in the An.dhra Area-which
previously formed part of the State of Madras consisted of headmen and
' karnams who were village officers and talya.ris, vettis and neergantis who were
\'illage servants. Their appointment and conditions of service were governed by
the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act, 1895.
F
In the Telangana Area, the village establishment consisted of the posts of
patwaris, mali, pateJs and police patels who _were village officers and sethsindhis
and neeradis who were village servants.

The State Government appointed a' Committee called the Village Officers
EnquirY Committee to review the existing system of part-time officers working
at the village level. The Committee submitted its report in 1961 that it was G
necessary to reorg~nise the village establishment by appointment of full-time
officeri with larger volume of work. It also recommended that steps should be

- taken to reduce the number of posts by merger of functions and increasing the
area over which the village officers could ·exercise jurisdiction.

In course of time. the Governor of Andhra Pradesh promulgated rules
µnder the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution called. the Andbra rra(iesb H
510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] 3 S.C.R.

A (Andhra Area) Village Offices Service Rules, 1969 providing for the regulation
of the recruitment and c~onditions of service of h lders of village offices in the
Andhra Area of the State of Andhra Pradc.sh with effect from May 22, 1969,
The State Legislature passed the Andhra Pradesh Watans (Abolition) Act,
1978 which came into force with eITect from December 8, 1977 abolishing all
the watans-vi\lage offices in the Telangana Area of the State. -Simultaneously
B the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Village Offices Service Rul,es, 1978 were
promulgated by the Governor with effect from 7th Dccen1ber 1977 providiag ·
for the recruitmen~ and conditions of service of the village officers in the
Telangana Area. The village ·officers in both the areas were however still
. part-time officers.

On January 6, 1984 on the recommendation of the State Government,
c the Governor promulgated the Andhra Pradi!sh Abolition of Posts. of Part-time
Village Officers Ordinance, 1984 (Ordinance No. I of 1984).

Section 2(d) of the Or finance defined the expression 'past-time village
officer• as a person who held any of the village offices of headman, munsiff,
reddy, monigar, peddakapu, patel, karnam or patWari or triune officer or
holder of any such village office by whatever designation it mfly be !Ocalty
D known including their assista·nts. '

/Section 3 of the Ordinance declared that the posts of part-time village
officers in the State of Andhra Pradesh as defined in section 2(d) thereof stood
abolished with effect on and from the dat·' of the commenci;:ment of the
Ordinance which came into force at once, and cv~ry person who held the post
of "part-time village officer in any art of the State would with effect on and
E from that date cease to hold such posts. By virtu: of this provisions the posts
of part-ti1ne village officers ceased to be in e:id<>tcncc on .!J.nuary 6, 1984 and the
incumbents of those posts ceased to be cinployccs of the Government on and
from that date.
•
The Ordinance was not replaced by an Act of the State Legislature but it
was succeeded by four ordinances namely Ordinance No. 7 of 1984, 13 of 1984,
F 18 of 1984 and 21 Of 1984.

The petitioners who were part-tiine village officers questioned the consti-
tutional validity of this Ordinance by petitions filed both in this Court and io
the High Court. The petitions filed in the High Court were: withdrawn to this
Court under Article 139 A.
G
The Counsel for the Petitioners did not urge the other points in view of
these decisions.

HJ
Gazula Dasaratha Rania Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh&: Ors.,
(1961] 2 S.C.R. 931, B.R. Shankaranarayana &: Ors. v. The State of Mysore &
Ors., (A.I.R. 1966 S.C.C. 1571), K. Rajendran & Ors. etc. etc. v. State ofTa1nil
Nadu & Ors., [1982] 3 S.C.R. 628.
-
_ T. V. REDDY V. ANDllRA PRADJ!Sll 511
A
_ It was however contended on bchalr of the petitioners (i)that the Qr..
dinance was void and ineffective due to· lack· of application of mind by the
_Governor to the· subject-malter of the Ordinance, (ii) that the Ordi1:1.ance having
lapsed as the Legislature did not pass an Act in its place, the posts which were
abolished should be deemed to revived, and the issue or succesive ordinances
the subsequent one replacing the earlier one did not serve any purpose, and
(iiD that the abolition of posts and the consequent deprivation of the right of B
the petitioners to hold the said posts amounted to· an infringement of their
~ fundamental right to life and persona) liberty guarante~d under Article 21 of the

-
•
Constitution.

Dismissing the Writ Petitions.
c
HELD: 1. ·Under -Article 123 -of the Constitution the President can
promulgate an ordinance on the advice or the Council -or Ministers to meet the
requirement of a situation when either House of Par1iament is not in session.
SimiJarly under Article 213 _or the Constitution ihe Governor may issue an
ordinance on the advice of his Council of Ministers when the Legislative
Assembly Or wheie there are two Houses of the Legislature in a State either of D
them is not in session. Since under Article 85 of the Constitution it is not
permissible to allow a period of six months to intervene in the case of each
House of Parliament between its last sitting in one session ~nd tho;: date appoin·
ted for its first meeting in the next session and since under clause (2) of Arti·
cle 123 of the ConstitutiOn an ordinance has to be ]aid before both Houses of
Parliament and would cease to operate at the expiratio,1 of six weeks from the
reassembly of Parliam.:nt, it cannot ba said that either House can be avoided·. E
b)r tha Preside'nt b"yo::tJ sev.:11 and a half months after thJ plssing of an ordi·
nance. It is open to Parliament if it chooses to approve it or not. I laving
r.:01rd to the conditions prevailing in -India the Constitution 1nakcrs thouoht
u:at the ordinance making pow!r should bC given to the President to deal ;ich
unroreseen or .urgent matters. The position under Article 213 of- the
Constitution is also the same. [5230-G]
F

2. The Legislative action under our Constitution is subj)ci: only to the
limitations prescribed by the Constitution and to no other. Any law nlade by
the Legislature, which it is not competent to pass, which is violative of the
provisions in Part III of the Constitution or any other con.)titutional provision is
in-effective. [525G·Hl · ·

- 3. The motives of the legislature in passing a statute is beyond the
scrutiny of. courts., . Nor can t~e courts examine ;whether the Iegislatur~ had
applied its mind to the ~rovisions o~ a s!atute before passing it. The propriety.
expediency rand necess1_ty of a leg1'ilat1ve act are for the determination Of the
G

legislative authority and are determination by the courts. An ordinance passed
either under Article 123 or u:id~r-Articla 213 of the Constitution stands on the
S'\l'"q!' footil1$. Wh:n th~ Co::i;tit UiJ=l ~lY~ th1t thi orJir111::: rn 1!cir1,g: power h
512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985 3 S.C.R.
A legislative power and an ordinacc shall have the same force as an Act, an
ordinance should be clothed with all the attributes of an Act of legislature
carrying with it all its incidents, immunities and limitations under the Consti·
tution. It cannot be treated as an executive action or an administrative decision.
Gazula Dasaratha Rama Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.,
[1961] 2 S.C.R. 931 B.R. Shankaranarayana & Ors., v. The State of Mysore &
Ors., (A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1571), K. Rajendran & Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Tamil
B
Nadu & Ors., (1982] 3 S.C.R. 628, Lakhi Narayan Das v. The Province of Bihar,
[1949] F.C.R. Vol. XI 693, R.K. Garg etc. etc. v. Union of India & Ors. etc.
[1982] l S.C.R. 947 and A.K. Ray etc. v. Union of India & Anr., [1982] 2 S.
C.R. 272 at page 299. referred to.

4. Article 213 of the Constitution does not say that the Ordinance shall
c be void from the commencement on the State Legislature disapproving it. It
says that it shall cease to opetate. It only means that it should be treated as ·~.
being effective till it ceases to operate on the bappeaing of the events mentioned
'
, in clause (2) of Article 213. In the instant case, the Andhra Pradesh Abolition
of Posts of Part-time Village Officers ordinance 1984 deals with two separate
matters. By clause 3 it abolishes the posts of part-time village officers on the
commencement of the Ordinance and it further declares that every person who
D held the post of a part-time village officer would cease to hold that post with
effect from that date. By clause 4 and other allied provisions, the Ordinance
has orovided for the creation of posts of Village Assistants and appointment
and conditions of service of Village Assistants who are full-tin1e employees of
the Government. There is no doubt that a separate provision is made in clause
5 of the Ordinance for payment of some amount to the cx:-part·tirnc village
E officers. [528H; 529A-C]

5. A mere disapproval by Parliament or the St1tc Legislature of an ordi.
nance cannot, however, revive closed or completed transactions.
•
6. The abolition of the posts ond the declaration that the incumbents of
F those posts would cease to be holders of those posts under clause 3 of the
Ordinance being completed events, there is no question of their revival or the
petitioners contihuing to hold those posts any longer.

7. Even if the other provisions of the Ordinance have ceased to be in
force, there can be no constitutional difficulty arising therefrom because it is
open to the State Government to create new posts isl exercise of its powers
G under Article 162 of the Constitution as long as the field is not occupied by an
Act of the Legislature or a rule made under· the proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution.[531 E-F]

State:of Orsisa v. Bhupendra K111nar Rose, (1962] 2 Supp. 380, referred to.

H Steavenson v. 0/frer 151 English Reports 1024, referred to,
'.i'.V. REDDY v. ANDHRA PRi\DllsH (Venkataramiah, J.) 513
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition Nos. 629, 1546/84 A
etc. etc.

Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

Subramanya Poty, T.S. Krishnamurty Iyer, Mi<s Ma/ini B
~ Poduva/,. B. Kanta Rao, Subodh Markandeya, Mrs. Sheil Sethi;
A.K. Ganguli, A.K. Charkarvarti, C.S. Vaidyanathan and Prabir
Choudhary, G.N. Rao T.C. Gupta. and Attar Singh for the appearing
Petitioners.

K. Subramanva Rebdy, Adv. Genl. (AP), E. Manohar, Addi;
c
Adv. Gen I, (AP): T. V.S.N. Chari, Kai/ash Vasdev' Sudash Menon
and Miss Vrinda Grover, and B. Parthasarthi for the Respondents.

D.K. Sen, P.P. Singh and R.N. Poddar. for the U.O.I.
D
K. Ram Kumar for the Intervener.

The judgment of the Court was delivered by

VENKATARAMIAH, J, In the above writ petitions filed under
Article 32 of the Constitution the petitioners have questioned the E
constitutional validity of the Andhra Pradesh Abolition of Posts of
Part-time Village Officers Ordinance, 1984 (Ordinance No. 1 of
• 1984) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance') promulgated by
the Governor· of Andhra Pradesh on January 6, 1984 in exercise of
his, powers under Article 213 of tI:te Constitution by which the posts
of part-time Village Officers in the State of Andhra Pradesh came to F
be abolished and provision was made for the appointment of Village
Assistants. Some of the petitions which are disposed of by this
judgment had he en filed before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh
under Article 226 of the Constitution for similar reliefs. They were
withdrawn to this Court under Article 139A of the Constitution for G
hearing them along with the petitions filed under Article 32.

Section 2(d) of the Ordinance defined the expression 'part-
time village officer' as a person who held any of the village offices
of headman, munsiff, reddy, monigar, peddakapu, pate], karnam or
patwari or triune officer or holder of any such village office by H
whatever designation it may be locally known including their
514 SUPREME C,OURT REPORTS [1985] ~ s.C.ll.

A assistants appointed under (i) the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Arca)
Village Offices Service Rules, 1969, (ii) the Andhra Pradesh
(Telangana Area) Village Offices Service Rules, 1978 or (iii) any
other law. The petitioners were the holders of these posts immedia-
tely prior to the date of the promulgation of the Ordinance.
B
It is necessary to set out at this stage a brief history of the
posts held by the petitioners. The State of Andhra Pradesh was
constituted under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 consisting of
two areas known as the 'Andhra Area' and the 'Telangana Area'.
There were different Jaws governing the village administration in
c the two areas. The village establishment in the Andhra Area which
previously formed part of the State of Madras consisted of headmen
and karnams who were village officers and talyaris, vettis and
neergantis who were village servants. Their appointment and
conditions of service were governed by the Madras Hereditary
Village-Offices Act, 1895 (Madras Act No. Ill of 1895). They were
D originally hereditary offices. In Gozu/a Dasaratha Rama Rao v. The
State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.(1) decid.cd on December 6, 1960
this Court held that section 6(1) of the said Act which provided for
appointment of village officers and servants on the hereditary basis
was hit by Article 16(2) of the Constitution and was, therefore,
void. In the Telangana Area, the village establishment consisted of
E the posts of patwaris, mali patels and police patels who were village
officers and sethsindhis and neeradis who were village servants.
Their duties and responsibilities were laid down by 'Dastur-ul-
Amal' 1293 Hijri (Fasli 1285) and 'Dastnr-e-Dehi'. These posts •
were also hereditary in character. They were also known as watans.
After the decision of this Court referred to above, the Government
F of Andhra Pradesh appointed a Committee called the Village
Officers Enquiry Committee under G .0 .Ms. No. 1042, Revenue (H)
dated June 16, 1961 to propose, among others a scheme for the
village establishment of the entire State of Andhra Pradesh under
the chairmanship of K.M. Unnithan, I.C.S. since the State Govern-
ment was of the view that the then existing system of part-time
G officers working at the village level was not conducive to the
interests of public administration. The said Committee submitted
its report in 1961. It found that taking an overall view of the nature
and quantum of work of the village officers in the two areas of the

H (!) (196112 S.C,R. 931.
T.V. REDD\' v. ANDllRA PRADESH (Venkataramiah, J.) 515

State·- there. was not enough work for all village officers and that it A
was necessary to reorganise the village establishment by appoint-
ment of full-time officers with larger volume of work. The
Committee recommended that steps should be taken to reduce the
number of posts by merger of functions and increasing the area .
over which the village officers could exercise jurisdiction. In conrse
of time, the Governor of Andhra Pradesh promulgated rules under B
the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution called the Andhra
Pradesh (Andhra Area) Village Offices Service Rules, 1969 provi-
ding for the regulation of the recruitment and conditions of service
of holders of village offices in the Andhra Area of the State of
Andhra Pradesh with effect from May 22, 196.9. The Legislature of c
the State of Andhra Pradesh passed the Andhra Pradesh Watans
(Abolition) Act, 1978 which came into force with effect from
December 8, 1977 abolishing all the watans (village offices together
with the properties appertaining to them) other than sethsindhis and
· neeradies in the Telangana Area of the State. Simultaneously the
Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Village Offices Service Rules, D
1978 were promulgated by the Governor with effect from 7th
December, 1977 providing for the recruitment and conditions Of
service of the village offic.ers in the Telangana Area .. The village
officers in both the areas were, however, still part-time officers.
Then on Jannary 6, 1984 on the recommendation of the State
Government the Governor promulgated the Ordinance which E
is challenged in these proceedings .

• Section 3 of the Ordinance declared that the posts of part·
time village officers in the State of Andbra Pradesh as defined in
section 2(d) thereof stood abolished with effect· on and from the F.
date of the commencement of the Ordinance which came into ·
force at once and every person who held the post of part-time ·
village officer in any part of the State of Andhra Pradesh would
w_ith effect on and from that date cease to hold such post. By virtue
of the said provision, the posts of part-time village officers ceased
to be in existence on January 6, 1984 and the incumbents of those G
posts ceased to be employees of the Government on and from that
date. Thus the transaction of abolition of posts became an accom-
plished fact on January 6, 1984 and there remained nothing more to
be done with regard to that event. What remained to be done was
perhaps payment of amount, if any, to those who thereby ceased to
be the employees of Government as provided by section 5 of the H
516 SUPREME CO)JRT REPORts (19S5] 3 s.C.R.

A Ordinance and the recruitment of persons as Village Assistants as
provided by section 4 of the Ordinance for one or more revenue
villages and the framing of rules relating to the conditions of their
service as provided by section 6 of the Ocdinance. The remaining
provisions of the Ordinance were ancillary and incidental to the
abolition of posts and the filling up of the new posts of Village
B Assistants. The abolition of the posts was, however, not dependent
upon the filling up of the new posts of Village Assistants. They
were two independent transactions. The abolition of the posts of
part-time village officers became effective on the c:oming into force
of the Ordinance. It may be stated here that the Ordinance has not
yet been replaced by an Act of the State LegislatU1re. It is, however,
c succeeded by four ordinances viz. Ordi.nance No. 7 or 1984,
Ordinance No. 13 of 1984, Ordinance No. 18 of 1984 and Ordinance
No. 21 of 1984.

These petitions are in line with two cases which have already
D been decided by this Court viz. B.R. Shankaranarayana & Ors. v.
The State of Mysore & Ors.(') in which the constitutionality of the
Mysore Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (Act No. lJ of 1961) was
· npheld and!).. Rajendran & Ors. etc. etc. v'. State of Tamil Nadu &
Ors.(') in which the validity of the Tamil Nadu Abolition of Posts
of Part-time Village Officers Ordinance, 1980 (Tamil Nadu Ordi-
E nance No. 10 of 1980) and of the Tamil Nadu Abolition of Posts of
Part-time Village Officers Act, 1981 (Tamil Nadu Act No.3 of 1981)
was upheld. Hence the learned counsel for the petitioners very
fairly, and we think rightly, did not urge many of the contentions
which has been rejected by this Court in the said tdecisions.
They, however, pressed the following contentions before us in sup-
F
port of the petitions :

(i) that the Ordinance is void and ineffective due to lack
of application of mind by the Governor to the subject
matter of the Ordinance;
G
(ii) that the Ordinance having lapsed as the Legislature did
not pass an Act in its place; the posts which were abo-
lished be deemed to have revived and the issue of

(l) A.J.R. 1966 S,C. 1571,
H (2) [1982) 3 S.C.R. 628.
t.v. REDDY v. ANDHRA PRADESH Cf/enkataramiah, !.) 511

successive ordinances the subsequent one replacing the A.
earlier one did not serve any purpose; and

(iii) that the abolition of posts and the consequent depriva·
tion of the right of the petitioners to hold the said
posts amounted to an infringement of their funda·
mental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed B
under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Before dealing witb the above contentions of the petitioners it
is useful to refer to the provisions of the Constitution relating to
the power of the Executive to make Jaws by the issue of ordinances. c
·~·· In. the instant cases the Ordinance is issued by the Governor in
exercise of the legislative power conferred on him under Article
213 of the Constitution. Article 213 reads thus :

"213. (I) If at any time, except when the Legisla·
tive Assembly of a State is in session, or where there is D
a Legislative Council in a State, except when both Houses
of the Legislature are in session, the Governor is satisfied ·
that circumstances exist which render it necessary for him
to take immediate action, he may promulgate such Ordi·
nanccs as the circumstances appear to him to require;
E
Provided that the Governor shall not, without instruc-
tions from the President, promulgate any such Ordinance
if-

(a) a Bill containing the same prov1s10ns would under
this Consti tu ti on have required the previous sanction F
of the President for the introduction thereof into the
Legislature; or

• (b) he would have deemed it necessary to reserve a Bill
containing the same provisions for the consideration
of the President; or G

(c) an Act of the Legislature of the State containing the
same provisions would under this Constitution have
been invalid unless, having been reserved for the con-
sideration on the President, it had received the assent
of the President. H
SIS SUPREME COUil T REPORTS [1985) 3 s.c.R.

A (2) An ordinance promulgated under this article shall have
the satpc force and effect as an Act of the Legislature
of the State assented to by the Governor, but every
such Ordinance -

B (a) shall be laid before the Legislative Assembly of the
State, or where there is a Legislative Council in the
State, before both the Houses, and shall cease to
operate at the expiration of six weeks from the re-
assembly of.the Legislature, or if before the expiration
of that period a resolution disapproving it is passed by
c the Legislative Assembly and agreed to by the Legis·
lative Concil, if any, upon the passing of the resolution
or, as the case may be, on the resolution being agreed
to by the Council; and

(b) may be withdrawn at any time by the Governor.
D
Explanation.-Wherc the Houses of the Legislature of
a State having a Legislative Council are summoned to re-
assemble on differcnt dates, the period of six weeks shall
be reckoned from the later of those dates for the purposes
of this cla"Jsc.
E
(3) If and so far as an Ordinance under this article makes
any provision which would not be valid if enacted in an
Act of the Legislature of the State assented to by the
Governor, it shall be void :
F
Provided that, for the purposes of the provisions of
this Constitution relating to the effect of an Act of the
Legislature of a State which is repugnant to an Act of
Parliament or an existing law with respect to a matter enu-
merated in the Concurrent List, an Ordinance promulgated •
G under this article in pursuance of instructions !from the
President shall be deemed to be an Act of the Lcgi;lature
of the State which has been reserved for the consideration
of the President and assented to by him."

Article 213 of the Constitution corresponds to Article 123 of
H the Constitution which confers similar
. powers on the president in .
t.v. REDDY v. ANDHll.A PRADESH (Venkataramiah, J.) 519
relation to matters on which Parliament can make laws. Article A
123 reads thus :

"123. (1) If at any time, except when both Houses
of Parliament are in session, the President is satisfied that
circumstances exist which render it necessary for him to
take immediate action, he may promulgate suchO rdinances B
+ as the circumstances appear to him to require.

(2) An ordinance "promulgatcd:under this article shall have
the same force and elkct as an Act of Parliament, but every
such Ordinance-
.c
(a) shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament and
shall cease to ~operate at the expiration of six weeks
from the reassembly of Parliament, or, if before the
expiration of that period resolutions disapproving it
are passed by both Houses, upon the passing of the
second of those resolutions; and
D
(b) may be withdrawn at any time by the President.

Explanation. -Where the Houses of Parliament are sum-
moned to reassemble on different dates, the period of six
weeks shall be reckoned from the later of those dates for
the purposes of this clause.
E
(3) If and so far)s an Ordinance under this article makes
any provision which Parliament would not under this Con-
stitution be competent to enact, it shall be void."

. The slight difference that exists between the above two articles
F
arises on account of the need to obtain the assent of the President
on certain legislative matters even though they are within the
legislative competence of the State Legislature but that does not
make any difference regarding the points to be considered in these
petitions because !hoy are common to both Article 123 and Article
213 of the Constitution. G

At the outset the learned counsel for the petitioners questioned
the constitutional propriety of the power of the Executive to make
laws which would have a lasting effect on the. rights of people in a
B
520 • SUPREME COURT REPORtS [1985] 3 S.C.R.

A democratic society where peoples' representatives should ordinarily
. be entrusted with the duty of making such laws. It is true that
while our Constitution has adopted the pattern of separation of
powers amongst the three organs of the Government, namely, the
Legislature, the Executive and the .Judiciary, it has conferred
legislative power on the Executive subject to certain conditions by
B enacting Article 123 and Article 213 of the Constitution. It has
also associated the President and the Governor with the making of
the laws even when Parliament or the State Legislature, as the case
may be, enacts them. Article 79 of the Constitution says that there
shall be a Parliament for the Union which shall consist of the Presi-
dent and two Houses to be khown respectively as the Council of
c States (Rajya Sabha) and the House of people (Lok Sadha). The
assent of the President to a Bill passed by both the Houses of Parlia-
ment is essential for its becoming law under Articie 111 of the
Constituiion. Similarly under Article 168 of the Constitution it is
provided that the State Legislature consists of the Governor and the
Legislative Assembly of a State and where there is a Legislative
D Council, the State Legislature consists of the Governor
and the two Houses. The Governor's assent or the
President's assent when it is reserved for his considera-
tion to a Bill passed by the State Legislature is necessary under
Article 200 of the Constitution before it can become law. The
-powers conferred on the President under Article 123 and on the
Governor under Article 213 of the Constitution are, however, Legis-
E !alive powers which may be exercised without prior approval of the
concerned legislature.

In India the Governor-General had been given the power
under section 72 of the Government of India Act, 1915 to make
ordinances which read thus:
F
"72. Power to make ordinances in case of emergency.
The Governor-General may, in cases of emergency, make
and promulgate ordinances for the peace and good
government of British India or any ' part thereof,
-G and any ordinance so made shall, for the space of not more
than six months from its promulgation, have the like force
of law as an Act passed by the Indian legislature but the
power of making ordinances under this section is subject
to the like restrictions as the power of the Indian Legis-
lature to make laws; and any ordinance mad<: under this
H
T.V. REDDY v. ANDHR\ PRA.DESH (Venkataramiah, J.) 521

section is subject to the like disallowance as and Act passe A
by the Indian legislature and may be controlled or superse·
ded by any such Act."

It is seen that the above provision stated that an ordinance
made under it had the force of law as an Act passed by the Indian B·
legislature but the power of making ordinances under it was subject
to like restrictions as the power of the Indian legislature to make
laws and any ordinance made under this section was to remain in
force for the period of not more than six months from the date of
its promulgation unless adopted or superseded earlier by an Act c
of the Legislature. Chapter IV of Part II of the Government of
··~ India Act, 1935 recognised three kinds of legislative powers enjoyed
by the Governor-General. Section 42 of ihat Act conferred the
power on the Governor·General to promulgate ordinances during
the recess of Legislature. Section 43 of that Act conferred the
power on him to promulgate ordinances at any time with respect
D
to certain subjects and section 44 conferred the power on him in
certain circumstances to enact Acts. Chapter IV of .Part V of the
Government oflndia Act, 1935 which contained sections 88,89 and
90 conferred similar legislative powers on the Governors of Provin-
ces. Articles 123 and 213 of the Constitution have been enacted
on the pattern of sections 42 and 88 of the Government of India
E
Act, 1935. The relevant part of section 42 of the Government of
India Act, 1935 is given bolow for ready reference. It read thus:-

"42. Power of Governor-General to promulgate
ordinances during recess of Legislature.

(I) If at any time when the Federal Legislature is not in F
session the Governor-General is satisfied that circumstan-
ces exist which render it necessay for him to take immediate
action, he may promulgate such ordinances as the circum-
stances appear to require; ........ .

(2) An ordinance promulgated under this section shall G
have the same force and effect as an Act of the Federal
Legislature assented to by the Governor-General, but

- every such ordinance-

(a) shall be laid before the Federal Legislature and shall
cease to operate at the expiration of six wee1's. from H
522 ~UPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] 3 S.C.R.

A the reassembly of the Legislature, or, if before the
expiration of that period resolutions disapproving
it are passed by both Chambers, upon th': pass'ng of
the second of those resolutions;

(b) shall be subject to the provisions of this Act relating
B to the power of His Majesty to disallow Acts as if it
were an Act of the Federal Legislature assented to
by the Gonrnor-General; and

(c) may be withdrawn at any time by the Governor-
General.
c
(3) If and so far as an ordinance under this section
makes any provision which the Federal Legislature would
not under this Act be competent to enact, it shall be void."

Section 88 of the Government of India Act, 1935 which was
D more· or less in similar terms and which conferred power on the
Governor of a province to issue an ordinance came up for consider-
ation before' the Federal Court of India in Lakhi Narayan Das v.
The Prol'ince of Bihar.(1) Mukherjea,J. speaking for the Federal
Court observed at pages 699- 700 thus:
E
"It is admitted that the Bihar Legislature was not in
session when this Ordinance was passed. It was urged,
however, in the Court below, and the argument was repea-
ted before us, that no circumstance existed as is contempla-
ted by s. 88 ( 1) which could justify the Governor in promul-
F gating this Ordinance. ·This obviously is a matter which is
not within the competence of court to investigate. The
language of the section shows clearly that it is the Gover-
nor and the Governor alone who has got to satisfy himself
as to the existence of circumstances necessitating the pro-
G mulgation of an Ordinance. The existence of such. neces-
sity is not a justiciable matter which the Courts could be
.called upon to determine by applying an objective test.

H
It may be noted here that under the Government of India
Act the Governor-General has powers to make Ordinances
in cases of emergency (vidc s. 42 of the Government of -
(4) [1949] F.C,R. Vol. XI 69,,
T.V. REDDY v. ANDHRA PRADESH (Venkataramiah, J.) 523
India Act and s. 72 of Sch. IX which is now omitted); and
it was held by the Privy Council in King Emperor v.
Benoarilal (1945) 72 I.A. 57, and Bhagat Singh v. The
King Emperor (!931) 58 I.A. 169, that the emergency
which callSfor immediate action has to be judged by the
Governor-General alone. On promulgating an ordinance, B
the Governor-General is not bound as a matter of law to
expound reasons therefor, nor is he bound to prove affir·
matively in a court of law that a state of emergency did
actually exist. The language of s. 88 postulates only one
condition, namely, the satisfaction of the Governor as to c
tho existence of justifying circumstances, and the preamble
to the Ordinance expresses in clear terms that this condi·
tion has· been fulfilled. The first contention of the appel·
!ants must therefore be rejected."

Under Article 123 of the Constitution the President can D
promulgate an ordinance on the advice of the Council of Ministers
to meet the requirements o\ a situation when either House of
Parliament is not in session. Similarly under Article 213
of the Constitution the Governor may ·issue an ordinance on
the advice of his Council of Ministers when the Legislative
Assembly .or where thero are two Houses of the Legislature in a E
State citner of them is not in session. Since under Article 85 of
the Constitution it is not permissible to allow a period of six
months to inervene in the case of each House of Parliament
between its last sitting in one session and the date appointed for
its first meeting in the next session and since under clause (2) of
Article 123 of the Constitution an ordinance has to be laid before F
both Houses of Parliament and would cease to operate at the
expiration of six weeks from the reassembly of Parliament, it cannot
be said that either Houses can be avoided by the President beyond
seven and a half months after the passing of an ordinance. It is
opeu to Parliament if it chooses to approve it or not. Having re-
gard to the conditions prevailing in India the Constitution makers G,
thought that the ordinance making power should be given to the
President to deal unforeseen or urgent matters: The position under
ArtiCle 213 of the Constitution is also the same. Dealing with the
criticism that Article 123 was an undemocratic provision, Bhagwati,
J. speaking for the majority of the Constitution Bench said in R.K.
Garg etc. etc. v. Union of India & Ors. ctc.('l at pages 965-966 thus:
u
(I) [1982] I S.C.R. 947,
524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1985] 3 S.C.R.

A ''Now at first blush it might appear rather unusual and
that was the main thurst of the cdticism of Mr. R.K.Garg
on this point-that the power to make laws should have
been entrusted by the founding fathers of the Constittuion
to the executive, because according to the traditional outfit
of a democratic political structure, the legislative power
B must belong exclusively to the elected representatives of the
people and vesting it in the executive, though responsible to
the legislature, would be undemocratic, as it might enable
the executive to abuse this power by securing the passage
of an ordinary bill without risking a debate in the legisla-
ture. But if we closely analyse this provision and consider
c it in allits aspects, it does not appear to be so startling,
though we may point out even if it were, the Court would
have to accept it as the expression of the collective will of
the founding fathers. It may be noted, and this was pointed
out forcibly by Dr. Ambedkar while replying to the criticism
against the introduction of Article 123 in lthe Constitution
D Assembly--that the legislative power conferred on the
President under this Article is not a parallel power of
legislation. It is a power exercisable only when both
Houses of Parliament are not in session and it has been
conferred ex-necessitate in order to enable the executive
to meet an emergent situation. Moreover, the law made
E by the President by issuing an Ordinance is of strictly
limited duration. It ceases to operate at the expiration of
six weeks from the rea~sembly of Parliament or if before
. the expiration of this period, resolutions disapproving it
are passed by both Houses, upon the passing of the second
of those resolutions. This also affords the clearest indi-
cation that the President is invested with this legislative
power only in order to enable the executive to tide over an
emergent situation which may arise whilst the Houses of
Parliament are not in session. Further more, this power
to promulgate an Ordinance conferred on the President is
G
co-extensive with the power of Parliament to make laws
and the President cannot issue an Ordinance which Parlia-
ment cannot enact into a law. It 'will ther·~fore be seen
that legislative power has been conferred on the executive
by the constitution makers for a necessary purpose and
it is hedged in by limitations ancj conditi<;ms. The con-
H
T. v. REDDY v. ANDHRA. PRADESH (Venkataramiah, J.) 525
ferment of such power may appear to be .undemocratic but
it is not so, because the executive is clearly answerable to
A
the legislature and if the President, on the aid and
advice of the executive, promulgates an Ordinance in mis-
use or abuse of this power, the legislature cannot only pass
a resolution disapproving the Ordinance but can also pass
a vote of no confidence in the executive. There is in the
theory of constitutional law complete control of the legis-
lature over the executive, because if the executive misbe- B
haves or forfeits the confidenc of the legislature, it can be
thrown out by the legislature. Of course this safeguard

.- against misuse or abuse of power by tbe executive would
dwinadle in efficacy and value according as if the legislative
control over the executive diminishes and the executive
begins to dominate the legislature. But nonetheless ·it is c
.a safeguard which protects the vesting of the legislative
power in the President from the charge of being an unde·
mocratic provision."
The above view has been approved ~by anoiher Constitution
Bench of this_ Court in A.K. Roy etc. v. Union of India & Anr.(1) D
Both these decisions have firmly established that an ordinance is a
'law' and should be approached oil that basis. The language of
clause (2) of Article 123 and of clause (2) of Article 213 of the
Constitution leaves no room for doubt. An ordinance promulgated
under either of these two articles has the same force and effect
as an Act of Parliament or an Act of the State Legislature, E
as the case may be. When once the above conclusion is reached
the next question which arises for consideration is whether it is
permissible to strike down an ordinance on the ground of

f- non-application of mind or ma/a /ides or that the prevailing
circumstances did not warrant the Issue of the Ordinance. In
other words, the question is whether the validity of an or<linance F
can be tested on grounds similar to those on which an executive or
judicial action is tested. The legislative action under our Comti-
tution is subject only to the limitations prescribed by the Consti-
tution· and to no other, Any law made by the legislature, which it
is not competent to pass, which is violative of the provisions in Part
III of the Constitution ·or any other constitutional provision is G

(I) [1982] 2 S.C.R, 272 at pa~e 299,
526 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] 3 s.c.R.

A ineffective. It is a settled rule of constitutional law that the que<tion
whether a statute is constitutional or not is alwais a question of
power of the legislature concerned, dependent upon the subject
matter of the statute. the manner in which it is accomplished and
the mode of enacting it. While the con,ts can declare a statute
unconstitutional when it transgresses constitutional limits, they are
B precluded from inquiring into the propriety of the exercise of the
legislative power. It bas to be assumed that the legislative dis-
cretion is properly exercised. The motives of the legislature in
passing a s'atute is beyond the scrutiny of courts. Nor can the
courts examine whether the legislature had applied its mind to the
provisions of a statute before passing it. The propriety. expediency
c and necessity of a legislative act are for the determination of the
legislative authority and are not for determ;nation by the courts.
An ordinance passed either under Article 123 or under Article 213
of the Constitution stands on the same footing. When the Constitu·
tion says that the ordinance making power is legislative power and
D an ordinance shall have the same force as an Act, anordinance
should be clothed with al! the attributes of an Act of legislature
carrying with it all its incidents, immunities and limitations under
the Constitution. It cannot be treated as an executive action or an
administrative decision.

E The true legal position about tho justiciability of these
issues in relation to an ordinance has been expressed in K. Nagaraj
& Ors.etc. etc. v. State of Andltra Pradesh & Anr. etc.(') at page 50
by one of us (Chandrachud, C.J.) thus :

"It is impossible to accept the submission that the
F Ordinance can be invalidated on the ground of non-applica-
tion of mind. The power to issue an ordinance is not an
executive power but is the power of the executive to legis-
late. The power of the Governor to promulgate an ordi-
nance is contained in Article 213 which occurs in Chapter
JV of Part VI of the Constitution. The heading of tbat
G Chapter is "Legislative Power of the Governor." This
power is plenary within its field like the power of the
State Legislature to pass laws and there are no limita·
tions upon that power except those to which the legisla-

(I) (1985] I SCALE 31.
H
T.V. REDDY v. ANDHRA PRADESH (Venkataramiah, J.) 527

tive power· of the State Legislature is subject There-
fore, though an ordinanoe can be invalidated for A
contravention of the constitutional limitations which
exist upon the power of the State legislature to pass laws
it cannot be declared invalid for the reason of non-applica-
tion of mind, any more than any other law can be. An
executive act is liable to be struck down on the ground of
non-application of mind. Not the act of a Legislature.
B
On the question as to the legislative character of the
ordinance making power, we may refer to the decisions of
this Court in A.K. Roy v. U11ion of !11dia and R.K. Garg
v. Union of India."

The ordinance says that it had been promulgated on the
basis of a policy decision taken by the State Government.
c
The relevant part of the Ordinance reads :

"Whereas the State Government are of the opinion
that the system of part-time village officers is out-moded
and does not fit in with the modern needs of village admi- D
nistration ;

And whereas the State Government have, after care-
ful consideration, taken a policy decision to abolish all the
posts of part-time village officers on grounds of administra-
tive necessity and to introduce a system of whole-time E
officers to be in charge of village administration ;

And whereas the Legislature of the State is not in
session and the Governor of Andhra Pradesh is satisfied
that circumstances exist which render it necessary for him F
to take immediate action ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (I) of article 213 of the Constitution oflndia, the
Governor hereby promulgates the following Ordinance."
G
It is next seen that the State Government introduced a Bill
L.A. No. 3 of 198~ before the Legislative A5Sembly of the State to
replace the Ordinance by an Act on February 24, 1984 within about
seven weeks from the date of the Ordinance. The said Bill w1s
rcferrccl to a Joint Select Com•uittee and the Bill was not passed Ii
528 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985) 3 S.C.R.

A till June 7, 1984. In order to keep the effect of the Ordinance
alive for purposes of any action that was still to be taken under it
. the Governor on the advice of the Council of Ministers again issued
anothor ordinance, Ordinance No. 7 of 1984 dated March 21,1984.
This was followed by Ordinance No. 13 of 1984 dated April 27,
I 984, Ordinance No. 18 of 1984 dated June 7, 1984 and Ordinance
No. 21 of 1984 dated July 19, 1984. In order to give effect to sec·
B tion 11 (1) of the Ordinance, the State Government promulgated
the Andhra Pradesh Abolition of part.time Village Officers (Fixa·
lion of amount payable for total service) Rules, 1984 on February
24, I 984 and an Errata to the above Rules on March 27, 1984.

In the circumstances of the case we do not, therefore, find
c any substance in the first contention urged on behalf of the peti·
tioners.
The next question is whether the posts of part-time village
officers revive as the Ordinance is not replaced by an Act of the
J,egis\ature of the State. This contention of the petitioners is based
D on clause (2) of Article 213 of the Constitution. It is argued on
their behalf that on the failure of the State Legislature to pass an
Act in terms of the Ordinance it should be assumed that the Ordi·
nance had never become effective and that it was void ab initio.
This contention overlooks two important factors namely foe language
of clause (2) of Article 213 of the Constitution and the nature of
E the provisions contained in the Ordinance. Clause (2) of Article
213 says that an ordinance promulgated under that Article shall have
the same force and effect as an Act of the Legislature of the State
assented to by the Governor but every such ordinance (a) shall be
laid before the Legislative Assembly of the State, or, where there
is a Legislative Council in the State, before both the Houses and
F shall cease to operate at the expiration of six weeks from the reas·
sembly of the Legislature or if before the expiration of that period
a resolution disapproving it is passed by the Legislative Assemb[y
and agreed to by the Legislative Council, if any, upon the passing of
the resolution or, as the case may be, on the resolution being agreed
to by the Council and (b) may be withdrawn at any time by the
Governor. It is seen that Article 213 of the Constitution does not
say that the Ordinance shall be void from]the commencement on
the State Legislature disapproving it. It says that it shall cease to
operate. It only means that it should be treated as being effective
till it ceases to operate on the happeninl; of the eveqts mentioner.I
H
t.V. tdmoV v. ANDHRA PRADESH (Venkataramiah, J.). 529 A
in clause (2) of Article 213. Secondly the Ordinance deals with two
separate matters. By section 3 of the Ordinance it abolishes the
posts of part-time village officers on the commencement of the
Ordinance and it further declares that every person who held the
post of a part-time village officer would cease to hold that post with
effect from that date. By section 4 and other allied provisions the
Ordinance has provided regarding the creation of posts of Village B
Assistants and appointment and conditions of service of Village
Assistants who are full· time employees of the Government. There
is no doubt that a separate provision is made in Section 5 of the
. Ordinance for payment of some amount to the ex-part-time village
office's. Now by virtue of section 3 of the Ordinance all the posts
of part-time village officers stood abolished on January 6, 1984 and c
the petitioners ceased to be employees of the State Government.
These two matters became accomplished facts on Jaunary 6, !984,
irrespective of whether the holders of these posts were paid any
amount under section 5 or whether the new posts of Village Assis-
tants were filled up or not. Even if the Ordinance is assumed to
have ceased to operate from a subsequent date by reason of clause D
(2) of Article 213, the effect of section 3 of the Ordinance was irre-
versible except by express Legislation. An analogous question arose
for consideration before a Constitution Bench of this Court in State
ofOrissa v. Bhupendra Kumar Bose.(') The facts of that case were
these. Elections were held for the Cuttack Municipality and
twenty seven persons were declared elected as Councillors. One of E
the defeated candidates filed a writ petition before the High Court
of Orissa challenging the elections. The High Court set aside the
elections on the ground that the electoral roll had not been prepared
in accordance with law. Since the State Government felt that the
said decision affected not merely the elections to the Cuttack
Municipality .but some other municipalities in the State of Orissa F
where also similar irregularities had been committed in the prepara-
tion of the electoral rolls, the Governor promulgated an ordinance
on January 15, 1959 which contain.ed provisions validating the elec-
toral rolls and the elections held on their basis notwithstanding any
judgment to the contrary. The said ordinance, however, lapsed on
G
April J, 1959. The petitioner who had filed_the writ petition earlier
again filed another writ petition questioning the continuance ofthe
elected Councillors in office by virtue of the ordinance. The High

(I) [1962] 2 Supp. S.C.R, 380. H
530 SUPREME couP. T REPORTS [19SS] 3 S.C.R
A Court allowed the writ petition and issued an injunction to the
elected Councillors restraining them from functioning as Council-
lors. The State Government and the councillors filed the above
appeal before this Court. It was contended that the ordinance
was a temporary statute which was bound to lapse after the expira-
tion of the prescribed period and so as soon as it lapsed the
B invalidity in the elections to the Cuttack Municipality stoo<l
revived. This Court rejected the contention relying upon the
decision in Steavenson v. Oliver.\') This Court finally observed at
pages 401-402 thus :

c "Now, turning to the facts in the present case, the
Ordinance purported to validate the elections to the
Cuttack Municipality which had been declared to be invalid
by the High Court by its earlier judgment so that as a
result of the Ordinance, the elections to the Cuttark
Municipality must be held to .!Jave been valid. Can it be
said that the validation was intended to be temporary in
D character and was to last only during the life-time of the
Ordinance? Jn our opinion, having regard to the object of
the Ordinance and to the rights created by the validating
provisions, it would be difficult to accept the contention
that as soon as the Ordinance expired the validity of the
elections came to rn end and their invalidity was revived.
E The rights created by this Ordinance are, in our opinion,
very similar to the rights with which the court was dealing
in the case of Steavenson and they must be held to endure
and last even after the expiry of the Ordinance. The
Ordinance has in terms provided that the Order of Court
declaring the elections to the Cuttack Municipality to be
F invalid shall be deemed to be and always to have been of
no legal effect whatever and that the said elections are
thereby validated. That being so, the said elections must
be deemed to have been validlv held under the Act and the
life of the newly elected Municipality would be governed by
the relevant provisions of the Act and would not come to
G an end as soon as the Ordinance expires. Therefore, we do
not think that the preliminary objection raised by Mr.
Chetty against the competence of the appeals can be
upheld."

H (1) 151 English Reports 1024.
t.v. REDDY v. ANDHRA PRADESH (Venkataramiah, J.) 531
We do not, however, mean to say here that Parliament or the A
State Legislature is powerless to bring into existence the same state
of affairs as they existed before an ordinance was passed even
though they may be c0mpleted and closed matters under the
Ordinance. That can be achieved by passing an express law opera-
ting retrospectively to the said effect, of course, subject to the other
constitutional limitations. A mere disapproval by Parliament or the
State Legislature of an ordinance cannot, however, revive closed or B
completed transactions.

In the petitions before us also the position is the same as in
the decision referred to above. The abolition of the posts and the
declaration that the incumbents of those posts would cease to be
holders of those posts under section 3 of the Ordinance being C
completed events, there is no question of their revival or the
petitioners continuing to hold those posts any longer. The above
contention has, therefore, !o be rejected in the circumstances of
this case.

In view of what has been stated above it is not necessary to D
consider the contention of the petitioners that it was not open to
the Government to issue one ordinance after another to keep alive
the effect of the first ordinance as the first ordinance itself brought
about the desired effect by section 3 thereof. Even if the other
provisions of the Ordinance have ceased to be in force, there can E
be no constitutional difficulty arising the'refrom because it is open
to the State Government to create new posts in exercise of its
powers under Article 162 of the Constitution· as long as the field is
not occupied by an Act of the· Legislature or a rule made under the
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution.
F
It is next contended that by abolishing the posts of part-time
village officers and by throwing the petitioners out of the posts held
by them, Article 21 of the Constitution had been violated. It is
hardly necessary to deal with this point elaborately since the
petitioners are not being deprived 0f their right to life and liberty
by the abolition of the posts of part-time village officers or by their G
ceasing to be holders of those posts.

It is lastly urged that the State Government may be asked to
consider the cases of those petitioners who possess the prescribed
qualifications for appointment as Village Assistants. We are H
532 stiPkEME coi:Jh REPORTS [1985] 3s.c.k.
informed that the number of posts of Village Assistants that are
A going to be created would be about one-eighth of the number of
posts of part-time village officers which are abolished. It is also
difficult in law to issue any direction in that behalf in the facts and
circumstances of this case. We, however, record that in paragraph
21 of the Counter Affidavit filed by B.V. Janardhan Reddy, Deputy
B
Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Government of .....
Andhra Pradesh it is stated thus :

"In addition, the Government is of the view that such

c of those village officers who possess the required quali-
fications as prescribed and otherwise found suitable will
also be considered for appointment of Village Assistants
subject to the availability of the posts."

We trust that the State Government will give due regard to
.. I

D the above said statement while making appointments. Statements
contained in affidavits are meant to be honoured.

In the result these petitions fail and are hereby dismissed.
We make no order as to costs.
E

N.VK. Petitions dismissed.

'