THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION Nos.19613 of 2007; 13723 and 21409 of 2005; and 7602, 7608, 7649 and 7827 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: (per HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR) Writ Petition Nos.19613 of 2007 and Writ Petition Nos.13723 and 21409 of 2005 pertain to the Registration Department and they are filed questioning the order dated 27.12.2004 passed in O.A.No.10361 of 2002 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short tribunal). The other four writ petitions i.e. W.P.Nos.7602, 7608, 7649 and 7827 of 2009 pertain to the Commercial Taxes Department and they are filed questioning the common order dated 08.01.2004 passed in O.A.Nos.4663 of 1993, 3010 of 1995, 3445 of 1995 and 4575 of 1995 of a full Bench of the tribunal. The controversy raised in each of these two sets of writ petitions is similar. Hence with the consent of the learned counsel appearing on either side and the learned Government Pleader they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. At the outset we must mention here that Sri Surender Rao the learned counsel appearing for the successful parties before the tribunal and the respondents in some of these writ petitions pointed out that the controversy involved in all these writ petitions is squarely covered by the decision of our Supreme Court given in V.JAGANNADHA RAO vs. STATE OF A.P.[1] and also two Division Bench decisions of this Court one given in G.RAJABABU vs. GOVERNMENT OF A.P.[2] and the other given in WP Nos.9422 & 9552 of 2005 dated 10.03.2006 (K.RAMDAS & ANOTHER vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS) stated that all these writ petitions should fail in view of the said decision and consequently nothing remains for adjudication. On the other hand Sri S.Ramachandra Rao the learned Senior Counsel and Sri Sudheer the learned counsel appearing for petitioners and the learned Government Pleader argued taking us through the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadre and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975 (for short Presidential Order) and the special rules pertaining to the Registration Department and Commercial Taxes Department and pointed out that the above decision of the Supreme Court is distinguishable both on facts and law as it pertains to different special rules pertaining to different departments and therefore the same is not applicable to the present cases and argued the matter at length. 3. Further they relied upon Para-11 of the Presidential Order and argued that Presidential Order must be held to prevail over other service rules in case of conflict only with regard to direct recruitment for the posts organised into local cadres and not promotions and this Para-11 was not considered in V.JAGANNADHA RAO’s case (1 supra) and that makes all the difference. The learned counsel appearing for the unsuccessful parties before the tribunal also raised other contentions and they will be mentioned infra. Sri Sudheer also argued that since the tribunal merely proceeded to hold that the matters are covered by V.JAGANNADHA RAO’s case (1 supra) and delivered its orders on that basis without considering the special rules pertaining to the Registration Department and Commercial Taxes Department concerned in these writ petitions and suggested that these OAs can be remanded for a fresh decision directing the tribunal to consider all aspects. However, as the matters involve a question of law and as we heard the counsel at length we proceed to dispose of these writ petitions on merits. 4. Before the points are set out, the relevant posts and the special rules pertaining to them and the circumstances which led to the filing of these two sets of writ petitions should be noted. 5. In the three writ petitions pertaining to the Registration Department, the dispute is with regard to the validity of Rule 2(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Registration Subordinate Service Rules 1983 framed through G.O.Ms.No.372 Revenue (U) dated 24.02.1983 (hereafterwards referred to as Registration Department Rules) and which provides for appointments to the post of Sub-Registrar Grade-II which is shown as category-II post in the said Rules. The said Rule 2 reads as follows. Rule 2. Appointment:-- to the categories in the Service shall be made as follows:- Category Method of appointment 1. Sub-Registrar Grade-I By promotion of person from the category of Sub-Registrars, Grade-II on grounds of merit and ability, seniority being considered only where merit and ability are approximately equal. 2. Sub-Registrar Grade-II (i) By direct recruitment: (ii) By recruitment by transfer from the category of Senior Assistants working in the Office of the Inspector General of Registration and Stamps and Subordinate Offices on ground of merit and ability, seniority being considered only where merit and ability are approximately equal. Note :-- The Office of the Inspector General of Registration and Stamps includes the Offices of the Registrar of Firms, Registrar of Societies, Registrar of Non-Trading Companies, Registrar General of Birth, Deaths and Marriages, Director of Chits, Director General Stamps Office and other Office for which the Inspector General of Registration and Stamps is the Head of Department. Then there is a clause (ii) in the Note appended to the said Rule which says that in a cycle of nine vacancies the fifth vacancy in the posts of Sub-Registrar Grade-II should be filled by the senior assistant from the office of the Inspector General while other vacancies are meant for direct recruitment and senior assistants from the subordinate offices. We are not concerned with the post of Sub-Registrar Grade-I. It may be noted here itself that the office of the Inspector General which is located at Hyderabad is an office of the head of the department and therefore it is not covered by the Presidential Order vide Para-14 thereof. 6. The dispute is only with regard to recruitment by transfer to the post of Sub-Registrar Grade-II from the category of senior assistants working in the office of the Inspector General of Registration and Stamps (Inspector General’s office). It should also be noted here that the post of Sub-Registrar Grade-II is higher than the post of senior assistant and therefore appointment to it even by recruitment by transfer should be treated as a promotion. It may then be noted for this post of Sub-Registrar Grade-II the unit of appointment is prescribed as a zone constituted under the Presidential Order under Rule 3 of the Registration Department Rules. The posts below the post of Sub- Registrar Grade-II are also organised into local cadres district wise or zone wise under the Presidential Order. As per the note appended to Rule 2 the Inspector General’s office is defined to include the other connected offices mentioned therein and it appears that they are constituted as one unit and are stated to be head of the department. According to Para-14 of the Presidential Order an office of the head of the department is outside its purview. The dispute pertaining to appointments to the post of Sub-Registrar Grade-II revolves around the above Rule 2(ii) which provides for recruitment to the said post by transfer from the category of senior assistants in the office of the Inspector General. 7. It would now be convenient to mention the circumstances which gave rise to the filing of the three writ petitions pertaining to the Registration Department. O.A.No.10361 of 2002 was filed by five senior assistants working in the offices of the Registration Department in Warangal District which falls in Zone-V questioning the abovementioned Rule 2(ii) of the Registration Department Rules on the ground that the said rule is violative of Para-5 especially Para-5(2) of the Presidential Order. Para-5 of the Presidential Order reads as follows. “Local cadres and transfer of persons:-- (1) Each part of the State for which a local cadre has been organised in respect of any category of posts, shall be a separate unit for purposes of recruitment, appointment, discharge, seniority, promotion and transfer, and such other matters as may be specified by the State Government, in respect of that category of posts. (2) Nothing in this Order shall prevent the State Government from making provision for— (a) the transfer of a person from any local cadre to any Office or Establishment to which this Order does not apply, or vice- versa ; (b) the transfer of a person from a local cadre comprising posts in any Office or Establishment exercising territorial jurisdiction over a part of the State to any other local cadre comprising posts in such part, or vice-versa ; (c) the transfer of a person from one local cadre to another local cadre where no qualified or suitable person is available in the latter cadre or where such transfer is otherwise considered necessary in the public interest ; and (d) the transfer of a person from one local cadre to another local cadre on a reciprocal basis, subject to the condition that the person so transferred shall be assigned seniority in the latter cadre with reference to the date of his transfer to that cadre.” 8. The contention of the applicants in O.A.No.10361 of 2002 is that clause (a) of Para-5(2) enables the State Government only to transfer a person from the posts constituting one local cadre to any office or establishment to which the Presidential Order does not apply and vice-versa, and the other sub-clauses of Para-5(2) provide for transfer of employees from one local cadre to another local cadre that is from one post to another equivalent post but they do not provide for promoting a person from a head office or the office of the head of the department to which the Presidential Order does not apply to a higher post borne in a local cadre by promotion or otherwise and therefore the above Rule 2(ii) of the Registration Department Rules is invalid as it is contrary to Article 371-D of the Constitution which says that all service rules or laws inconsistent with it or the Presidential Order promulgated thereunder would be void. In other words their contention was that in view of the above position senior assistants in the Inspector General’s office cannot be appointed to the post of Sub-Registrar Grade-II which are zonal posts in view of the above bar pleaded by them. 9. A Division Bench of the tribunal accepted the above contention of the applicants in O.A.No.10361 of 2002 and allowed it by its order dated 27.12.2004. The tribunal relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court given in V.JAGANNADHA RAO’s case (1 supra) holding that the said judgment squarely supports the contention of the applicants. W.P.No.13723 of 2005 is filed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Inspector General questioning the above order of the tribunal as they were respondents in the said O.A. W.P.No.21409 of 2005 is filed by certain Sub-Registrars Grade-II who were appointed under the above Rule 2(ii) from the office of the Inspector General with the grievance that if the said Rule is held illegal their appointments would be affected. Then W.P.No.19613 of 2007 has been filed by certain senior assistants working in the Inspector General’s office questioning the above order on the plea that if the tribunal order is allowed to stand it would adversely affect their chances of promotion. 10. Then coming to the other four writ petitions pertaining to the commercial taxes department the dispute is with regard to the appointments to the post of Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (DCTO) and the post of Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (ACTO). The post of DCTO is governed by the Andhra Pradesh Commercial Taxes Service Rules 1994 framed through G.O.Ms.No.360 Revenue (CT-I) dated 23.04.1994 (hereafterwards for short referred to as Commercial Taxes Service Rules) and the post of ACTO is governed by the Andhra Pradesh Commercial Taxes Subordinate Service Rules 1990 framed through G.O.Ms.No.81 Revenue (Ct.I) dated 03.02.1990 (hereafterwards for short referred to as Commercial Taxes Subordinate Service Rules). 11. The post of DCTO is shown as one of the posts in the specified gazetted categories in the third schedule to the Presidential Order i.e. at Entry No.19 and therefore it has been organised into a zonal post vide Rule 10 of the Commercial Taxes Service Rules as required by the Presidential Order. The post of ACTO is also organised into a local cadre under the Commercial Taxes Subordinate Service Rules fixing the unit of appointment as the commercial tax division as ordered in G.O.Ms.No.581 Revenue dated 24.05.1976 vide Rule 10 of the said special rules. It was brought to our notice that this local cadre is also organised under the Presidential Order and no dispute was raised on this aspect. 12. The method of appointment to the posts of DCTO is prescribed in Rule 3 of the Commercial Taxes Service Rules whereunder it is shown as category-VI post. The said Rule provides for two modes of recruitment to the posts of DCTOs and it reads as follows. (i) By transfer from the category of Asst. Commercial Taxes Subordinate Service. (ii) By transfer from the category of Superintendents of the Office of Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. It should be noted here that we are concerned only with validity of appointments by transfer from the category of Superintendents of the office of Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal which are shown as constituting one unit and which is a head office to which the Presidential Order does not apply vide Para-14 thereof. It is this Rule 3(ii) which has been challenged in the relevant O.A.No.4663 of 1993 as violative of Para-5 of the Presidential Order. 13. Similarly for the post of ACTO the method of recruitment is prescribed by Rule 3 of the Commercial Taxes Subordinate Service Rules and it reads as follows. Rule 3. Method of appointment and appointing authority:-- (a) Subject to other provisions in these rules, appointment to the service shall be— (i) by direct recruitment. (ii) by transfer from Senior Assistants (including those converted from the category of Senior Stenos), [Senior Commercial Tax Inspectors and Senior Stenographers in the Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Service] working in the Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Office of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and in the Offices of the Commercial Taxes Divisions : [Provided that if qualified candidates are not available from among the above mentioned categories by transfer from Junior Assistants/Typists/Junior Stenographers in the Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Service working in the office of Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Office of Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and in the office of the Commercial Taxes Divisions.] (iii) [by transfer of Assistant Section Officers and Senior Stenographers in the Andhra Pradesh Secretariat Service] in the departments of Secretariat except Law and Finance and Planning (Finance Wing) Departments. : [Provided that if qualified candidates are not available from among the above mentioned categories by transfer from Assistants/Typists/Junior Stenographers and Typist-cum-Assistants in the Andhra Pradesh Secretariat Service in the Departments of Secretariat except Law and Finance and Planning (Finance Wing) Departments]. Further, the note under the above Rule says that in a cycle of ten vacancies every tenth vacancy shall be filled from candidates from the offices of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes/Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal/Secretariat in the order prescribed thereunder from the categories specified in sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 3. It is this sub-rule (3) insofar as it provides for filling up of posts from the categories specified in sub-rules (2) and (3) except from the staff in a commercial tax division which has been challenged as violative of Presidential Order. 14. It should now be noted that one ACTO filed O.A.No.4663 of 1993 challenging the above extracted Rule 3 of the Commercial Taxes Service Rules insofar as it provided for appointment to the posts of DCTO by transfer from the category of Superintendents of the offices of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal which constitute a head office not covered by the Presidential Order. Then O.A.Nos.3010, 3445 and 4575 of 1995 were filed by the Andhra Pradesh Commercial Taxes Non-Gazetted Officers Associations of Nizamabad division, Vijayawada division and Guntur division respectively challenging Rule 3 of the Commercial Taxes Subordinate Service Rules insofar as it provided for appointment or recruitment to the posts of ACTOs from the categories of Senior Assistants, Senior Commercial Tax Inspectors etc., mentioned in the said Rule and working in the offices of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and Assistant Sections Officers and Stenographers in the Andhra Pradesh State Secretariat Service. 15. The grounds of challenge in the O.A. relating to DCTO posts and in the O.As. relating to ACTO posts are identical to the grounds of challenge relating to the Rule 2 of the Registration Department Rules pertaining to the post of Sub-Registrar Grade-II and were made on the premise that the above rules are also violative of Para-5(2) of the Presidential Order. The said grounds of challenge are already mentioned in Para-7 of this judgment. Here also the main contention is that the posts of DCTO and ACTO are higher in rank when compared with the posts of ministerial staff of the offices of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and the Secretariat which are head offices or State level offices not governed by the Presidential Order and therefore they cannot be brought into the posts of DCTOs and ACTOs which are organised into local cadres and that would be violative of Para-5(2) of the Presidential Order. 16. A full Bench of the tribunal allowed all the above four OAs by its common order dated 08.01.2004 accepting the above contentions of the applicants in the said OAs. The tribunal did not discuss the rules thoroughly but it proceeded to hold that the matters are already covered by the judgment in V.JAGANNADHA RAO’s case (1 supra) and an earlier order dated 15.05.2002 of the tribunal given in O.A.No.1854 of 1997 and batch. W.P.No.7827 of 2009 is filed by certain staff members i.e. senior assistants and junior assistants of the offices of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal questioning the invalidation of Rule 3 of the Commercial Taxes Service Rules insofar as it relates to recruitment by transfer to the said post from the category of superintendents from the above head offices and it is filed against the order in O.A.No.3445 of 1995. As petitioners in this writ petition are only senior assistants and junior assistants their immediate right to file this writ petition can be said to be in doubt as they are not superintendents but as a principle is involved and as no objection was raised by the other side, the writ petition is entertained. The other three writ petitions i.e. W.P.Nos.7602, 7608 and 7649 of 2009 are filed by certain ministerial staff members of various categories working in the above offices questioning the orders in O.A.Nos.4575, 4663 and 3010 of 1995 relating to invalidation of Rule 3 of the Commercial Taxes Subordinate Service Rules insofar as it concerns them as their plea is that the impugned judgment would effect their promotion chances. 17. Thus the question that arises for determination in all these writ petitions is whether Rule 2(ii) of the Registration Department Rules and Rule 3(2) of the Commercial Taxes Service Rules and Rule 3 of the Commercial Taxes Subordinate Service Rules the scope of which have already been set out supra are invalid on the ground that they are violative of Para-5 of the Presidential Order read with Article 371-D of the Constitution. The circumstances under which the above questions have arisen are already set out supra. 18. In V.JAGANNADHA RAO’s case (1 supra) the ministerial employees of the Labour department challenged the special Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.72 dated 25.02.1976 and G.O.Ms.No.117 dated 28.05.1986 which provided for recruitment by transfer to certain higher zonal posts in the Labour department before the tribunal on the same grounds on which the present rules are challenged. A full Bench of the tribunal allowed the said applications and declared that the impugned rules to the extent they enable the ministerial employees of the Factories and Boilers department or any other department to be considered for appointment to the posts in Labour department i.e. posts of Assistant Labour Officers which are higher posts and which were zonal posts are violative of paras 3 and 5 of the Presidential Order and therefore they were illegal. The relevant rules were extracted in the Supreme Court judgment. It may be noted that in V.JAGANNADHA RAO’s case (1 supra), no doubt the controversy pertains to bringing ministerial employees of Factories and Boilers departments to the posts of Assistant Labour Officers in the Labour department which was a different department. There also the ministerial employees of the head offices or heads of department to which the Presidential Order did not apply were sought to be recruited by transfer to the posts of Assistant Labour Officers which were zonal posts and the said posts were higher posts. The principle on which the said rules were based and the present rules are based is same and the object was to give opportunity or promotional avenues to the ministerial staff of the heads of department for higher posts which were organised into local cadres under the Presidential Order. 19. Accepting similar contentions raised by Sri Surender Rao in the present case, the Supreme Court discussed about the scope and the ambit of the power of State Government under Para-5 of the Presidential Order especially Para-5(2) in paras 9, 12 and 14 of the judgment. The said paragraphs in V.JAGANNADHA RAO’s case (1 supra) are extracted and they read as follows. “9. It is to be noted that para 5(1) of the Presidential Order is in terms of para 3(3) thereof. Para 3(3) postulates that each department in each zone shall be organised into a separate cadre. Para 5(1) speaks of separate unit for purposes of recruitment, appointment, discharge, seniority, promotion and transfer and such other matters as may be specified by the State Government in respect of the category of posts and each part of the State for which local cadre has been organised in respect of any category of posts in required to have a separate unit for the aforesaid purposes. Para 5(2) is in the nature of an enabling provision which authorizes the State Government to make provisions for transfer in certain specified circumstances. The present dispute relates to para 5(2)(c). It speaks of a "transfer". Attempt of the appellants is to give enlarged meaning to the expression to include promotional aspects. It has been contended in that context that though para 5(1) treats promotion and transfer separately, yet that distinction would not be applicable to cases covered by para 5(2). The contention is clearly untenable.” “12. We find that para 5(2) of the Presidential Order speaks of transfer and not of promotion. It would be hazardous to accept the contention of the appellants that promotion is included in the expression 'transfer' and no assistance can be availed from the distinction made in para 5(1) of the Order. No provisions or word in a statute has to be read in isolation. In fact, the statute has to be read as a whole. A statute is an edict of the legislature. It cannot be said that without any purpose the distinction was made in para 5(1) between transfer and promotion and such distinction was not intended to be operative in para 5(2). The intention of the legislature is primarily to be gathered from the language used, which means that attention should be paid as to what has been said as also to what has not been said. See Mohd. Ali Khan v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, New Delhi (AIR 1997 SC 1165) and Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. M/s. Price Water House (AIR 1998 SC 74). As a consequence a construction which requires for its support addition or substitution of words or which resorts for rejection of words as meaningless has to