THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.P.NO. 14829 of 2010 14-07-2010 BETWEEN; G.Subbarayudu son of Muni Reddy ...Petitioner vs. The Government of A.P rep. by Principal Secretary, Revenue (Reg) Department and others ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.P.NO. 14829 of 2010 ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J) Heard Sri P.Venugopal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Services-II for the official respondents and Sri K.Venugopal Reddy, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. The writ petition is directed against the order of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (the Tribunal) dated 15-04-2010 in O.A.No.101 of 2007 whereunder the petitioner’s application (challenging an order of the State Government in G.O.Rt.No.2419 Revenue (Registration) Department, dated 13-11-2006), was rejected. The petitioner was recruited and appointed as a District Registrar in 1996 while the 3rd respondent was so recruited and appointed in 1995. The 3rd respondent belongs to a Scheduled Tribe (ST) Community and was recruited as a District Registrar under the “limited recruitment matrix”. On recruitment and in terms of the order of appointment, he was required to pass the departmental examinations within a period of three (3) years i.e., by 22-06-1998. The 3rd respondent however passed the departmental examinations within the period of three years (stipulated in the order of appointment) but by 21 days later. His period of probation was extended to 3 years and 21 days by altering the date of commencement of probation to 15-07-1996 instead of 23-06-1995 and his probation declared to have been completed on 15-07-1998. As a the consequence of such postponement of the commencement and conclusion of probation, the 3rd respondent lost seniority vis-à-vis the petitioner herein. He therefore petitioned the State for exemption from the provisions of Rule 16(h) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, as a special case since he belongs to ST and since he was not at fault for failing to pass the departmental examinations within the period of three (3) years. He pleaded that he could not pass the departmental examinations within the period, since the A.P. Public Service Commission (APPSC) failed to conduct the examinations as per the schedule and had postponed the conduct of examinations. The representation of the 3rd respondent for exemption was earlier rejected in a Memo dated 11-08-2005. The 3rd respondent again petitioned the State to reconsider his cause and grant exemption under Rule 16(h) of the Rules. By an order dated 13-11-2006 in G.O.Rt.No.2419, the State Government exercising power under Rule 31 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules,1996, relaxed the provisions of Rule 8(1) of Andhra Pradesh Registration Service Rules and Rule 16(h) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules to enable the 3rd respondent to commence probation from 23- 06-1995 in the cadre of District Registrar and to complete probation on the date following the date of his passing all the prescribed departmental examinations, as a special case. In rejecting the petitioner’s challenge to the order of exemption, the Tribunal held that the State had power to grant exemption under Rule 31 of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules; such power was exercised rationally and appropriately given the fact that the 3rd respondent was not only a Scheduled Tribe candidate but also could not pass the departmental examination within time on account of the APPSC not conducting departmental examinations on schedule. The singular ground urged by Sri P.Venugopal, the learned counsel for the petitioner to attack the order of the Tribunal is that the State having earlier rejected the 3rd respondent’s application for grant of exemption had no jurisdiction to review its earlier order. This contention is stated to be rejected. As reiterated by the Supreme Court in R.R.Varma and others Vs. the Union of India and others ([1]), the principle that judicial or quasi judicial powers could not be reviewed in the absence of a power of review conferred by a statue or a statutory instrument either specifically or by necessary implication, is inapplicable to administrative decisions. To extend the principle to pure administrative decisions would lead to untoward and startling results, the Apex Court pointed out and reiterated the principle that the Government must be free to alter its policy or its decisions in administrative matters, if they are to carry on their daily administration and cannot be hide-bound by the rules and restrictions of judicial procedure. In the case on hand, the State had the power to grant the exemption from relevant qualifications or the applicable prescriptions of statutory Rules and the position that is not disputed. That the power to exempt is an administrative and executive and not a judicial or quasi judicial power is also a principle that is incontestable. In view of the settled principles governing the exercise of executive functions and in the context of the rationality of the decision of the State in granting exemption to the 3rd respondent, the contention urged by the petitioner before the Tribunal and reiterated here, to impeach the order of Tribunal does not commend the acceptance by this Court. In the considered view of this Court, the order of the Tribunal suffers from no error of law or exercise of discretion, warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J ______________ R.KANTHA RAO, J 14th JULY 2010. TSNR [1] AIR 1980 SC 1461