one man commission-six point formula-andhra pradesh vol-1-

One Man Commission (SPF) Final Report 1

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

ONE MAN COMMISSION

(SIX POINT FORMULA)

J.M. GIRGLANI, IAS (Retd.)

FINAL REPORT

IN THREE VOLUMES

ON

IMPLEMENTATION OF PRESIDENTIAL ORDER

ON PUBLIC SERVICES, 1975

AND

IMPLEMENTATION OF G.O.Ms.No.610,

G.A.( SPF.A) DEPT., DATED 30-12-1985.

VOLUME – I

GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (SPF) DEPARTMENT

SEPTEMBER, 2004


SCHEME OF THE REPORT

VOLUME – I

SECTION – A

REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE

PRESIDENTIAL ORDER ON PUBLIC SERVICES PART – 1 (UP TO 30-09-2003)

(FOR PART – 2 SEE VOLUME III)

SECTION - B

FURTHER AND FINAL REPORT ON

IMPLEMENTATION OF G.O.Ms.No.610, G.A. (SPF.A)

DEPARTMENT, DATED 30-12-1985.

VOLUME – II

APPENDICES, ANNEXURES AND PROCEEDINGS. (RELATING TO VOLUME-I)

VOLUME – III


PRESIDENTIAL ORDER ON PUBLIC SERVICES PART – 2 (FROM 01-10-2003 TO 30-9-2004).


MAIN PREFACE

Government of Andhra Pradesh appointed One Man

Commission in G.O.Ms.No.270, General Administration (SPF-A)

Department, dated 25-06-2001. The terms of reference of the

Commission required that: (i) the Commission should give a Report

within 90 days on injustices done in the implementation of

G.O.Ms.No.610, G.A. (SPF-A) Department, dated 30-12-1985 and to

sort out the anomalies; (ii) a Report to be given on deviations in the

implementation of the Presidential Order and (iii) suggest safeguards.

The tenure of the Commission was one year.

The Commission submitted a Preliminary Report more or less

within the stipulated period of 90 days on 06-10-2001, on

implementation of G.O.Ms.No. 610.

In G.O.Ms.No.327, G.A. (S.P.F) Department, dated 22-07-2002

the tenure of the Commission was extended for one more year up to

30-06-2003.

As finalisation of the Report was taking a little more time,

Government kindly extended the tenure of the Commission to

30-09-2003 in G.O. Rt. No.2755, G.A (S.P.F) Department, dated

17-06-2003. The Commission prepared its Report up to this period

on the implementation of the Presidential Order and also the Further

and Final Report on the implementation of G.O.Ms.No.610 on which

the Preliminary Report had been submitted on 06-10-2001. However,

before this Report was submitted Government extended the term of

the Commission to ensure that all the remaining petitions before the

Commission, which could not be disposed off for want of Reports


from the Departments, were disposed, and also the deviations if any

in the implementation of the Presidential Order that were brought out

through these petitions, included in the Report. The extension was

given in G.O. Rt. No.4762 G.A (S.P.F - A) Department, dated

09-10-2003 (Appendix XIII) for six months from 01-10-2003 to

31-03-2004.

The date of expiry of this period fell during the time when the

State was under a caretaker Government and was in the election

mode. The Government therefore further extended the term of the

Commission in G.O.Rt.No.1644 G.A. (S.P.F) Department, dated

07-04-2004 (Appendix XIV) from 01-04-2004 to 30-09-2004.

Quite a few important issues and findings were brought out

from the petitions disposed during the extended periods from

30-9-2003. Therefore, without disturbing the Report that had been

finalised up to 30-09-2003, I have called that part of the Report as

Final Report Part-1 and kept it in Volume-I as was originally

arranged. The further Report in continuation of that has been called

Final Report Part-2 and kept in Volume-III. However, Part-2 covers

the period from 01-10-2003 up to the end of September 2004, the

end of the Commission‟s term.

The reason for calling this Report “Final Report” is to

distinguish it from the Preliminary Report that was submitted on

6th October, 2001 and which was confined only to the implementation

of G.O.Ms.No.610. Thus the Scheme of the Commission‟s Report

now is as under:


Volume I

Section – A

Report on Implementation of the Presidential Order on Public Services

Part – 1 (Up to 30-09-2003) (For Part – 2 see Volume III)

Section – B

Further and Final Report on Implementation of G.O.Ms.No.610,

G.A.(SPF-A) Department, dated 30-12-1985. (This is in continuation of the Preliminary Report submitted within the

stipulated period of 90 days, on 6-10-2001.)

VOLUME – II

Appendices, Annexures and Proceedings

(Relating to Volume I)

VOLUME – III

Report on Implementation of the Presidential Order on Public Services Part – 2: From 01-10-2003 Till the end of Sept.2004, i.e. the end of the

Commission‟s term. It includes Appendices, Annexures and Proceedings pertaining to Part-2 of the Report.

Sources

The sources of information of the Commission on which the

Report is based have mainly been: (1) Meetings held in the Districts

with Collectors and Service Associations and public representatives.

These Meetings brought out very useful information. (2) Meetings

with the Service Associations at the State level. (3) Meetings with the

representatives of Heads of Departments and of the Secretariat

Departments. (4) Petitions submitted to the Commission by

individuals and groups and also by the Service Associations and the

hearings held on these petitions with the petitioners and the


concerned departments and reports of the Departments on these

petitions (5) Study of relevant background material. (6) Discussions

with public figures in the districts and in the Commission‟s office,

including a group of erstwhile M.L.As of Telangana area, who had

desired to discuss (During the early stages of the Commission).

A few Meetings initially with Sri. C. R. Kamalnathan, IAS

(Retd.) who had been connected with the drafting of the Presidential

Order, were very useful in understanding the spirit and perspective of

the Presidential Order. I am particularly grateful to him.

This Preface is intended to cover both Part 1 and Part 2 of the

Final Report on the implementation of the Presidential Order and the

Further and Final Report on implementation of G.O.Ms.No.610. A

separate preface is also written for Part 2 of the Report in the Third

Volume.

In Chapter-1, the Scope and Scheme of this Report is

amplified. The process of study on the implementation of the

Presidential Order has given a deep insight into the porous areas

through which leakages have been taking place and are likely to

continue to take place unless appropriate measures, including those

suggested in the Report, are adopted.

Many issues on the Presidential Order had come to light in the

initial stages, which were included in the Preliminary Report in

addition to the Findings on the various sub-paras of G.O.Ms.No.610.

These issues have now been subsumed in the various Findings given

in the Final Report.


GRATITUDE

First and foremost, for reposing trust and confidence in me to

handle this delicate assignment, I am beholden to the Government of

Andhra Pradesh and to the Hon‟ble Chief Ministers: the present Chief

minister Dr. Y. S. Rajasekhara Reddy in whose regime I have

completed almost 5 months and finalised and submitted this Report,

and Sri N. Chandrababu Naidu during whose tenure as Chief Minister

this Commission was appointed and continued till the change of

Government.

I am grateful to four Chief Secretaries of my tenure viz., Sri P.

V. Rao, IAS, Sri. K. Swaminathan, IAS, Smt. Sathi Nair, IAS and Sri.

Mohan Kanda, IAS. The first three have since retired. They have

provided all the support, which has facilitated the Commission in its

work. I am grateful to Sri. S. V. Prasad, IAS, Principal Secretary to

the former Chief Minister and Sri Jannat Hussain, Principal Secretary

to the present Chief Minister for coordination, cooperation and

support throughout my tenure. I am grateful to Sri. B. Aravinda

Reddy, IAS, then Secretary to Government, General Administration

(Services and SPF) Department with whom I have had constant

interaction. I am thankful to Sri Satish Chandra, IAS who succeeded

Sri Aravinda Reddy for continuing the support and interaction with

the Commission. It has been a pleasure to work with them in close

cooperation. I am also grateful to the previous two Principal

Secretaries who were in charge of General Administration (SPF)

Department viz., Sri. A. K. Sharma, IAS, now Special Chief

Secretary, during whose tenure the Commission was set-up and


various orders for its setting up were issued, and Late Sri. D. Murali

Krishna, IAS, who had succeeded him. I am grateful to Sri. Binoy

Kumar, IAS, then Secretary to Government, General Administration

(Political) Department and his very cooperative and efficient team of

Deputy Secretary (General) G.A.D., Sri. K. Ratnama Chari (now Joint

Secretary, General Administration Department (Services)) and Sri. G.

Anand Rao, the then Assistant Secretary and now Deputy Secretary,

General Administration (General) Department. But for their full

support and prompt action at every stage in setting up the necessary

infrastructure and facilities and providing the staff, the Commission

would have lost a lot of time. I am grateful to Sri Rajeswar Tiwari,

IAS, present Secretary, G.A (Political) Dept. for his continuing

support.

I am grateful to the Special Chief Secretaries, Principal

Secretaries, Secretaries to Government and Heads of Departments

who sent their representatives to the meetings, which proved to be a

very important source of all the information required for the Report.

I am grateful to Information Technology Department for

providing the Computers.

I am grateful to the District Collectors who have extended all

the cooperation during my visits to the Districts.

I appreciate the cooperation received from the Service

Associations/Unions, particularly T.N.G.O‟s Central Union. All of them

have been very cooperative and have provided useful information

and have always been very courteous. I also appreciate the


cooperation received from various Services Associations/Unions in

the Districts. Indeed they are very knowledgeable and vigilant about

service matters.

Hyderabad J.M. GIRGLANI, IAS (Retd.)

Dated: ONE MAN COMMISSION (S.P.F.)


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I have already acknowledged in the Preface my gratitude to the

higher levels of the Government. However, the work of this

Commission has been very much facilitated by the co-operation and

hard work of those who have worked with the Commission.

Among them I may particularly mention (1) Sri P. Mohan Lal,

who joined as Joint Secretary and later as OSD & Ex-Officio Joint

Secretary midway, at a time when his help was very useful. (2) Smt.

K. Uma Devi, my P.S. (3) Section Officers Sri J. J. Rajendra Prasad,

Sri Mohd. Younus. (4) My P.A. Sri N. Sudhakara Rao, S.C.Steno

(5) My P.A. Ms. S. Suneetha, Sr.Steno. All of them are efficient and

earnest in their work. I must record with appreciation the work done

by (1). Sri V. V. Sesha Sai, Asst. Statistical Officer and (2)

Sri P. Natarajan, Asst. Statistical Officer who have done good work in

organising the statistical data received by the Commission.

I also appreciate the work done by the Assistant Section

Officers specially (1) Sri G. Devender Rao (2) Sri P. Sudarshan

(3) Sri K. Nagaraju and (4) Smt. K. Kameswari.

The Computer Operators who were supplied from time to time

by M/s. Jyoti Computers have done hard work, efficiently and

willingly. All of them have done excellent work and I am glad that

most of them have got better jobs while working with this

Commission. The persons who worked with the Commission are

Sarvasri (1) T. Ramu (2) M. Eshwar Rao (3) Eshwar Prasad (4) S.A.

Sadak (5) K. Venkatesh (6) G. Sai Kumar and (7) Smt. K. Nagasree


(8) B. Rama Krishna and (9) M. Bhagya Raj. All of them have done

good work and deserve a bright future.

I thank M/s. Jyoti Computers for their co-operation and for

sending us good and efficient Computer Operators.

I am thankful to Andhra Pradesh Technology Services Unit

(APTS), A. P. Secretariat and its Unit Coordinator Sri. Nand Kumar.

They have done the replication of the report and binding etc., with

their usual promptness and efficiency.

* * * * *


FINAL REPORT

VOLUME – I

SECTION – A


PRESIDENTIAL ORDER ON PUBLIC SERVICES

PART – 1 (UP TO 30-09-2003)

Pages 15 to 226

SECTION B

FURTHER AND FINAL REPORT ON

IMPLEMENTATION OF G.O.Ms.No.610, G.A. (SPF.A) DEPARTMENT, DATED 30-12-1985.

Pages 229 to 265


FINAL REPORT

SECTION-A

CONTENTS

SUBJECT Page Nos.

MAIN PREFACE 3-11

Chapter-1 : Keynote to the Report 15-31

Background 15-16

Scope of the Report 16-22

(Distinction between SPF,

Presidential Order and

G.O.Ms.No.610)

22-27 Terms of Reference

Terms of Reference

Scheme of the Report 27-28

Time Span 29

Causes of Deviations 29-31

Chapter-2 : Exclusions Under Presidential Order 32-74

Heads of the Departments 32-58 Major Development Projects 59-69

Other Entries Under Para 14 69-74

and G.S.R. 529 (E)

Chapter-3 : Regional Offices 75-83

Chapter-4 : Urban Development Authorities. 84-86

Chapter-5 : Unit of Appointment/Local Cadre 87-95

(Contd…2)


SUBJECT Page Nos.

Chapter-6 : Cross Cadre Movement 96-126

Transfers. 96-109

Deputations & Fair Share Principle 109-124

On Other Duty (OD) 125-126

Chapter-7 : Workcharged Establishment 127-143

Chapter-8 : Gazetting of Posts and Specified 144-155 Gazetted Categories

Chapter-9 : Compassionate Appointments 156-162

Chapter-10 : City of Hyderabad 163-172

Chapter-11 : Role of Employment Exchanges 173-181

Bogus Certificates 178-180

Rule 10 (a) (i) Appointments 180-181

Chapter-12 : Recruitment/Allotment needing 182-190

on-going scrutiny.

Chapter-13 : Miscellaneous Deviations 191-196

Chapter-14 : Mechanism to Ensure 197-216 Implementation and Monitoring

of Presidential Order.

Fundamental Safeguards 197-201

Framework of Safeguards 202-216

Chapter-15 : Conspectus. 217-226


CHAPTER – 1

KEYNOTE TO THE REPORT 1.1.0 On 11-04-1969 the Prime Minister, late Smt. Indira Gandhi made a

statement in Lok Sabha announcing Eight Point Programme for

Telangana Development. Education, Employment and Plan

Implementation Committees besides High-power Development

Committee, were set up. One of the points which is relevant here is

Point VI - “The possibility, of providing for appropriate Constitutional

safeguards in the matter of public employment in favour of people

belonging to the Telangana region will be examined by the

Government of India in consultation with a committee of Jurists”.

As was the case with all other formulas, this formula too was not

implemented.

Prime Minister‟s Five-point Formula – 1972

1.2.0 The residential qualification in the Mulki Rules will apply only for the

purposes of recruitment to non–gazetted posts and posts of

Tahsildars and Civil Assistant Surgeons in the Telangana region. It

will also apply to such posts as were non-gazetted on 01-11-1956

but have since been made gazetted. However, in the case of

composite offices such as Secretariat, the offices of Heads of

Departments and common Institutions of the State Government,

these rules will apply for the purposes of filling the second vacancy

in every unit of three direct recruitment vacancies, in non-gazetted

posts.

1.2.1 In order to provide adequate avenues of promotion to the

Government servants working in each of the two regions, various


service cadres will be regionalized up to the first or second gazetted

level.

The Six-point Formula–1973

1.3.0 After Sri P. V. Narasimha Rao became the Chief Minister, the Andhra

agitation was started „inter alia‟ against the judgement of Supreme

Court on Mulki Rules.

1.3.1 An all-Party agreement became the basis of the Six Point Formula

in which Point-3 is the basis for the contents of the Presidential

Order on services, Point-5 resulted in the Constitution (Thirty

second Amendment) Act, 1973, under which The Andhra Pradesh

Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of

Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975 dated 18-10-1975 was issued as

the Order of the President of India, through G.S.R. 524 (E)

dated 18-10-1975, hereinafter referred to in this Report as the

“Presidential Order”. It came into effect “at once”.

1.3.2 It is this Order with which this Commission is concerned. The

Terms of Reference of this Commission are given separately in this

Chapter.

Scope of the Report

Distinction Between Six Point Formula, Presidential Order And G.O.Ms.No.610 :

1.4.0 There is so much confusion in the minds of everyone concerned

(and even everyone not concerned), the authorities, the

employees, the Press, Political Parties and Service

Associations/Unions, the Bar and the Bench - between “Six Point

Formula”, “Presidential Order” and “G.O.Ms.No.610”, that the


distinction and difference between the three needs to be elucidated

and clearly understood. As of today, the three expressions are used

interchangeably and considered to be one and the same. Deccan

Chronicle even carried an Editorial in which this confusion is

patently discernible.

Six Point Formula

1.5.0 As already mentioned above, the Six Point Formula (SPF) was

evolved by the leaders of Andhra Pradesh in consultation with the

Central leaders and declared on 21-09-1973 in order to remove the

misgivings then prevailing about the future of the State and to

arrive at a settlement in the wake of Telangana Agitation of 1969

and Andhra Agitation of 1972. It is reproduced below: -

(1) Accelerated development of the backward areas of the State and planned development of the State Capital with specific

resources earmarked for these purposes and appropriate association of representations of such backward areas in the

State Legislature along with other experts in the formulation and monitoring of development schemes for such areas

should form the essential part of the developmental strategy of the State. Constitution at the State Level of a

Planning Board as well as Sub-Committees for different backward areas should be the appropriate instrument for

achieving this objective.

(2) Institution of uniform arrangements throughout the State

enabling adequate preference being given to local candidates in the matter of admission to educational

institutions and establishment of a new Central University at Hyderabad to augment the existing educational facilities

should be the basis of the educational policy of the State.

(3) Subject to the requirements of the State as a whole, local candidates should be given preference to specified extent in

the matter of direct recruitment to (i) Non-Gazetted posts


(other than in the Secretariat, Offices of Heads of

Department, other State level offices and institutions and the Hyderabad City Police) (ii) Corresponding posts under

the local bodies and (iii) the posts of Tahsildars, Junior Engineers and Civil Assistant Surgeons. In order to improve

their promotion prospects, service cadres should be organised to the extent possible on appropriate local basis

up to specified gazetted level, first or second, as may be administratively convenient.

(4) A high power Administrative Tribunal should be constituted

to deal with the grievances of services regarding appointments, seniority, promotion and other allied

matters. The decisions of the Tribunal should ordinarily be binding on the State Government. The constitution of such

a Tribunal would justify limits on recourse to Judiciary in

such matters.

(5) In order that implementation of measures based on the above principles does not give rise to litigation and

consequent uncertainty, the Constitution should be suitably amended to the extent necessary, conferring on the

President enabling powers in this behalf.

(6) The above approach would render the continuance of Mulki Rules and Regional Committee unnecessary.

1.5.1 The most important point in the Six Point Formula is the first point

viz., “Accelerated Development of backward areas of the State and

planned development of the State Capital”.

1.5.2 The third point in the Six Point Formula pertains to public

employment, which was brought under the Presidential Order. In

fact there are two Presidential Orders, one pertains to the second

point in the Formula, which is covered by the Presidential Order on

education and the other, on public employment. This Commission is

concerned with the third point in the Six Point Formula, which is

covered by the Presidential Order pertaining to public employment


only. Therefore any matter pertaining to public employment in the

context of the Six Point Formula falls under only the third point of

the Six Point Formula and is covered by the Presidential Order

issued under this point. The phrase “Six Point Formula” should not,

therefore, be used interchangeably with the “Presidential Order”

because Six Point Formula has a far wider scope than the

Presidential Order on public employment, which relates only to one

out of the six points.

Presidential Order

1.6.0 In pursuance of the Six Point Formula necessary amendment was

passed in Parliament to the Constitution of India, as Article 371-D

of the Constitution, which reads as under: -

“371-D. Special provisions with respect to the State of Andhra Pradesh.- (1) The President may by order

made with respect to the State of Andhra Pradesh provide, having regard to the requirements of the

State as a whole, for equitable opportunities and

facilities for the people belonging to different parts of the State, in the matter of public employment

and in the matter of education, and different provisions may be made for various parts of the

State”.

1.6.1 In exercise of the powers conferred on the President of India,

through this Amendment the President was pleased to pass two

Orders pertaining to Andhra Pradesh. One with regard to education

and the other with regard to public employment. As mentioned

herein above, the one pertaining to public employment was called

“The Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation of Local

Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975”. It is

only with this order that this Commission is concerned. It was


incorporated by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in General

Administration (SPF) Department G. O. Ms. No. 674, dated

20-10-1975 which reproduces the Presidential Order as embodied

in G.S.R.No.524 (E), dated 18-10-1975, of the Government of

India.

1.6.2 This Commission is not concerned with the Andhra Pradesh

Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions) Order 1974

known as the Presidential Order on education, which was issued

under G.S.R 299 (E), dated 01-07-1974 and came into force on the

same day.

1.6.3 To facilitate the implementation of the Presidential Order on public

employment, detailed instructions were issued by the Government

of Andhra Pradesh in G.O.P.No.728, General Administration

(SPF.A) Department, dated 01-11-1975. Further instructions were

also issued in G.O.P.No.729, General Administration (SPF.A)

Department, dated 01-11-1975. In G.O.Ms.NO.741, General

Administration (SPF.A) Department, dated 07-11-1975 Ad hoc

rules were issued to regulate promotions etc., and the units of

appointment pending finalisation of local cadres so as to minimise

readjustments after the formation of local cadres. In course of

time, the Government of Andhra Pradesh appointed the One Man

Commission of Sri Sunderesan, I.A.S. (Retd.) to revise all the

Service Rules so as to bring them in conformity with the

Presidential Order especially with regard to Units of Appointment.

Some of the departments are still issuing their revised rules based

on Sunderesan Commission‟s recommendations. Most of them

were, however, issued around 1990–1994.


G.O.Ms.No.610, dated 30-12-1985 issued by General Administration (SPF.A) Department

1.7.0 The Presidential Order on Public Employment was issued on

18-10-1975. G.O.Ms.NO.610, General Administration (SPF.A)

Department, dated 30-12-1985 was not issued under the

Presidential Order. It was issued by the Government of Andhra

Pradesh with reference to certain representations made to it with

regard to the implementation of the Presidential Order and contains

certain assurances given by the government in this regard. A copy

of the G.O.Ms. No.610 is appended in Volume II to this Report as

(Appendix I). The G.O. does not lay down any new rules or any

amendments to the Presidential Order. Therefore to say that

“G.O.Ms.No.610 has not been implemented” or “has been violated”

only means that the assurances given on the specific points in

G.O.Ms.No.610 have or have not been implemented. The basic

Constitutional Order covering public employment is the Presidential

Order itself as mentioned above and not G.O.Ms.No.610. This G.O.

is not a part of the Presidential Order or any separate order by itself

but only deals with certain specific issues and demands pertaining

to the Presidential Order. Similar Government Order in

G.O.Ms.No.564, General Administration (SPF.A) Department,

dated 05-12-1985 had been issued before G.O.Ms.No.610 on the

representation of the Rayalaseema Employees and contains more or

less similar issues/ demands pertaining to the Presidential Order,

with similar assurances.

1.7.1 However, it is seen that all the above three viz., Six Point Formula,

Presidential Order (on public services) and G.O.Ms.No.610 are


being used interchangeably as one and the same. Even in

government this distinction has not been clearly noted by most of

the officials and departments.

1.7.2 In G.O.Ms.No.270, General Administration (SPF.A) Department,

dated 25-06-2001 (Appendix II), in which this Commission was

appointed, Government of Andhra Pradesh desired a report within

90 days with regard to the implementation of G.O.Ms.No.610. In

pursuance thereof, the Commission submitted its Preliminary

Report “Implementation of G.O.Ms.No.610, General Administration

(SPF.A) Department, dated 30-12-1985 and Sorting out of

Anomalies”, more or less within the time limit, on

06-10-2001. The “Preliminary Report” could cover limited ground.

The tenure of the Commission was fixed as one year to cover all the

terms of reference. It was extended for one more year in

G.O.Ms.No.327, General Administration (SPF.A) Department, dated

22-07-2002 (Appendix III). As little more time was required to

finalise the Final Report of the Commission, the tenure was

extended to 30-09-2003 in G.O.Rt No. 2755, General

Administration (SPF.A) Department, dated 17-06-2003

(Appendix IV). Whatever further information is available with

regard to implementation of G.O.Ms.NO.610 has been covered in

Part-2 of this Report. This Final Report covers the wider terms of

reference of the Commission, which enshrine the entire ambit of the

Presidential Order on public employment.

Terms Of Reference Of The Commission


1.8.0 The terms of reference of the Commission as laid down in


25-06-2001 are given in Paras 2 & 3 of the G.O. as under: -

(Quote) “2. The Commission will receive representations from Associations/individuals where

the injustice is done in the implementation of G.O.Ms.No.610, General Administration (SPF.A)

Department, dated 30-12-1985 and to sort out the anomalies. The Commission shall submit its report

within 90 days.

3. The Commission will also take up further follow

up action for the rectification of defects, anomalies and irregularities, if any, and arrive at estimates of

deviation and anomalies from the Presidential Order, and also suggest remedial actions which would

include a mechanism to ensure implementation and monitoring of Six Point Formula, during the

subsequent period of its term”. (Unquote)

1.8.1 On the term mentioned at 2 above Preliminary Report was already

submitted by the Commission. Further Report on this term is

continued in Part-2 of this Final Report. The Preliminary Report may

be read as a part of this Report except where it is repugnant to, or

at variance with, the Final Report. The further Report herein will

prevail over any contrary findings in the Preliminary Report.

1.8.2 As far as terms in Para 3 are concerned, the Commission has

received representations from Associations and individuals with

regard to alleged injustices done in the implementation of the

Presidential Order as such (not merely in the implementation of

G.O.Ms.No.610). The representations have come up for hearings

and the Commission has given its findings on each representation

separately, whether it is a general representation by an Association

or a specific grievance of an individual. From these cases the


Commission has derived valuable information with regard to the

various minute nuances of deviations from the Presidential Order.

1.8.3 As far as terms in Para 3 are concerned, these may further be

analysed as under: -

(A) These envisage: - „taking up further follow-up action for the

rectification of defects and anomalies and irregularities, if any, …‟

As far as this part of the term of reference is concerned the

Commission has sent its findings on each of the specific petitions/

representations of individuals or groups of individuals (hereinafter

to be referred to as “Individual Petitions”) to the concerned

Departments with a request to kindly take action under intimation

to the petitioners and to the Commission. However, we have not

received any reports of compliance in any case. We have however

received a few representations from the concerned petitioners that

no action is taken on the Commission‟s findings in their cases.

Monitoring of the action and follow-up on each of the Proceedings

issued by the Commission giving its findings on each of the

individual petitions would be a long-term and continuing process.

To take prompt and effective action on the Commission‟s

Proceedings on Individual Petitions (compiled in Volume II of the Report) it is suggested that:

(1) A regular nodal or monitoring agency in the Government

like, for example, General Administration (SPF) Department,

may be entrusted with the responsibility of follow-up action on

the Proceedings issued by the Commission on individual

petitions.


(2) The Government from the General Administration (SPF)

Department may address all the Departments that the

concerned authorities must comply with the findings of the

Commission and report such compliance to the General

Administration (SPF) Department. This would be an appropriate

step by the Government in the light of this term of reference.

(3) If and when the “Monitoring Cell” announced by the

Government as reported in the Press, is set-up this

responsibility can be passed on to this Cell.

(B) This term of reference also refers to “arriving at estimates of

deviations and anomalies from the Presidential Order”.

The estimates of deviations from the Presidential Order, are given in

our Report in terms of various “Findings” on the ignoring, skirting,

bypassing, circumventions, wrong application or misapplication of

some provisions, leakages, deviations, contraventions and violations

(all of which we shall hereafter refer to as “Deviations”) that have

come to the notice of the Commission in the course of its enquiries,

hearings, and in the meetings with Associations, Unions in the

Districts and in Hyderabad, with the Collectors, District Selection

Committees Officials, Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission

officials, Departmental and Secretariat Officers and in the course of

consideration of the representations received by the Commission.

All these meetings and hearings total up to about 260.

However, the term of reference also seems to imply that apart from

an actual figure of the instances of “deviations” the government

would want to know ultimately the number of individuals in each

local cadre, whether district or zonal cadre, in whichever District or


Zone of the State it may be, who were adversely affected thereby.

This is not merely a very laborious and time consuming exercise

which the departments would have to take up with reference to old

records but also it may not be possible to arrive at any reliable

figure because it would involve a speculative element in trying to

find what might have happened in each District or Zone and to

whom and to how many local candidates, if the particular deviation

had not taken place.

(C) The third part of this term of reference is that the Commission

would suggest remedial actions, which would include a mechanism

to ensure implementation and monitoring of Six Point Formula. This

part may be divided into two separate parts again:

(1) One part is to suggest remedial action. The remedy is a

specific antidote to a specific malady. The maladies are what

we have called „deviations‟ which the Commission has brought

out in this Report. Under each specific Deviation Genre, the

Commission has given its Findings and suggested appropriate

Remedial Action.

However, the Commission strongly recommends:

(i) Immediate and effective action on the Commission‟s Proceedings on individual

petitions;

(ii) Immediate and effective action to put an end to

the various deviations given under the Commission‟s findings in this Report so that in

the future the Presidential Order will not be subverted either deliberately or through

unpardonable ignorance;


(iii) Where it appears to the Government that in any

particular finding there is indication of gross lapse, mala fides, bias, favouritism, or

recalcitrant persistence in deviations (such cases have come to notice), on the part of any

official/officials, strong deterrent action may be instituted.

(2) The second part of this term requires devising the

mechanism to ensure implementation and monitoring. This is

not related to any specific malady, but in general, to prevent

any further deviations and to ensure against their recurrence in

the future.

In this term of reference it is presumed that the phrase “Six Point

Formula” is intended to mean only the Presidential Order on public

services. The context of the terms of reference in the G.O. cited

hereinabove, does not permit any larger interpretation of this

phrase to cover the entire Six Point Formula. On this term of

reference the Commission has received some suggestions from

different quarters. These are summed up and given in a separate

chapter, in which the Commission has also given its own

suggestions.

Scheme of the Report

1.9.0 This Report is submitted in three Volumes as under:

VOLUME-I

Section-A

Report on Implementation of the Presidential Order on Public Services Part – 1 (Up to 30-09-2003)

(For Part-2 see Volume III)


Section – B

Further and Final Report on Implementation of G.O.Ms.No.610, G.A.(SPF-A) Department, dated 30-12-1985.

(This is in continuation of the Preliminary Report submitted within the stipulated period of 90 days, on 6-10-2001.)

VOLUME – II

Appendices, Annexures and Proceedings

(Relating to Volume I)

VOLUME – III

Report on Implementation of the Presidential Order on Public Services

Part – 2 (From 01-10-2003 To 10th May 2004).

1.9.1 It may be mentioned that the general issues mentioned in

Chapter-3 of the Preliminary Report and given in terms of the

points with Commission‟s observations have been included in the

Part-1 of this Report under the appropriate “Deviation Genre” and

“Finding”. However where any point in the Preliminary Report is

not found in the Final Report, the Commission‟s finding in the

Preliminary Report may be read as a part of the Final Report.


Time span

1.10.0 The Final Report in Parts-1 and 2 covers the time span from the

date of effect of the Presidential Order (18-10-1975) to the present

day up to the point when the report was written, the final phase of

which is up to 10-05-2004.

1.10.1 The time span covers many regimes. Most of the deviations had no

particular date of commencement, except where the specific points

of time of a deviation are mentioned in the Report.

Causes of Deviations

1.10.0 A reading of the Report will itself indicate which deviation can

be attributed to which cause. Some of the causes discerned by this

Commission are the following: -

1) Dynamics of administration. The pace of these has been

increasing day by day. The implications of various

administrative decisions that impinge on the Presidential

Order have gone either unnoticed or got ignored.

2) The Presidential Order had gradually been receding into the

limbo of oblivion. Hence its implications in the

administrative decisions, even in the matters of

reorganisations and far-reaching personnel and structural

changes and in the movement of personnel, did not even

cross the minds of the proposers and decision-makers.

While in every such decision the financial implications were

always examined and legal aspects kept in mind the

implications under the Presidential Order escaped attention


and tended to get ignored. Even where they did occur to the

concerned authorities, as in the case of workcharged

establishments, these were skirted and the easy way out

was adopted.

3) In some situations the imperatives/compulsions of

circumstances left no choice but to turn the Nelson‟s eye to

the provisions of the Presidential Order.

4) In a few cases patronage, favouritism or the blue-eyed boy

syndrome stand out quite patently and rather deplorably.

5) The ignorance and often misconception about or

misconstruance of some of the provisions of the Presidential

Order and of the instructions in G.O.s like G.O.P.No.728 and

G.O.P.No.729 of General Administration (SPF) Department,

both of 01-11-1975 quite often stand- out glaringly. One

finds free mention in official correspondence and discussions

of such things as “VII Zone” (some thing that does not

exist), “Free Zone” (referring to the City of Hyderabad),

“Non-local Quota” (which is nowhere contemplated in the

Presidential Order), interchangebality of the concept of

nativity with local candidate etc.. One finds even guiding

stars misguiding - for example the advice of the General

Administration (SPF) Department and orders of Finance

Department in the case of workcharged establishment and

its absorption, and Government Memos. on the issue of

compassionate appointments.

6) (a) Departments that have a very large cadre and which

include certain wings which are/were excluded from the

Presidential Order like Police and Irrigation and

Command Area Development Department;


(b) “Umbrella” Departments which have an integrated cadre

covering new offspring Departments - have some

genuine difficulty in cadre management particularly in

wings where they find stagnation due to original

defective staffing pattern or any other reason. Such

Departments tend to resort to amnesia now and then

with regard to the Presidential Order as the easy way

out.

(For this cause, see the Chapter-2).

7) Above all, a very important cause is the absence of any

device for (i) either on-going control or monitoring system

as Finance Department has through pre-audit process or

Law Department has through legal advice on files, or

inspections that the Social Welfare Department has OR (ii)

post-facto monitoring system such as audit for accounts,

and (iii) absence of a nodal agency to guide and control the

implementation of the Presidential Order, and (iv) absence

of a legislative controlling committee like Public Accounts

Committee, or Committees as there are for Scheduled

Castes, Scheduled Tribes and for Women which create a

feeling in the minds of the officials that they are accountable

to the Legislative Assembly through a Committee. Such

state of apparent absence of accountability enforcing

devices or agencies has tended to create an attitude of

indifference, some callousness with a sense of immunity and

impunity in the implementation of the Presidential Order

over the last almost three decades.

* * * * *


CHAPTER – 2

EXCLUSIONS UNDER PRESIDENTIAL ORDER

Heads of Departments (HODs)

(Deviation Genre No. I)

2.1.0 The offices of the Heads of Departments (HODs) come under

Para 14 (b) of the Presidential Order. The para says:-

“14. Saving: - Nothing in this Order shall apply to: -

b) any post in an office of the Head of a Deptt.,”

2.1.1 Under this Para six items are listed out from (a) to (f). At (b) it is

stated “any post in an office of the Head of a Department”. While

the phrase “Head of Department” is not defined anywhere in the

Presidential Order, there is an Annexure to G.O.P.No.728, General

Administration (SPF.A) Department, dated 01-11-1975, which

contains instructions pertaining to the Presidential Order and

Organisation of Local Cadres under this Order. The Annexure gives

a list of 51 Departments. Obviously therefore Para 14 (b) refers to

the Heads of these Departments.

2.2.0 Since 01-11-1975, in the last almost 28 years,

the dynamics of the administrative system have resulted in many

changes in the departmental pattern and structure of the

Government. ●

2.3.0 In the absence of a definition of “Head of

Department” in the Presidential Order, the “new” entities that have

appeared as a result of the variety of changes that have taken place

Finding No.1

Finding No.2


in the Departments listed out in the Annexure to G.O.P. 728, have

been treating their Head Offices as Offices of “Heads of

Departments”, rather erroneously (as we shall discover hereunder),

and applying to themselves the saving Para 14 (b) of the

Presidential Order. ●

2.3.1 We find from our meetings with the representatives of Heads of

Departments that the following are: -

Divided Departments

2.4.0 Some departments have been divided and have

become more than one department whereas all the functions of

these new departments were originally with the single department

which we may call the “Parent Department”, with a single Head

of Department (HOD). Such departments are: -

Parent

Department as per Annexure to

G.O.P No. 728

Name of the Parent

Department with Offspring Department

(now)

Name of the Secretariat

Department

1. Tourism

Department (Sl.No.2)

1. Director, Tourism

2. Director of Cultural Affairs

3. Director, Youth Services

Youth Advancement

Tourism and Culture Department

2. Agriculture Department

(Sl.No.3)

1. Commissioner of Agriculture

2. Commissioner of Horticulture

Agriculture &

Co-operation Department

3. Public Health &

Municipal Engineering

Department. (Sl.No.8)

1. Engineer-in-Chief, Public

Health 2. Engineer-in-Chief,

Hyderabad Metro Water Supply & Sewerage Board.

3. Chief Engineer, HMWS& SB.

4. Chief Engineer,

Municipal

Administration & Urban Development

Department.

Finding No.3


Public Health.

5. Chief Engineer, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad.

6. Chief Engineer, HUDA. 7. Chief Engineer,

Vijayawada Municipal Corporation.

8. Chief Engineer, Visakhapatnam Municipal

Corporation. 9. Chief Engineer, A.P Urban

Services for Poor.

4. Medical and Health Services


1. Director, Health. 2. Director, Medical

Education. 3. Commissioner, Family

Welfare. 4. Director, Drug Control

Administration. 5. Director, Institute of

Preventive Medicine,

Public Health Lab, Food (Health) Administration

6. A.P Vaidya Vidhana Parishad

7.Director, Insurance medical Services

Health Medical &

Family Welfare Department

LET & F

Department

5. Municipal Administration


1. Commissioner, Municipal Administration

Department. 2. Director, Town and

Country Planning

Municipal Administration &

Urban Development Department

6. Jail Department (Sl.No.14)

1. Director General & Inspector General of

Prisons & Correctional Services.

2. Commissioner, Juvenile Welfare & Correctional

Services.

Home Department

Women Development, Child

Welfare & Disabled Welfare Department


7. Judicial


1. Registrar of High Court.

2. Government Pleaders Office.

3. Member Secretary, State Legal Services Authority.

4. A.P Judicial Academy. 5. Director of Translations.

Law Department.

General

Administration Department

8. Revenue Department

(Sl.No.18)

1. Chief Commissioner, Land Administration.

2. Commissioner, Small Savings & State Lotteries.

Revenue Department

9. Education


1. Commissioner & director

of School Education. 2. Director, Adult Education.

3. Director, oriental manuscripts Library

Research institute. 4. Director & Special Officer

Jawahar Bal Bhavan 5. Director for Government

Examinations. 6. Commissioner, Collegiate

Education.

7. Commissioner, A.P State Archives.

8. Commissioner, Intermediate Education

Education (School Education)

Department

Education (Higher

Education) Department

10.Employment &

Training Department

(including S.S.A Boards)

(Sl.No.26)

1. Director, Employment &

Training

2. Director Sainik Welfare

Labour, Employment Training & Factories

Department

Revenue Department


11.Panchayati Raj

Engineering Department.

(Sl. No. 31)

1. Engineer-in-Chief,

Panchayati Raj, 2. Chief Engineer, Rural

Water Supply. 3. Chief Engineer,

Panchayati Raj. 4. Chief Engineer, Vigilance

& Quality Control. 5. Chief Engineer, Human

Resources Development. 6. Chief Engineer, NABARD.

Chief Engineer, World

Bank.

Panchayati Raj & Rural Development

Department

12.Panchayati Raj


1. Commissioner, Panchayati

Raj & Rural Development. 2. Commissioner of Rural

Development.

3.Commissioner Women Empowerment & Self

Employment.

Panchayati Raj & Rural Development

Department

Women Development, Child

Welfare & Disabled Welfare Department

13.Treasuries & Accounts


1. Director of Treasuries & Accounts.

2. Director of State Audit. 3. Director of Insurance.

Finance Department

14.Industries


1. Commissioner of

Industries. 2. Director of Sugar & Cane

Commissioner.

Industries & Commerce

Department

15.Handlooms &

Textiles Department

(Sl.No.38)

1. Commissioner of

Handlooms & Textiles.

2. Commissioner of Sericulture.

Industries & Commerce

Department

Agriculture & Co-operation

Department


16.Public Works

Department (Irrigation)

(Sl.No.39)

1. Engineer-in-Chief

Irrigation (A.W) 2. Engineer-in-Chief, Major

Irrigation. 3. Engineer-in-Chief,

Commissioner of Tenders. 4. Chief Engineer, Medium

Irrigation. 5. Chief Engineer, Minor

Irrigation. 6. Chief Engineer,

WALAMTARI

7. Chief Engineer, Nagarjuna Sagar Project.

8. Administrator cum Chief Engineer Sriramsagar

Project, Hyderabad. 9. Chief Engineer, NSRSP

10.Chief Engineer, Telugu Ganga Project,

Srikalahasti. 11.Chief Engineer, Godavari

Lift Irrigation Scheme. 12.Chief Engineer, Central

Designs Organisation. 13.Chief Engineer, Interstate

Water Resources.

14.Chief Engineer, Hydrology.

15.Chief Engineer, Tungabhadra Project

Cuddapah. 16.Chief Engineer, SRSP

Stage II, Warangal.

Irrigation &

Command Area Development

Department

17.Public Works

(Roads &

Buildings) Department.

(Sl.No.40)

1. Engineer-in-Chief,

Administration &

NABARD. 2. Chief Engineer, Roads.

3. Chief Engineer, Buildings. 4. Chief Engineer, National

Highways.

Transport, Roads & Buildings

Department

18.Social Welfare

Department.

1. Commissioner, Social

Welfare. Social Welfare

Department


(Sl.No.43)

2. Commissioner, Backward Classes Welfare.

3. Commissioner, Disabled

Welfare.

Backward Classes Welfare Department

Women

Development, Child Welfare & Disabled

Welfare Department

19.Tribal Welfare

Department.

(Sl.No.45)

1. Commissioner, Tribal

Welfare

2. Chief Engineer, Tribal Welfare

Tribal Welfare

Department

20.Factories & Boilers


1. Director of Factories.

2. Director of Boilers.

LET & F Department

Energy Department

21.Industrial

Tribunal. (Sl.No.48)

1. Chairman-cum-Presiding

Officer, Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court at

Visakhapatnam Guntur

Warangal Anantapur

Karimnagar Hyderabad I

Hyderabad II and Additional Industrial

Tribunal Hyderabad

The Presiding Officer of

Labour Court I Hyderabad Labour Court II Hyderabad

Labour Court III Hyderabad (Total 11)

LET & F Department

●

Departments whose names have undergone a change

2.5.0 The names of certain departments as they

appear in the Annexure have been changed as listed below:

Finding No.4


Sl.

No.

As Per Annexure

to G.O.P.No.728 Name of the Department (Now)

1. Public Health & Municipal

Engineering Department (Sl.No.8)

Engineer-in-Chief, Public Health

2. Jail Department

(Sl.No.14)

Director General & Inspector General of

Prisons & Correctional Services

3. Prosecuting Staff

(Sl.No.17)

Director of Prosecutions

4. Revenue Department (Sl.No.18)

Chief Commissioner of Land Administration.

5. Settlements, Survey & Land Records,


Commissioner, Survey Settlements & Land Records, Settlements & Jagir

Administrator

6. Public Libraries Department (Sl.No.25)

Director of Public Libraries & Registrar of Publications.

7. Bureau of Economics & Statistics (Sl.No.34)

Director of Economics & Statistics

8. Weights & Measures


Controller of Legal Metrology

9. Women & Child Welfare


Commissioner, Women Development,

Child Welfare & Disabled Welfare Department

●

Judicial Department

2.6.0 Sl.No.15 of Annexure to G.O.P No.728 has been

divided into various Heads of Departments as detailed above. In the

course of the Commission‟s discussions it was brought to light that

the Judicial Department as such is not observing the Presidential

Order in matters of appointments to the cadres which should

normally be a part of the district/zonal/local cadres such as the last

grade employees and non-gazetted staff who work in the Courts in

the Districts and in the Metropolitan City. Hon‟ble High Court as Head

of Department would fall under Para 14 (b) of the Presidential Order.

But the rest of the “Judicial Department”, the courts, and the offices

of the Law Officers and Public Prosecutors, other than those of the

Finding No. 5


High Court (i.e. those excluded under Para 14 (d), G.S.R. 527 (E),

item Nos. 23, 24, 25) would be subject to the provisions of the

Presidential Order. ●

2.7.0 Logically like all other departments a localization

scheme should have been sent to the Government with regard to all

these establishments and should have been approved by the

government. Logically again the Service Rules of the concerned

cadres mainly non-gazetted staff should have been submitted to the

One Man Commission (Sri Sundaresan) to be brought in conformity

with the localisation scheme. To the extent the Commission‟s

information goes, all this does not seems to have happened. ●

2.7.1 It is seen that the following offices pertaining to the “Judicial

Department” have been brought under G.S.R.527 (E) at Sl.Nos 23,

24 and 25 and declared as State Level Offices or Institutions which

come under para 14 (d) of the Presidential Order:

1. Offices of the Law Officers, } Viz. Advocate General- }

Govt. Pleaders and Public } Judicial Department. Prosecutor, High Court of }

Andhra Pradesh } 2. Office of the Administrator- }

General and Official Trustee, High } Court of Andhra Pradesh }

3. Office of the Editor, I.L.R (A.P) Series } Hyderabad }

2.8.0 Offices of the Judicial Dept included in G.S.R.

527(E) would be governed by the instructions pertaining to

deputations to offices under this G.S.R. contained in Para 9 (B) of

G.O.P.No.728, which requires the application of the principle of

equitable sharing of posts taken from local cadres on tenure basis. ●

Finding No.6

Finding No.7


2.8.1 Under sub paragraph (6) of Para 3 of the Presidential Order it is

notified that among the categories of posts for which separate

cadres have to be organised for the City of Hyderabad under G.S.R.

528 (E), the following posts under the Judicial Department are listed

at Sl.No 5:

“5.Judicial Posts belonging to the category of Lower Division Clerk and other categories

equivalent to or lower than that of a Lower Division Clerk, in the City Small Causes

Court and the Courts of the Metropolitan Magistrates and the Metropolitan Sessions

Judge”.

2.9.0 The entry under Sl.No.5 of G.S.R. 528(E) would

mean that other than the Courts mentioned herein and the Offices

of the Judicial Department excluded under G.S.R 527 (E) and the

Offices listed under Heads of Departments under the Judicial

Department list all the rest of the Judicial Courts and Offices are

subject to Presidential Order and local cadres have to be organised

in them.

2.10.0 In as far as City is concerned, for the posts

mentioned above in the Courts mentioned above, City cadre is to be

organised. In other words, above the level of Lower Division Clerk

in these Courts the Zonal posts will not come under City Cadre but

under Zone VI. It also means that Courts other than those

mentioned above are part of Hyderabad District Cadre for purposes

of Lower Division Clerk and below. The Zonal cadres of these

Courts would be in Zone VI. For the rest of the courts the

concerned district cadre and zonal cadres will apply. ●

Finding No.8

Finding No.9

Department


2.11.0 Remedial Action (I)

Localisation Schemes should be prepared for the cadres and posts

that come under local cadres as given in the above Findings and got

approved by the Government through procedures and channels

appropriate for the Judicial Department. Local cadres should be

formed accordingly. Those who do not fit into the local cadres as per

the Presidential Order should be sent to their appropriate local

cadres. Local candidates should be brought in as substitutes.

Retrospective seniorities and promotions should be fixed with

consequential benefits or losses as the case may be.

Industrial Tribunals

2.12.0 In the aforesaid Annexure to G.O.P No.728 at Sl.No.48 Industrial

Tribunal has been listed as a Department. In the meetings with the

officers of the department of Labour, Employment, Training and

Factories, it came to light that there are a number of Labour Courts

and Industrial Tribunals as detailed herein above, and each such

Tribunal is a Head of the Department.

2.12.1 Further some other departments also have their own Tribunals in

addition as listed hereunder. It was mentioned that they have no

subordinate offices and that each such Tribunal/Court is a Head of

Department:-

1. The A.P Administrative Tribunal, } General 2. Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings } Administration

3. Lok Ayuktha & Upalokayuktha } Department.

4. A.P Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. } Revenue Department.

5. Special Court under A.P Land Grabbing }

(Prohibition) Act


6. A.P. Co-operative Tribunal } Agriculture & Co-operation

Department.

7. A.P State Transport Appellate Tribunal } TR&B Department.

8. A.P Wakf Tribunal } Minority Welfare Dept.

2.12.2 The issue to be considered is whether these are all to be treated as

separate Heads of Departments falling under Para 14 (b) of the

Presidential Order, or as State Level Offices and Institutions under

G.S.R. 527 (E) or under neither, and hence on par with the District

Courts. The last alternative is prima facie inappropriate.

Between the other two alternatives, the first one is appropriate.

2.13.0 It appears to this Commission that the

Departmental Tribunals/Courts are more akin to the Industrial

Tribunal, which in the aforesaid Annexure appears as a Head of

Department (H.O.D).

2.13.1 The implication of this finding is that while their direct recruitment is

free from the localisation scheme under the Presidential Order, their

deputation has to follow the “fair share” principle laid down in

Para 9 (B) of G.O.P. No. 728.

2.13.2 The present practice seems to be flexible deputation regime. Most of

the deputationists come from the High Court or the Courts in the

City. Para 9 (B) does not contemplate this, and therefore, the

practice has to be changed, to be in conformity with the aforesaid

Para 9 (B), giving fair share to all the local cadres of the State.●

Finding No.10


2.14.0 The Industrial Tribunals and Labour Courts are

Heads of Departments. The Special Departmental Tribunals like

APAT are also to be treated on par with these tribunals. Hence they

have to follow the deputation regime laid down in Para 9 (b) of

G.O.P. 728 General Administration (SPF.A) Department dated 01-

11-1975. The present flexibility in this regard should yield place to

the above regime.

Departments Not Listed in the Annexure to G.O.P.No.728

2.15.0 The following departments are not listed in the

aforesaid Annexure to G.O.P No.728. They are also not offshoots

of any of the Departments listed in the Annexure. They are:-

1. Director of Protocol. } General

2. Chairman & Commissioner of Enquiries. } Administration 3. Director General, Dr. M.C.R, } Department

H.R.D Institute (IOA) } 4. D.G Vigilance & Enforcement. }

5. Director of Translations } 6. Estate Officer }

7. Raj Bhavan (Governor‟s Secretariat) }

8. Commissioner, Printing, Stationery & } Home Department

Stores Purchase. }

9. Pay & Accounts Officer } Finance Department

10. Department of Works & Projects } Finance (Works & (with no separate Officer designated } Projects) Dept.

as Head) }

11. Commissioner of Relief & Rehabilitation. } Revenue 12. State Editor, District Gazetteers. } Department

13. Commissioner of Minorities Welfare } Minorities Welfare } Department.

Each of these Departments is discussed below. ●

Finding No.11 8NNo.No.666:

Finding No.12


2.16.0 Director of Protocol: Under this Department there are Govt.

Guest Houses in the City and Jubilee Hall. There is an Additional

Director to assist the Director. Secretary, General Administration

(Poll) Department is Ex-officio Director. The Head of the Department

office is located in Jubilee Hall under the Additional Director.

2.17.0 Office of the Director of Protocol may be

treated as Head of Department office and its cadre strength may be

fixed separately from the staff of Jubilee Hall. ●

2.18.0 The officers and the staff of the Guest Houses

and of Jubilee Hall are in effect working in sub-ordinate offices and

should be normally subjected to localisation of cadres. In fact, all

the Guest Houses, T.B.s, Circuit Houses are only subordinate offices

of their respective controlling departments. ●

2.19.0 Chairman and Commissioner of Enquiries: The

Commissionerate is not in the nature of a Head of Department but

is a part of the Secretariat with the staff of the Secretariat working

in it.

2.20.0 Dr. MCRHRD Institute (IOA): This is headed

by a Director General. It is a Head of Department office located in

the Institute. The cadre strength of the Head of Department may

be fixed separately. The Institute by itself should be treated

separately and subjected to localisation scheme. ●

2.20.1 Director of Translations: It is a Head of Department office with

no subordinate offices.

Finding No.14

Finding No.13

Finding No.15


2.21.0 Director General Vigilance & Enforcement:

This office is a new office created under the General Administration

Department. It has a line hierarchy and subordinate offices in the

field. Like Anti Corruption Department, this Department also works

mostly by taking people on deputation. This entire Department

should be brought under G.S.R 526 (E) as Special Office or

Establishment. ●

2.22.0 Estate Officer: This is an operational office

directly functioning under the control of Principal Secretary

(Accommodation), General Administration Department. It has

therefore to follow the Localisation scheme. For deputationists it

has to take only from the Hyderabad District Cadre for District

Cadre posts and from zone VI for zonal posts. ●

2.23.0 Governor‟s Secretariat (Raj Bhavan): This

was not treated as Head of Department for purposes of Para 14 (b)

as it does not appear in the Annexure, though it existed at the time.

The Commission feels that it was intended to be treated as part of

the Secretariat under Para 14 (a) of the Presidential Order. ●

2.24.0 Department of Works & Projects: The Secretary, Finance (W&P)

Department is the Head of Department for this Department with no

separate Head of Department office. The subordinate offices of this

Department are already following the localization of cadres under

the Presidential Order. However if any of these offices are not doing

so they have to do so. The Divisional Accounts Officers are Gazetted

posts and have represented for being made Zonal posts and brought

under localization scheme. The Commission has found their claim

untenable under the Presidential Order, unless first/second gazetted

posts are all brought under the Third Schedule.

Finding No.18

Finding No.16

Finding No.17


2.24.1 Commissioner of Relief & Rehabilitation: It is functioning

through the Revenue Department of the Secretariat only.

2.24.2 Commissioner of Minorities Welfare: This is a new Department,

created after the Presidential Order. Under it 12 District Offices

have been established. For the time being, the staff is taken on

deputation. The Principal Secretary, Minorities Welfare is Ex-officio

Commissioner and functions from his office in the Secretariat only.

2.25.0 As and when a separate Head of Department

is appointed for the Department of Minorities Welfare, his office will

become Head of Department office. The District offices must be

brought under localization scheme. This would also mean that

deputationists must be taken from the concerned local cadres only.

No deputationist should be taken from any Head of Department

office. ●

Residue offices from the above list

2.26.0 These are: Sl Nos. (8) Commissioner of

Printing, Stationary & Stores Purchase (9) Pay and Accounts Officer

(13) State Editor, District Gazetteers. These offices existed at the

time of the Presidential Order but were not listed as Heads of

Departments. It is obvious that the concept of Head of Department

adopted for Para 14 (b) of the Presidential Order in the aforesaid

G.O.P 728 as seen from its Annexure is that among the existing

departments those which have no subordinate or field or line offices

but were themselves the line and operational offices, were not

considered as Head of Department offices but as line offices. They

were therefore not included in the Annexure. The above mentioned

Finding No.19

Finding No.20


offices are of that character and like all other offices of Hyderabad

district must have a localization scheme and form local cadres, if not

already done. So if they take anybody on deputation they must do

so only from the local cadre, that is Hyderabad district for the

district cadre posts, and zone VI for the zonal cadre posts.

Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board

2.27.0 The case of the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water

Supply & Sewerage Board is peculiar. In the Act through which the

Board was created, it is shown as a local body. A subsequent

clarification by the government said that it is not a local body.

However the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal has

suspended that clarification. Thus the Board is a local body subject

to the provisions of Presidential Order. The Issue is, can the Head

Office of the Board be treated as the office of Head of Department

under Para 14 (b) of the Presidential Order? The Board is a local

body and not a department. The entire local body is a single local

body and there is no concept of Head of Department for the local

body in terms of Para 14 (b) of the Presidential Order.

Remedial Action (II)

2.28.0 The Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board

should submit the localization scheme to the government and follow

the local cadre principles for the entire Board. To the extent it

takes persons on deputation it should take deputationists only from

the local cadre, viz Hyderabad District for district cadre posts and

zone VI for the zonal cadre posts. It should not take any persons

on deputation from the office of any Head of Department because

Finding No.21


that will deprive local candidates of their rights in the local cadre,

as Heads of Departments do not have a local cadre. ●

2.28.1 With regard to the Heads of Departments, apart from the specific

issues discussed above the following deviations from the

Presidential Order have been noticed:-

2.29.0 A department can only have one single Head.

It may have functional Wings with all-State responsibility. But there

can be only one Head of Department, or else it would not be a

Department. Para 14 (b) in Presidential Order is concerned with the

sole administrative Head of the Department. It is his office alone

that can come under the Saving provision of this Para. To leave no

doubt, an Annexure has been given in aforesaid G.O.P. 728 with a

list of Departments.

2.29.1 However, a review of the departmental scenario by the Commission

shows a proliferation and multiplication of Heads of Departments

mostly as offsprings of the Departments in that Annexure. Heads of

Wings have become Heads of Departments within and as a part of

the same Department. There cannot be a Department within a

Department. But the strange phenomenon observed is that the

Engineering departments like Irrigation & Command Area

Development Department, Roads & Building Department,

Panchayati Raj Engineering Department, Health Department have

hydra headed departmental structure, i.e. each of these

departments has more than one Head of Department. The

Irrigation & Command Area Development Department has 16 Heads

of Departments, the R & B Department has 5 and the PR

Engineering Department has 7 and Health Department has 7. Herein

Finding No.22


after we shall refer to them as “Umbrella Departments”. The

Irrigation & Command Area Development Department has gone to

the extent of even treating every Head of a Major Project as a Head

of Department.

2.29.2 The issue therefore is how many offices of Heads of Departments

can a single Department have? How many Heads of Departments

offices of one single Department are to be brought under the saving

provision of Para 14 (b) of the Presidential Order? Are the various

Chief Engineers/Engineers-in-Chief of Irrigation & C.A.D

Department and of the other Engineering Departments to be

treated as Heads of Departments within the “Umbrella”

Departments in which they work and are the offices of all of them

to be treated as Head of Department offices to be excluded under

Para 14 (b) of the Presidential Order? Are they or are they not,

parts of the single respective “Umbrella” Department within which

they are subsumed? At the time of the Presidential Order there

may not have been separate Chief Engineers or Engineers-in-Chief

or Directors, as the case is now, for all of them. But all of them

were subsumed under their respective single “Umbrella”

Departments, as for example, Irrigation and C.A.D Department,

Roads & Buildings Department, Panchayati Raj Engineering

Department, Public Health & Municipal Engineering Department,

and the original Medical and Health Services Department, now the

Health Department?

2.29.3 The various Chief Engineers have no doubt their separate

budgetary heads but they have all a single unified cadre of

employees of various cadres, categories and levels - the district

cadre, the zonal cadre, the Specified Gazetted Categories of the


Third Schedule of the Presidential Order, as well as the State

cadres. Within the territorial limitations of the District or the Zone,

Multi-zone or State, as the case may be, they are all

interchangeable between the different so called Departments within

the “Umbrella” Department and their respective line organisations

and hierarchies. At the level of the so-called separate Heads also

the staff is either interchangeable as in Irrigation and C.A.D., Public

Health and Municipal Engineering and Health Department or unified

in a single office as in R & B Department and P.R. Engineering

Department. Each of these “Umbrella” departments has its common

and unified cadre at all levels and a single head in-charge of

administration and establishment, service and cadre control.

2.30.0 It is inconceivable to have multiple departments

with multiple heads within a single “Umbrella” Department with the

above said attributes. There is no concept in any administrative

system of a hydra-headed department. The different functional

wings of these departments were there at the time of the

Presidential Order too, though not as many as they are now.

Hence, The Annexure to G.O.P. 728 mentioned above listed only

the “Umbrella” Departments to be brought under the excluding

provision of Para 14 (b) of the Presidential Order. Designations do

not make a separate Department out of a wing of a department.

Remedial Action (III)

2.31.0 (a) The concept adopted in the Annexure to G.O.P. 728 which

reflects the intention of the Presidential Order cannot be tinkered

with or mutated.

Finding No.23


(b) In the light of rationale at (a) above, each of the “Umbrella”

Departments mentioned above, can have only one Head of

Department office: as under

1. Engineer-in-Chief in charge of Administration in the case of all the Engineering Departments.

2. Director of Health in the case of all the Departments, which are offshoots of the erstwhile Health and Medical

Services Department.

(c) In applying these findings it may be clarified that the two

Engineering Departments namely Roads & Buildings Department

and Panchayati Raj Department, which do not have separate offices

for the different Chief Engineers/Engineers-in-Chief, have combined

the staff of all the wings under different Chief Engineers/Engineers-

in-Chief in one single office. In these cases the staff of the Head of

Department as such has to be earmarked and its cadre strength

fixed, relating it solely to the Head of Department‟s role and

functions. The rest of the staff working under the other wings

(Chief Engineers and Engineers-in-Chief) even if it is in the same

office would be treated as the staff of those wings and not of Head

of Department office.

(d) Cadre strength should be clearly fixed for each of the

“Umbrella” Heads of Departments discussed above, relating it to its

functions and role only as Head of Department. Staff relating to

the functions, which are line functions, executive, operational,

programmatic field functions should be demarcated and that staff

should not be counted as the Head of Department staff. Today, in

the offices discussed above the two categories of staff are mixed

and all of them are counted as Head of Department staff and

excluded under Para 14 (b) of the Presidential Order. Only the


cadre strength so fixed for the staff of the Head of Department

office should be excluded under Para 14 (b) of the Presidential

Order. All the rest of the staff in the single as well as the separate

offices of the Chief Engineers of the department (barring Major

Projects) shall be treated as unit offices like circles and other units

and will be subject to the local cadre principles. Same principle will

apply to all the other “Parent” and “Umbrella” Departments.

(e) Localisation schemes for the offices at (d) above should be

submitted by the Head of each Parent and Umbrella Department in

Annexure-1 of this Report to the Government for approval. Local

cadres should be formed in these offices and the Service Rules

should be revised so as to conform to localisation schemes to which

they should be subjected. For each such office its own cadre

strength should be fixed so as to clearly demarcate the localised

cadres from the excluded cadre of the Head of Department office.

(f) Fixation of cadre strength of the Head of Department offices

should be done for all the Heads of Departments. The up-to-date

list of Heads of Departments that should replace the existing

Annexure to G.O.P. 728 in the light of the observations and findings

given above is given as Annexure-1 to this Report.

(g) A Scheme of Localisation as envisaged in Para 9 (A) of the

aforesaid G.O.P. 728 should be prepared and got approved by the

Government, by each of the Departments in the updated list in

Annexure-1 to this Report, if not already done. They must no doubt

have formed local cadres on an ad hoc basis. But these should be

made definite and final under an approved Scheme of Localization.

In this regard, General Administration (SPF) Department has also

issued Circular U.O.Note No.2489/SPF-A.1/2002-1, dt. 02-07-2002


and Circular U.O.Note No.2489/SPF-A.1/2002-3, dated 05-12-2002

requesting all the Departments of the Secretariat and Heads of

Departments to verify and examine whether all the posts under

their administrative control were organized into local cadres and

brought under the purview of relevant State/Zone/Districts cadres

as required.

(h) Service Rules should also be revised in the light of the

recommendation of Sunderesan Commission by such Departments

as are still lagging behind in this matter. After the approval of

localisation schemes mentioned at (e) & (g) above, commensurate

changes required in the Service Rules should be carried out

particularly where Units of Appointment have to be brought in

consonance with the localisations schemes

WALAMTARI:

2.32.0 WALAMTARI has been treated as Head of

Department office. It is not a Head of Department office. It is in

fact a Training Institute, which trains employees from all districts.

Therefore it should be brought under G.S.R.527 (E) on par with

Engineering Research Labs as a State Level Office.

Tribal Welfare Engineering Department

2.33.0 This department was constituted as a separate

department in 1984 with the Chief Engineer declared as the Head of

Department. The budget is still being operated by the Tribal

Welfare Department since prior to 1984 the Commissioner was the

Head of the Department. The Chief Engineer takes the staff for his

office on deputation from other Engineering Departments and from

Finding No. 24

Finding No. 25


the Tribal Welfare department. In taking the staff on deputation the

principle of fair share laid down in Para 9 (B) of G.O.P. 728 is not

being observed. It is left to the discretion of the lending

departments to give the employees on deputation from whatever

local cadre they choose, from time to time, and also from their

Heads of Department offices. Strictly speaking, all deputations are

governed by the fair share principle laid down in Para 9 (B) of

G.O.P. 728. To operationalise this principle in taking staff from

other departments, the method would be that the borrowing

department must workout the fair share for each district cadre and

zonal cadre for each of the categories of staff required by it while

asking for staff on deputation from any category from any

department, it must requisition only on the basis of the fair share

for the particular category from different local cadres and ensure

that at any time the composition of the office reflects this fair share

proportion for each category. When the borrowing is done from

different departments, the onus of working out the fair share for

each category of staff whether technical or non-technical lies on the

borrowing department. Maintaining this fair share ratio, category

wise, at all times is also the responsibility of the borrowing

departments. This is a matter of common sense because the total

picture is available only to the borrowing department.

Remedial Action (IV)

2.34.0 The findings given herein above contain within themselves the

remedial action to be taken and separate notes on Remedial action

would be redundant.


Other deviations through this source (Namely HODs under

Para 14 (b) of the Presidential Order) :

2.35.0 In Chapter-3 on Regional Offices, we have

mentioned how in some of the departments Viz. Director of Town

and Country Planning, Director of Municipal Administration,

Commissioner of State Archives, the posts in the Regional Offices

are being treated as posts of the Head of the Department and

excluded from the purview of the Presidential Order under Para 14

(b) of the order.

2.36.0 Some of the departments are stretching the

scope of the office of the Head of the Department (HOD) to cover

the staff in some of the Institution of the departments at the state

level. The cases that have come to the Commission‟s notice are:

(i) Fire Services Training School in the Department of Fire Services

(ii) State Health Transport Organisation in the Department of Health

(iii) Tribal Cultural Research and Training Institute in the Tribal

Welfare Department. In all the above cases the Institute‟s staff has

been treated as the staff of Head of Department and wrongly

excluded from the purview of the Presidential Order under

Para 14 (b).

2.37.0 Regional offices and the Institutes of the

departments are not a part of the office of the Head of Department

and have to be treated like any other subordinate office.

Localisation schemes should be prepared for such offices and local

cadres in these offices should be constituted.

Finding No.26

Finding No.27

Finding No.28


Remedial Action (V)

2.38.0 The findings Nos. 26, 27 and 28 contain their own remedial action,

which need not separately be explained. Head of Department

status to these offices or Institutions should be forthwith

withdrawn. Head of Department‟s office cadre strength should be

separately fixed. The existing staff should be reallocated such that

local candidates are retained in these offices to the extent of 80%

for district cadres and 70% for zonal cadres and 60% wherever

applicable. For the remaining 20%, 30% and 40% posts the

allocation of the candidates should be made broadly following the

principles laid down for initial allotment in Para 4 (2) of the

Presidential Order mutates mutandis. It is to be understood that

these 20%, 30% and 40% posts are not intended to be reserved

for non-locals. Hence above procedure is herein recommended.

Where the existing staff falls short of the stipulated percentage of

reservation for local candidates, the actual number of shortfall

should be treated as a backlog for local candidates and made good

as backlog through direct recruitment. Non-locals should be sent

back to their respective local cadres. The consequential promotion

vacancies should be filled in by promoting the local candidates to

the extent of the percentage applicable to the zonal cadres.

Final List of Heads of Departments

2.39.0 The Commission has gone through the list of HODs given in the

following sources:

1. Annexure to G.O.P. 728, dt: 01.11.1975 General Administration

(SPF.A) Department (consisting of 51 Departments)

2. A.P. Financial Code (consisting of 66 HODs)


3. A.P. Fundamental Rules (consisting of 78 HODs)

4. Budget Manual (consisting 54 HODs)

5. List provided by the Planning Department prepared for

purposes of performance based monitoring and evaluation system (consisting of 135 HODs)

6. List provided by the Finance Department giving Head of

Department wise non-plan and plan allocations (consisting of 204 HODs)

7. List provided by the General Administration Department

(consisting 145 HODs)

8. List provided by the Director of Economics and Statistics

prepared for employees census 2001 (consisting of 134 HODs)

2.39.1 The Commission has put all the above lists in juxtaposition and

arrived at what should be the present list of Heads of Departments

that which would validly qualify for exclusion under Para 14 (b) of

the Presidential Order. This list is given as Annexure-1 to this

Report.

Remedial Action (VI)

2.40.0 The list given in Annexure-1 to this Report should replace the

Annexure in G.O.P 728.


Major Development Projects

(Deviation Genre No. II)

Heads of Projects

2.41.0 Major Development Projects are entities

different and distinct from departments. These are listed out in

G.S.R. 525 (E) issued in pursuance of clause (g) of sub paragraph

(1) of paragraph 2 of the Presidential Order. Obviously therefore

the offices of the Heads or Chief Engineers/Engineers-in-chief of

these Projects cannot be, and are not, Heads of Departments as

they are Heads of Projects. These were never intended to be

excluded under Para 14 (b) of the Presidential Order. On the other

hand the Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation & C.A.D has informed that

the non-locals from the offices of the Heads of Projects were not

repatriated after 1985 when the Presidential Order was applied,

because they are in the offices of the Heads of Departments

(treating the Project Heads as Heads of Departments). This has

been a gross violation of the Presidential Order. Treating Heads of

Projects as Heads of Departments has been and continues to be a

contravention of the Presidential Order.

2.41.1 In 1985 when Presidential Order was applied to the Projects

through G.O.Ms No.455 General Administration (SPF.A)

Department, dated 03-10-1985 amending Para 14 (e) of the

Presidential Order, these offices had to come under the localisation

scheme which should have been submitted to the government and

local cadres should have been formed in these offices, in terms of

Para 9 (A) of G.O.P.No.728. This was not done, though in an

ad hoc way localization was applied to the Project offices except to

Finding No.29


their Head Offices. Not doing so has been and continues to be a

gross violation of the Presidential Order.

Remedial Action (VII)

2.42.0 (A) Localisation schemes should be submitted at least now,

forthwith, for approval to the Government under Para 9 (A) of

G.O.P.No.728 and local cadres formed accordingly, replacing

whatever ad hoc localisation has been going on, in respect of Major

Projects and their Head Offices, with effect from 03-10-1985.

Meanwhile the non-locals in the Head Offices should be repatriated

and with immediate effect local cadres formed.

(B) All consequential action should be taken to right the wrong that

has been perpetrated by treating the Head Offices of the Projects as

Heads of Departments.

Incomplete inclusion of Major Development Projects in the

Presidential Order in 1985:

2.43.0 The savings Para-14 of Presidential Order excludes under item (e)

“Any post other than a post belonging to any of the non-gazetted

categories in the Ministerial and Technical Services in a Major

Development Project”. This provision was inserted as an

amendment to item „e‟ of Para 14 by G.O.Ms.No.455 General

Administration (SPF.A) Department, dated 03.10.1985. Before this

G.O. the Major Projects were totally excluded from the Presidential

Order. Initially the simple entry under item „e‟ just read “Major

Development Projects”. That entry totally excluded them, like the

other items under Para 14 from the purview of the Presidential

Order.


2.43.1 It was in pursuance of Para-5 (2) of G.O.Ms.No.610 General

Administration (SPF.A) Department, dated 30-12-1985 and

G.O.Ms.No.564 General Administration (SPF.A) Department,

dated 05-12-1985 that the 33 Major Development Projects of

Para 14 (e), notified under G.S.R. 525 (E), were brought under the

purview of the Presidential Order, but these were not brought fully

under the Presidential Order. There was also a promise in both

the G.O.s mentioned hereinabove, for extending the Presidential

Order to these Projects with retrospective effect from 1983, but

that was not to be.

2.44.0 The exclusion from the Presidential Order of

AEEs and DEEs of the Projects of G.S.R. 525 (E) has become a

source for quite some deviations from the Presidential Order.

2.44.1 Why the Specified Gazetted Categories, AEEs and DEEs in the

Projects have not been brought under the Presidential Order while

bringing only the non-gazetted posts under it, is not known. The

result of this omission has been that for these posts in the Projects,

the Officers are taken only on deputation from the concerned

departments. This implies that the status quo that existed with

regard to these posts in Para-9 (B) of G.O.P. No.728, dated

01-11-1975 has been continued. It is also significant to note that

the posts of AEEs in general were originally brought under Para 8

(3) of the Presidential Order as local cadre posts with 60%

reservation for local candidates. While that was the position for the

AEEs in the departments, the Presidential Order was not extended

to them when it was extended to the Projects in 1985 through

amendment to item (e) of Para 14 of the Presidential Order, under

Finding No.30


G.O.Ms No.455 General Administration (SPF.A) Department, dated

03-10-1985.

2.44.2 It is also obvious that noticing this omission, the specific demand

was made for extending the Presidential Order to AEEs and this was

conceded in G.O.Ms No. 610 (as also in the aforesaid G.O.Ms

No. 564 on Rayalseema).

2.44.3 The commitment made by the Government under Para-5 (2) of

G.O.Ms.No.610 General Administration (SPF.A) Department, dated

30-12-1985 and G.O.Ms.No.564 General Administration (SPF.A)

Department, dated 05-12-1985, in this regard, has not so far been

fulfilled. The total action would have been to bring under the

purview of the Presidential Order all the posts that are covered by

the Presidential Order for the Irrigation and CAD Department and

other Engineering Departments, which would include the Specified

Gazetted Categories of AEES and DEEs also. The non-locals under

the categories of AEEs were also intended to be repatriated.

Instead these posts became a source of influx of non-locals through

the process of deputation from other zones. This influx was not

even regulated under Para 9(B) of G.O.P. No.728.

2.44.4 These have become a free hunting ground for posting AEEs and

DEEs on deputation from anywhere. The glaring example of this

pathetic situation has been brought out in the case of deputations

from Public Health Engineering Department to Hyderabad

Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board vide Proceedings

No. 64 in Volume II of this Report.


Posts that ceased to be utilised for Projects

2.45.0 The posts of AEEs and DEEs that have, from

time to time, ceased to be utilised for Project works should not be

treated as Project posts right from the actual time when they

ceased to be used for Project works, ever since then they have been

diverted de facto, on ground, to regular departmental work and for

maintenance work. From that time onwards they should have

ceased to fall under the purview of item (e) of Para 14 of the

Presidential Order and should have ceased to be excluded from the

purview of the Presidential Order.

2.45.1 In fact, most of the Major Development Projects have also been

completed long ago but continue to be in the list under G.S.R.

No.525 (E). In the normal course, after the Presidential Order was

extended to them, this should not matter. But as already

mentioned, it is seen from G.O.Ms.No.455 G.A. (SPF) Department

dated 03-10-1985 and the amended item (e) of Para 14 of the

Presidential Order that these Projects were not brought fully under

the Presidential Order but only to the extent of non-gazetted posts.

As a result they continued to be excluded for purposes of all the

Specified Gazetted Categories including AEEs and DEEs, which are

in the Third Schedule. It is irrelevant whether such Projects have

not been formally notified as completed, for various technical or

financial considerations. The rationale is that, when any post ceases

to be utilised for the Project work and is diverted to for utilisation

on department‟s functions and for maintenance, it cannot be

treated as a Project post, under item (e) of Para 14 of the

Presidential Order. It is also irrelevant whether the Project itself

was formally deleted from G.S.R. 525 (E) or not. The crucial test is

Finding No.31


the utilisation of the post. Hence the moment a post ceased to be

utilised actually and de facto, on ground on Project work it should

have been included in the localisation scheme of the department.

As a departmental post it is immaterial whether the department got

it converted to a departmental post or continued it as a Project post

to avoid the hassles involved in conversion what with all the bans of

creation of new posts, ban on recruitment etc.

It has to be remembered that the Presidential Order applies to

posts and not to material works. If there is no project work there

cannot be Project posts. They become ipso facto departmental

posts

2.45.2 In this context, the glaring examples are of the Irrigation Projects

like Nagarjuna Sagar Project, Godavari Barrage Project,

Vamsadhara Project, Srisailam Project, etc. Similarly Manjira Water

Supply Scheme Second Phase, Remodelling of Water Distribution

System in the Twin Cities (of Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply

& Sewerage Board) are also completed Projects. Instead of

bringing their AEEs and DEEs under local cadres, those posts have

been wrongly treated as Project posts even after the dates from

which those posts ceased to be used for actual Project works. Due

to this incorrect action, non-locals from other zones have been

regularly and improperly posted and are being posted on

deputation, depriving the local candidates of their rightful

opportunities of appointment by direct recruitment, zonal seniorities

and promotions to such posts in their respective local zones and

consequential concomitant benefits.


2.45.3 The case of Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage

Board (H.M.W.S & S.B), item Nos. 11 & 14 of G.S.R. 525 (E), which

we have mentioned above is fully discussed in the Commission‟s

Proceedings No. 64 which is included in Volume II of the Report.

That case is a pathetic example of the injustices that can be

perpetrated on local candidates in the name of deputation to

Projects, when the Projects have long ceased to exist. If the

Specified Gazetted Categories of the Projects had been brought

under the Presidential Order in 1985 along with the non-gazetted

categories there would have been no scope for such unfairness to

local candidates and undue advantage to AEEs and DEEs of other

zones. In this particular case the affected parties happen to belong

to the city cadre and zone VI. It is well nigh impossible for

individuals or Associations to know how far this principle has been

followed or violated.

Remedial Action (VIII)

2.46.0 (1) The posts that ceased to be utilised for Project works, de facto

and on ground, even though not converted to regular

departmental posts, should be included in the localisation

schemes and brought under the relevant local cadres with

effect from the date each of them ceased to be used for Project

work. With effect from such actual dates all the consequential

benefits to those deprived wrongfully should be restored

retrospectively, while reversing the benefits wrongfully enjoyed

by those who were benefited unduly.

(2) Immediate orders may be issued stopping all the deputations

to the posts earmarked in the name of Projects where they are


not utilized for actual Project work, and deputationists

occupying such posts reverted to their original zones/districts.

(3) Purely as a logical step, which may not necessarily be the best

option in pragmatic terms, an order may be got issued by the

Government of India deleting item (e) of Para 14 of the

Presidential Order and the entire G.S.R. 525 (E) with effect

from 01-01-1986. The commitments for inclusion of AEEs‟

posts in the Presidential Order were made on 05-12-1985

(G.O.Ms.No.564) and 30-12-1985 (G.O.Ms.No.610). Hence,

this date. DEEs‟ inclusion is concomitant to the inclusion of

AEEs, as these are promotion posts placed in the Third

Schedule. So, on par with the departmental posts of AEEs, the

Project posts of AEEs would have to be put in a common zonal

seniority for promotion to the posts of DEEs. So, the only way

to make good the omission and bring these posts under the

Presidential Order with effect from the last date of commitment

in G.O.Ms.No. 610 is, to amend Para 14 of the Presidential

Order to completely delete item (e) with effect from

01-01-1986 and as a concomitant action, delete G.S.R.

525 (E). This measure will also stop the misuse of the posts in

the completed works which are now being used for bringing in

non-locals on deputations in the name of such posts being

Project posts.

(4) After the deletions proposed in (3) above are duly notified, with

immediate effect thereafter the AEEs and DEEs posts shown as

Project posts should be brought under a revised localisation

scheme of each of the concerned departments to include the

Projects posts in them. Necessary re-shuffling of locals and

non-locals may then be effected.


(5) Retrospective effect to the consequential action, arising out of

the deletions proposed in (3) above, would adversely affect

vested interests and rights of those who were appointed/

promoted validly under the then existing dispensation that was

allowed to continue despite the commitments in the two G.Os

mentioned in (3) above. The resultant contentions and

litigations in this regard may be taken into consideration if the

retrospective deletions are effected. The course legally advised

may be taken. The hassle-less course would seem to be to

make deletion of item (e) of Para 14 and GSR 525(E)

prospectively, but immediately, effective. The Hobson‟s choice

before the Government and the employees associations is

between the logical remedial action in (3) above, which is

fraught with unending litigations and stay orders, or the

pragmatic hassle-less course mentioned above. This will no

doubt leave the grievance about Government‟s lack of follow-

up action on G.O.Ms 610 (and 564) for 18 years leading to a

Hobson‟s choice at this stage.

(6) Remedial action in the case of HMWS&SB mentioned above,

has been given in detail in the Commission‟s Proceedings No.

64 in Volume II of this Report.

(7) All consequential action based on the above remedial measures

may be taken.

New Projects

2.47.0 From the case of Hyderabad Metropolitan Water

Supply & Sewerage Board it is also found that new Projects which

have been started recently like Krishna Drinking Water Project and

Mega City Project are being treated as Projects under

Finding No.32


G.S.R. 525 (E) and the posts of Specified Gazetted Categories

(AEEs and DEEs) in these Projects are being excluded from local-

cadres and these posts are filled through deputation. This is a

contravention of the Presidential Order. Until a Project is included

under G.S.R. 525 (E), it is like a departmental unit subject to local-

cadres being found therein. In the case of all such Projects all the

posts up to and including the Specified Gazetted Cadre should be

brought under localization scheme to be approved by the

Government and local cadres formed.

Remedial Action (IX)

2.48.0 All the AEEs and DEEs under the new Projects not appearing in

G.S.R. 525 (E) should be repatriated to their original posts. The

vacancies should be filled by officials of the local-cadre of the local

area in which their offices are located at present. In the case of

H.M.W.S. & S.B. the Krishna Drinking Water Project and Mega City

Project offices are located in the “City of Hyderabad”, only the

officer of the city cadre should be posted there. Retrospective

consequential action may be taken to restore due seniorities and

promotions to the AEEs and DEEs of the City Cadre in respect of

these posts and conversely those who wrongfully occupied these

posts from other cadres should be repatriated and the seniorities

and promotions of those who wrongfully occupied these posts

should be duly revised.

Workcharged Establishment in Projects

2.49.0 Workcharged establishments in the Projects as

well as in the Departments mainly in the Engineering Departments

constitute a substantial work force, which has been placed outside

Finding No.33


the purview of the Presidential Order without any provision in the

Presidential Order to justify or validate such exclusion. This is

discussed in detail under separate Genre “Workcharged

Establishment”.

Other Entries Under Para 14 and G.S.R. 529(E)

(Deviation Genre No. III)

2.50.0 There have been changes, since the

Presidential Order, in the G.S.R. 525 (E), G.S.R. 526 (E),

G.S.R. 527 (E) and G.S.R. 529 (E). A list of deletions, additions

and modifications is given below. These may be incorporated

through an amendment under the Government of India orders so

that the G.S.R.s will be updated.

2.50.1 (A) G.S.R. 525 (E)

Sl.No.33 Delete (Cyclone re-construction project assisted by World Bank). In fact, the entire G.S.R. has been

proposed for deletion hereinabove. (B) G.S.R 526 (E)

Sl.No.7 Delete (Flying Squad – Transport Department)

Sl.No.8 Delete (Mobile Survey Parties – Settlements, Survey & Land Records Department)

Sl.No.16 Delete (Coffee Circle, Visakhapatnam -

Forest Department).

Sl.No.18 Delete (Working Plan Divisions – Forest Department)

Sl.No.19 Delete (Flying Squads – Forest Department)

Sl.No.20 Delete (Rigs Divisions – Panchayati Raj Engineering

Department)

Finding No.34


Sl.No.20(a) Delete (Rigs Workshop, Hyderabad – P.R Engineering

Department)

Sl.No.20(b) Delete (Rigs Workshop, Vijayawada – P.R Engineering

Department)

Sl.No.20(c) Delete (Rigs Workshop, Cuddapah – P.R Engineering Department)

Sl.No.20(d) Delete (Vigilance & Quality Circle, Hyderabad – P.R

Engineering Department)

Sl.No.20(e) Delete (Vigilance Cell, Hyderabad – P.R Engineering Department)

Sl.No.20(f) Delete (Quality Control Division, Hyderabad – P.R.


Sl.No.20(g) Delete (Quality Control Division, Vijayawada – P.R.


Sl.No.22 Delete (Roads & Buildings Mechanical Circle, Vijayawada – Roads & Buildings Department)

Sl.No.25 Delete (Logging Project Circle, Khammam – Forest

Department)

Sl.No.26 Delete (Command Area Development Circle & divisions – Roads & Buildings Department)

Sl.No.26A Delete (Wildlife Management Circle – Forest

Department)

Sl.No.28 Delete (Electrical Divisions of the R & B Department at

Hyderabad and Guntur – R & B Department)

(C) G.S.R.527 (E)

Sl.No.11: Delete (Institute of Preventive Medicine including

State Drug Laboratory and Government Analyst Organisation, Hyderabad – Medical & Health Services

Department)

Sl.No.32: Substitute the entry as A. Madhav Reddy Andhra Pradesh Academy of Rural Development – in place of

State Institute of Community Development and

Panchayati Raj.


Sl.No.51: Substitute the entry as Residential Special Schools in place of Residential Special Schools at Visakhapatnam,

Mahaboobnagar, Anantapur, Nalgonda & Guntur.

(D) G.S.R 529 (E)

Sl.No.4: Substitute the post “Superintendent” in place of “Accountant” (Fire Service Department)

Sl.No.12: Delete (All categories of posts above LDCs in the Sainik

Boards - Employment & Training Department (Employment Wing) including Sainik Boards).

Remedial Action (X)

2.51.0 (1) It has to be ascertained whether the posts belonging to the

organisations proposed for deletion were disbanded or as in the

case of Projects were utilised by the departments. In the latter

case it should be ascertained whether the same pattern of

incorrect action as is being followed in case of Projects, has

also been going on in respect of the above mentioned

organisations namely that the posts continue to be earmarked

for these non existing organisations and utilised in the

department taking them on deputation basis from other local

cadres as if they were covered by the exclusion of Para 14 of

the Presidential Order.

(2) In case this is being done it should be stopped and if the posts

are actually required by the department they should be

brought under localisation scheme of the concerned

department and the posts included in the relevant local cadres.

In such a case retrospective action has to be taken with all

retrospective consequential benefits to the local candidates

wrongfully deprived, and reversal of wrongful benefits enjoyed


by the non-local candidates from other local cadres brought in

there. Such candidates should be immediately repatriated.

(3) The posts of these organisations that are redundant and not

required should be disbanded.

Inclusions proposed

2.52.0 Under the G.S.Rs the following inclusions are proposed and the

same are to be included after obtaining necessary orders of the

Government of India: -

(A) Under G.S.R. 526 (E)

Logging Project Circle, Rajahmundry – Forest Department.

(B) Under G.S.R. 527 (E)

1. Office of the Inspector of - School Education Department.

Physical Education, Kakinada

2. Office of the Inspector of - School Education Department.

Physical Education, Hyderabad

3. Forest Utilization Office, - Forest Department.

Hyderabad

4. Drug Control Laboratory, - Drug Control Administration Vijayawada Department.

5. Tribal Culture Research & - Tribal Welfare Department. Training Institute, Hyderabad

(C) Under G.S.R. 529 (E)

1. All categories of posts other - Electrical Divisions of R & B

than Ministerial posts Department.

2. All categories of posts - AP Yogadhyana Parishad

3. All categories of posts other - Port Department.

than Ministerial posts


2.53.0 Para 9 (B) of G.O.P 728 provides the number of

posts in the Special Office or Establishment notified under

G.S.R 526 (E) shall be apportioned amongst the local cadres

located within the territorial limits of the areas served by each

office or establishment in proportion to the basic strength of such

local cadres. The Commission has no specific instance before it but

has a general apprehension that this provision is not being

followed.

Remedial Action (XI)

2.54.0 The Government may call for reports from the concerned

departments and examine whether there is any deviation from this

provision.

Incompatible Marriage, Intricate Divorce

2.55.0 In the Technical Education Department,

employees appointed in the three State-level Institutions under

G.S.R. 527 (E), viz Institute of Leather Technology, Hyderabad,

Institute of Electronics, Hyderabad and the Institute of Printing

Technology, Secunderabad, were treated as employees of the City

cadre, right from the beginning of the Presidential Order. Other

offices of the Department in the city and these Institutions together

took the vacancies as a pool and allotments were made from out of

the candidates recruited for all those pooled vacancies. For

promotions also, the common seniority has been taken for the City

cadre personnel along with the personnel of these three State Level

Institutions treating them as interchangeable and as common unit

of appointment. Actually each of the State Level Institutions should

have been treated as a separate unit of appointment etc. as per

Finding No.35

Finding No.36


Para 14 (d) of the Presidential Order and not brought under the City

cadre. Instead of doing this all the City cadre establishments

including these State Level Institutions were treated as a single unit

of appointment. Thus, the seniorities of personnel of both City level

Institutions and of these Institutions got distorted and one is not

able to say who have gained and who lost in such an invalid

integrated cadres. (Please see the Proceedings No. 66 in Volume II

of this Report).

Remedial Action (XII)

2.56.0 The cadre strength of each of State-level Institution and City cadre

offices should be demarcated in respect of each category. Through

options, persons may be allocated to each of the cadres. By fixing

some criteria of merit etc., the allocation of staff to each unit should

be completed. The seniority etc. should be re-fixed as per that

merit. Seniorities should be fixed for each unit of appointment.

Necessary changes may be made in the Service Rules to

disentangle each of the State level Institutions from the City cadre

offices. The future recruitment to each of the State-level Institution

should be made separately as a separate unit of appointment so

also the seniority, promotion etc. The offices within the city of

Hyderabad which fall under City cadre can have integrated cadre,

separate from the State-level Institutions.

2.56.1 There appears to be no possibility or need for retrospective action.

The separation should be in such a way that there is least harm

caused to any employee in terms of his seniority, promotion

prospects etc.


* * * * *

CHAPTER - 3

REGIONAL OFFICES

(Deviation Genre No. IV)

3.1.0 Consequent on the passing of the Presidential Order, the Government

appointed Sundaresan Commission to bring the Service Rules in

conformity with the provisions of the Presidential Order. An

important factor in this direction was to bring the “unit of

appointment” in conformity with the “local cadre” of the Post. In this

process the Departments adjusted their Regional Offices and other

administrative units/units of appointment in such a way as to make

them co-terminus with the zones or at least to ensure that they did

not cross any zone but either contained discrete zones within them,

or alternately a zone contained discrete units of appointment within it

Thus, for example, the Police Ranges, were reorganised to make one

zone per range or two ranges were fitted into one zone.

3.2.0 It has come to notice, however, that some

Irrigation Circles of Superintending Engineers cover parts of zones,

for example - the Inter State Joint Project and the Pochampad

Investigation Circle cover parts of V and VI zones. This makes the

unit of appointment and also the seniorities of zonal posts as well

as transfers repugnant to the local cadres formulated under the

Presidential Order. There could be more such cases in Irrigation and

Command Area Development Department and in other

Departments.

Finding No.37

Finding No.38


3.3.0 There seems to be an impression that within a

Regional Office or an office above the District Cadre, the transfers

can be effected without reference to para 5 (2) of the Presidential

Order. Similarly in some cases seniorities and recruitments are

being maintained for more than one zone together if they lie in one

region. It is to be clearly understood that for zonal posts the

seniority is zonal, regardless of the administrative units, regional or

otherwise. Similarly, the vacancies for promotions to zonal posts

are to be taken zone-wise (or multi-zone wise, as the case may

be).

3.4.0 Recruitment is to be done zone-wise for zonal

posts even for a Regional Office. Para 18 of G.O.P 729 General

Administration (SPF.A) Department, dated 01-11-1975 makes this

position quite clear. In this regard the deviation example of the

Department of Drug Control Administration may be mentioned.

Here the six Regional Offices are being treated as separate units

but these regions are not at all identical with the “six zones” of the

Second Schedule to the Presidential Order. The Regional Offices are

treated as separate units for appointment to zonal posts and for

seniorities and promotions to zonal posts. In this way, the Regional

Offices in the zones I, II and III in this department are made into

two Regions and numbered as Regions V and VI. Similarly,

Region I covers only Twin Cities and Region II covers Ranga Reddy,

Medak, Nizamabad, and Nalgonda Districts.

3.4.1 Thus Regions I & II together should be zone VI and not two

separate Regions. They should have reorganised the Regional

Offices in terms of zones or at least made their units of

appointments in Service Rules as per district and zones and not as

Finding No.39


per their administrative Regions which are totally different from the

local cadres (zones) in the Presidential Order.

Remedial Action (XIII)

3.5.0 All Zonal/Regional and the offices above the district level and below

the State level should be reviewed with regard to their Jurisdiction

and made co-terminus with zones or they should contain discrete

zones in case of their jurisdiction going beyond one zone. In such

cases seniorities of zonal posts should be within each zone

separately even if the zones are in the single Regional office. At

present Government have banned all transfers under 5 (2) of the

Presidential Order. Transfers within the Region should be

considered as inter zonal transfers for zonal posts and inter district

cadre transfers for district cadre posts. Inter cadre transfers within

a Region are covered by instructions contained in Para 10 (b) of

G.O.P.No.728 General Administration (SPF.A) Department,

dated 01-11-1975. Also, direct recruitment to zonal posts should

be on zonal (or multi-zonal, as the case may be) basis only, not on

the basis of administrative units.

3.5.1 After redrawing Regional boundaries as suggested above, local

candidates should be posted in the local cadres of the Region.

Excess non-locals should be repatriated to their respective local

cadres. Merit quota i.e.20 or 30 percent as the case may be, does

not mean “non-locals‟ quota. It would also have locals. So it would

be best to exchange locals of each local cadre in the Region through

transfers within the Region with Government permission to set right

the wrong position. Where there is shortfall of locals below the

minimum preference (reservation) stipulated for them (80 or 70 per


cent as the case may be) inter regional reshuffle should be

undertaken to achieve this. If locals are more than the minimum

they should continue to be there and can go up to 100%, if they

are already there. In case of shortfall below the minimum

percentage, the vacancies should be carried forward as cent

percent backlog. As for 20 or 30% intended for merit recruitment,

all of it cannot be reserved for non-locals. At this stage, there can

be no merit rating. Hence as a rule of the thumb formula in all

such cases half of the merit quota should be equally shared

between locals and non-locals.

3.6.0 A serious deviation observed by the Commission

with regard to regional level posts is that in some departments the

offices between the State level and the district level are being

treated as part of the Head of Department office and the staff

treated as excluded from the operation of the Presidential Order

under Para 14 (b) of the Presidential Order. Not only is the cadre

of the head office and these regional level offices treated as a single

unified cadre for purposes of exclusion from the Presidential Order

but also for purposes of seniorities, transfers and channels of

„appointments by transfer‟ to various field level posts for which the

concerned service rules provide certain quota for the offices of the

Heads of Departments.

3.6.1 The Commission found this happening at least in three

Departments: (1) Department of Town Planning (2) Department of

Municipal Administration - both under the Municipal Administration

and Urban Development Department of Secretariat and (3) Archives

Department. In these three departments no separate cadre

strength was fixed for the Regional Offices. Their staff comes from

Finding No.40


the office of the Head of Department from which their requirements

are met without any cadre strength of their own.

3.6.2 In this manner, their staff is excluded from the purview of the

Presidential Order under Para 14 (b), in direct recruitment.

Similarly, their seniority is counted in the Head of Department

office, not in the concerned Zone. They get their promotions only

in the Head of Department office.

3.7.0 For promotions, called “appointment by transfer”

from Head of Department office to the field offices they are counted

as part of Head of Department office, thus depriving the field offices

and their local cadres to that extent of promotion posts.

3.7.1 An instance of promotions from Regional Offices treated as part of

Head of Department has come to notice in the Department of

Municipal Administration. It was found that Senior Assistants of the

Head of Department office have a channel of promotion i.e.

appointment by transfer to the post of Gr.III Commissioners.

Similarly Office Superintendents of the Head of Department office

have a promotion channel to the post of Gr.II Commissioners. For

purpose of these promotions the seniority of those working in

Regional offices was taken as common with those working in the

Head of Department office treating the Regional staff as part of the

Head of Department office.

3.7.2 This is one of the ways in which the offices for which local cadre

should have been formed like all other offices, have been excluded

from the formation of local cadres and operation of the Presidential

Order by treating them as part of the office of the Head of

Department.

Finding No.41


Remedial Action (XIV)

3.8.0 It is proposed that with immediate effect the cadre strength may be

fixed for the Regional offices that have been noticed by the

Commission and also cases that might not have come to

Commission‟s notice. The district and zonal cadres in these offices

should be treated as such and should not be clubbed with the cadre

strength of the Head of Department because they belong to the

regional set-up. They should also not have any channel of

promotions i.e. „appointment by transfer‟ in quotas intended for the

staff of the Head of Department. They should be like all other local

cadres.

3.8.1 The question that arises here is about reversing the process of what

has happened. Strictly speaking, all the appointments, seniorities,

promotions that have taken place in violation of the Presidential

Order in such offices by treating them as parts of Heads of

Departments have to be reviewed and duly reversed and

consequential action taken retrospectively. In this process those

who have got undue promotions would have to be reverted and

those who have missed their promotions on account of the wrong

action would have to be retrospectively promoted, and seniorities

refixed and financial benefits etc., given and recoveries effected.

3.8.2 As for the direct recruitment posts lost to local candidates on

account of the wrong action given in the above finding, the number

of posts so lost would have to be calculated and made good by

treating them as backlog for locals for future recruitments. Another


option is creation of supernumerary posts. The beneficiaries and

the losers will be from all the local cadres i.e., all the Districts and

all the zones.

3.9.0 Six Regional Offices in the Co-operation

Department were abolished and 126 posts belonging to localised

categories were transferred to the office of the Head of Department

i.e., to the Office of the Commissioner for Co-operation and

Registrar of Co-operative Societies. This deprived the local cadres

of their opportunities and placed these posts outside the local

cadres, in excluded organisations under Para 14 of the Presidential

Order. A post once localised should not be de-localised.

Remedial Action (XV)

3.10.0 These posts should be treated as belonging to the original local

cadres to which they belonged, retrospectively, with all the

consequential action, repatriation to the extent necessary and

retrospective benefits of seniority, promotions etc. that may be due

as a result.

3.11.0 Another issue connected with the regional offices

is that of abolition and shifting of such offices as a part of

reorganisation of the Department or on account of exigencies of

workloads, actual or anticipated, in different areas. One such

important case that came to the notice of the Commission is that of

Excise Department. Here, in the process of transition of excise

policies between prohibition and partial prohibition etc., the

department reorganised itself to meet the foreseeable exigencies

and administrative needs under the latest Excise Policies. In this

process they made some estimates of workloads that could be

Finding No.42

Finding No.43


called anticipatory or speculative, and arrived at certain

reorganisation proposals, which the Government accepted. With

the result certain posts of local and zonal cadre in the regional

offices in Zone V and VI were “transferred” to other zones. This

concept of transfer of posts is only a device to show that there is no

financial commitment involved in the reorganisation. In effect it

clearly means that a certain number of posts is abolished in some

places and certain number is created in some other places. Since

creation of new posts poses problems particularly in the face of ban

on creation of new posts and on account of Act 2 of 1994, this

circumventing device is often resorted to in any reorganisation

proposals. In Excise department, 54 different posts of “Prohibition

and Excise Sub-inspector” which were under the local cadres were

„transferred‟ from Zone V and VI to other Zones. The department

took the stand that the individuals were not transferred outside

their local cadres but were adjusted within their local cadres.

3.11.1 However, the issue involved is whether it is proper to deprive one

local cadre of its posts and benefit another local cadre on the

grounds of estimated, expected or anticipated and unforeseen work

loads. It is always discreet not to increase the number of posts or

deplete the number of posts in anticipation of work loads but it is

better to observe the actual work load as it evolves in course of

time rather than take a leap forward all at once which affects the

employment opportunities in any local cadre. In this case it is not

the actual workload that justified the shifting of posts but only an

anticipated and speculated workload. There were no exigencies.

Remedial Action (XVI)


3.12.0 The Honourable House Committee has dealt with this issue in its

Interim Report in detail. This Commission need not cover the same

ground all over again. In the Excise Department case the House

Committee has already recommended a course of action.

3.12.1 Suffice it to say that in principle, the spirit and letter of the

Presidential Order should be understood and adhered to in any

reorganisation proposals.

3.12.2 The spirit of the Presidential Order is that the employment

opportunities in any local area should by and large be available to

the candidates of that local area to the extent of certain levels

which are laid down in the Presidential Order, that is all the last

grade employees and non-gazetted posts and certain Specified

Gazetted Posts for which a 60:40 ratio between local and merit

candidates is prescribed, should by and large be available to

candidates of that local area.

3.12.3 Reorganisations and changing of staffing patterns are a part of the

dynamics of administration. It is necessary to keep the spirit of the

Presidential Order in mind while attempting such reorganisations

and changes in staffing patterns.

3.12.4 Recently proposals in this regard had come before the One Man

Commission from the department of Fire Services and Treasuries

and Accounts and State Audit Department. The Commission

advised that any reorganisation should not reduce the existing

number of posts in the local cadres while increasing them in any

other local cadre, in other words there should be no shifting of

posts.


* * * * *

CHAPTER – 4

URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES

(Deviation Genre No. V)

4.1.0 Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA) covers the

jurisdiction of Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy and Medak Districts.

Hyderabad Urban Development Authority is following the special

provisions in items (i) & (ii) of sub-Para 4 of Para 6 of the

Presidential Order.

4.2.0 HUDA is treating the post of Assistant

Executive Engineer, as a zonal post with 60% reservation for local

candidates, on par with Assistant Executive Engineers of Public

Health department, which are included in the Third Schedule of the

Presidential Order under item No. 8(a). Logically and by implication

this is correct. However this position must be legalised.

Remedial Action (XVII)

4.3.0 An amendment to the Presidential Order may be got issued by the

Government of India to include the posts of AEEs of HUDA under

the Third Schedule, as HUDA post, with reservation of 60% for local

candidates, to regularise the position.

4.3.1 Meanwhile 60% reservation may be continued and also the post

may continue to be treated as zonal.

Quli Qutub Shah Urban Development Authority (QQSUDA)

Finding No.44


4.4.0 Quli Qutub Shah Urban Development Authority was registered as a

Society under Societies Registration Act in 1981. The Society

directly recruits staff below the officer level, by calling for

candidates from the Employment Exchange. This was done from

1981 to 1985. After 1985 there is a ban on recruitment. Whatever

rules applied to the staff in the Government are also adopted for

staff working in the QQSUDA and there were no separate Service

Rules.

Other Urban Development Authorities

4.5.0 There are five other Urban Development Authorities in the State

viz.

1.Kakatiya Urban Development Authority - covers Warangal District and part of Karimnagar District.

2.Vijayawada Urban Development Authority - covers Vijayawada,

Guntur, Tenali and Mangalagiri.

3.Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority – covers Visakhapatnam, Vizianagaram, Anakapalli and Bheemanipatnam.

4.Satya Sai Urban Development Authority at Puttaparthy – covers

only 6 villages.

5.Tirupathi Urban Development Authority – covers Tirupati

Municipality and 89 villages, Tiruchanoor, Chandragiri and Renigunta.

4.5.1 The Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975

classifies these Urban Development Authorities, as „bodies

corporate‟ like all other statutory corporate bodies. But nowhere

does it mention that they are local bodies. Since they are bodies

corporate, they cannot also be classified as a department of

government.


4.5.2 Since they are statutory bodies, they cannot be classified as

government companies. The Income Tax authorities have taken a

view as mentioned by Secretary, Visakapatnam Urban Development

Authority that while local bodies are exempted from Income-Tax,

the Urban Development Authorities not being local bodies are

subjected to Income-Tax from this year onwards.

Remedial Action (XVIII)

4.6.0 (1) QQSUDA may be brought under G.S.R. 528 (E) for direct

recruitment posts. Deputation posts may also be taken from the City

Cadre.

(2) Government may consider obtaining Government of India‟s order

to extend the application of Presidential Order to all other Urban

Development Authorities on par with HUDA as statutorily they are on

par being the creations of the same Act.

* * * * *


CHAPTER - 5

UNIT OF APPOINTMENT/LOCAL CADRE

(Deviation Genre No. VI)

5.1.0 There has been some confusion with regard to the

three different concepts: (1) Units of Appointment, (2) Functional/

Administrative Units and (3) Local Cadre (based on “local area”)

under the Presidential Order. As a result of this confusion, there

have been proposals before the Government for making all the

three co-terminus.

5.2.0 A glaring case of such confusion is that of

Commercial Taxes Department which originally had nine

administrative Divisions which were later increased to 21 Divisions.

They approached the Government for creation of supernumerary

posts of ACTOs in order to make the 21 Divisions as units for

recruitment, seniority, appointment, discharge for want of vacancy,

promotion etc. In this connection, the misconception was cleared

by this Commission in its letter No.6/67/OMC(SPF.A),

dated 04-06-2002.

5.2.1 It is very clear that the Scheme for organisation of Local Cadres in

Commercial Taxes Department was issued in G.O.Ms.No.581,

Revenue (SPF) Department dated 24-05-1976, in exercise of the

powers of the Government under Para 3(7) of the Presidential

Order. Hence the Department has created smaller units than the

zones, in the form of Commercial Taxes Divisions, taking care to

ensure that these units do not cross the zonal boundaries. This is

in conformity with the clarifications contained in Sub-Para (e) of

Finding No.45

Finding No.46


Para 9 (A) of the G.O.P.No.728, General Administration (SPF.A)

Department, dated 01-11-1975. G.O.Ms.No.581 mentioned herein

above was incorporated in the revised rules for the ACTOs prepared

by the Sunderesan Commission issued in G.O.Ms.No.81, Revenue

(CT-I) Department, dated 03-02-1990, in which the Rule 10 states:

“Unit of Appointment: For the purpose of recruitment,

appointment, discharge for want of vacancy, seniority, promotion, transfer and appointment as a full member,

the unit of appointment for the posts of Assistant Commercial Tax Officers shall be the Commercial Tax

Division as ordered in G.O.Ms.No.581, Revenue, dated the 24-05-1976.

Provided that the posts of Assistant Commercial Tax

Officers in the office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes shall be filled on a tenure basis by drafting

persons equitably from different Divisional cadres and period of tenure shall not ordinarily exceed three years.”

5.2.2 Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India has upheld the Scheme of

Organisation of Local Cadres in Commercial Taxes Department

contained in G.O.Ms.No.581. This was done first in its Judgement

dated 23-02-1990 in Civil Appeal No.8259/90 mentioned in the

departmental note given to this Commission on 06-04-2002. Again

the Supreme Court has very clearly stated in its Judgement in Civil

Appeal No.1651-1657 of 1997, dated 27-08-2001 that the scheme

of initial formation of local cadres of G.O.581 of Revenue

Department, which was issued on 24-05-1976, soon after the

Presidential Order on 24-05-1976, is perfectly legal under Para 3(7)

of the Presidential Order which overrides Paras 3(1) and 3(3) for

the formation of Local Cadres initially. It is on this basis that the

initial allotments of the personnel were made by Allotment

Committee of the Department and it is this Scheme which was


incorporated in the Rules mentioned above and has been followed

by the Department. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court has clearly

pronounced in the Judgement of August 2001 that the smaller units

made under Para 3(7) of the Presidential Order in the Scheme of

Organisation of local cadres should be in furtherance of the

Presidential Order. This implies that it cannot be repugnant to the

Presidential Order. Similarly, it has also pronounced the principle

that long standing rules and practices should not be disturbed in as

far as service matters are concerned.

5.2.3 In view of the above facts, the Department would be well advised

not to change its units of appointment, recruitment, discharge,

seniority, promotion, transfer etc., as laid down in the original

Scheme of Organisation of local cadres in Commercial Taxes

Department (G.O.Ms.No.581 Revenue), and also incorporated in

Rule 10 of the Special Rules for the ACTOs as upheld by the Hon‟ble

Supreme Court twice, once in 1990 and again as late as in August,

2001. The formation of 21 Divisions is only an administrative and

functional convenience. Any number of administrative and

functional units may be formed but these need not become local

cadres or units for service matters i.e., units of appointment, local

cadre units (or local area as they are called in the Presidential

Order) can be either the district or zone or multi zone as laid down

in the Presidential Order, or any such smaller units as have been

formed under the Scheme of Organisation of local cadres at the

initial stages immediately after the Presidential Order under

Para 3(7) of the Presidential Order as has been done in this case.

5.2.4 The Para 3(7) of the Presidential Order cannot be used for going on

changing the units under local cadres. Therefore, all the 21


Divisions must be fitted within the nine Divisions of G.O.Ms.No.581

of 1976 without cris-crossing the original main Divisions.

Remedial action (XIX)

5.3.0 (a) C.T. Department: For the purpose of distinction, the nine

Divisions of C.T Department could be called „Divisions‟ (as per

Scheme of Reorganisation of Local Cadres) and the 21

Divisions could be called Functional Divisions. The nine

Divisions could be called Nodal Divisions but that will require

change of Special Rules and the original Scheme of

Reorganisation that is immutable once it is initially formed.

(b) The “embarrassment” about junior and senior officers in the

nine nodal Divisions can be got over by making it a point only

to post the senior most officers in the nine Divisions and no

one who is senior to them should be posted in the 21 Divisions.

(c) The existing system and the existing pattern need not be

changed. The Scheme of G.O.Ms.No.581 has to be adhered to

if Presidential Order is to be followed. Its violation becomes

violation of Presidential Order.

(d) There is no need for supernumerary posts or extra posts being

created or the status-quo of nine Divisions for local cadres

being changed. The entire exercise appears to be uncalled for.

In this connection, attention is invited to the observations of

the Administrative Tribunal in its order dated 01-08-1991 on

O.A.Nos. 34841 to 34844 of 91 in which it has been stated that

“there is no other go to the respondents except to follow the

Supreme Court Judgement in Civil Appeal NO.259/90 dated 23-

02-1990 following the old Divisions”. This is now confirmed in

the Supreme Court Judgement of August 2001. (In fact, from


the Departmental Note, it is apparent that in the G.O. 900,

Revenue (CT.I) Department, dated 08-10-1991, the

Government have also directed the same course of action. The

department would be well advised to drop its proposals to the

government in their reference No.E3/975/92, dated

03-08-1999 in pursuance of making 21 Divisions as the Local

Cadres and units of appointment, seniority, promotion,

transfers etc. (They can exist as functional Divisions only).

(e) In this connection the principles enunciated in the Supreme

Court Judgement mentioned above are to be noted by all the

departments who entertain any confusion in this regard.

5.4.0 There has been a patent error of conception and

fact apparent on the face of record in the case of Mandal Parishad

Development Officers (MPDOs) of Panchayati Raj Department,

leading to a judgement by the Hon‟ble High Court of Andhra

Pradesh in W.P. No. 29371, 33691 and 34247/98 of the PR & RD

Department. Here there was not only a mistake or confusion of

concept of unit of appointment and local area for recruitment under

the Presidential Order, but also there was a factual error emanating

from the instructions that went from the Government side to the

Advocate General. In this connection the opinion given by this

Commission in the General Administration Department File

C. No.35194/Estt./VII-2/98, is extracted below:-

(Quote) “The High Court Judgment has far reaching

consequences. It is also based on certain errors apparent on the face of record. In the first place,

when we look at the pleadings on Government‟s

behalf, it is clear that there was some factual confusion about “local area” of the post. The stand

taken on behalf of the Government was that the

Finding No.47


post of MPDO, being a gazetted post, is a State -

wide post. On the basis of this pleading the entire case took a different turn. Another error on the

face of record is that the post is stated to be a regional post before Presidential Order and

continues to be so, hence “Region” is treated as its unit of appointment. The fact is that in 1985, the

unit of appointment was the zone – 6 zones - as per amended Rules vide

G.O.Ms.NO.227, PR (Samithis-I) Department, dated 04-05-1985. After the recommendation of

Sunderesan Commission also these six zones continued as Units of Appointment vide

G.O.Ms.No.492. PR & RD & Relief (Estt.VII) Department, dated 29.07-1994.

So, it is an error of fact on the face of record to have assumed the Unit of Appointment of the post

to be either the State or Region. The basic legal issue is that the Hon‟ble High Court has assumed

that the “Unit of appointment” (whatsoever it may be) has to be co-terminus with the unit of

recruitment, or what is called in the Presidential Order as “Local Area” (for recruitment). The

Presidential Order does not contemplate such a position.

The entire scheme of Presidential Order is based on

the premise that the unit of recruitment which is called “local area” has nothing to do with the “unit

of appointment” which is an administrative

stipulation in the service Rules of a post. The unit of recruitment is statutorily laid down as the “local

area” for direct recruitment of a post as per its local cadre under the Presidential Order. It can be a

“district cadre” post or a “zonal cadre” post. A “zonal cadre” post may also be a “multi-zonal

cadre” post as specified in the list of multi zonal posts in the Order at page 125 of the Guidelines

Booklet on SPF of G. O. MS. No.348 General Administration (SPF.A)

Department, dated 11-05-1977. The gazetted posts are all State wide posts for purpose of recruitment


excepting those, which are in the “specified

gazetted category” (in schedule 3 of the Presidential Order). The latter gazetted posts are zonal cadre

posts except where they are specifically shown as multi-zonal posts in the Presidential Order. The

post of BDO is a zonal cadre post under the Presidential Order under the Third Schedule. It is

not included in the list of multi-zonal posts. Unit of appointment is a matter of administration and is

based on Service Rules. The Service Rules have to be in conformity with the Presidential Order. The

Presidential Order does not yield to the Service Rules. Almost in all the posts the Service Rules

have “unit of appointment” which is different from the “area of recruitment” called “local area” as per

the Presidential Order. A zonal cadre post may have

the district / zone or any other administrative Unit, Circle, Division etc., of a Department as its unit of

appointment. Thus, after recruitment, zone-wise, the postings may be given by the Department to

any administrative unit of appointment relevant to that zone. There is therefore, no need for a post to

have the “unit of appointment” and the unit of recruitment or “local area” to be co-terminus. In

fact to remove administrative difficulties arising out of units of appointments criss-crossing the “local

areas” for recruitment, One Man Commission (Sunderasan Commission) was constituted to revise

all Service Rules to ensure against such cris - crossing of units of appointment. These could be

discrete units within a “local area” and need not be

co-terminus.

If this principle of co-terminus nature of the local area for recruitment under the Presidential Order on

the one hand and the unit of appointment as per Service Rules on the other, is to be adopted, then

all the posts that are covered by the Presidential Order would have to yield place to this principle and

the entire Presidential Order will be upset and as good as nullified.


Since there are factual and conceptual errors

apparent on the face of record, as amplified herein above, it may be considered whether this Judgment

should be allowed to remain without any review or appeal, what ever is feasible. If allowed to remain,

then, on the basis of the principle enunciated in this Judgment, there is a likelihood of a spate of other

litigations upsetting the Presidential Order as in very few cadres are the recruitment “local areas”

co-terminus with “units of appointment”. In-fact Commercial Taxes Department had this illusion and

had raised this issue and was advised that the two areas need not be co-terminus.

In the interest of safeguarding Presidential Order, it

appears to this Commission that the judgment may

be taken up for review or appeal.

If limitation for either course of action is over, it may be advisable to seek condonation of delay on

account of the basic principle involved in the matter and the wider implications of the Judgement. There

appear to be no latches on the part of the Government as Government had not discovered the

errors and their implications so far, till the Commission pointed them out”. (Unquote)

Remedial action (XX)

5.5.0 (1) The High Court Judgement in the case has to be taken for

review or appeal as may be advised for reasons mentioned in

the finding, as it has far reaching effect.

(2) In this case, a zonal post - the post of the MPDO has become

multi-zonal post under the High Court order without any

revision of the Presidential Order. All this happens for want of

proper understanding of the different concepts under the

Presidential Order by the authorities in Government dealing


with such cases. The Commission therefore reiterates its

recommendation in the Preliminary Report (Preliminary finding

No. 3.59.1) that there should be a training module for the

Presidential Order and training programme on this aspect. A

separate amplified recommendation will be given in this report.

5.5.1 The Commission also recommends to clarify the position in the form

of general guidelines on these concepts.

* * * * *


CHAPTER – 6

CROSS CADRE MOVEMENT

(Deviation Genre No. VII)

Transfers

6.1.0 The provisions regarding transfers as per Para 5 of the Presidential

Order are as under: -

“5. Local cadres and Transfer of persons.

(1) Each part of the State, for which a local cadre has

been organized 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 local cadre

comprising posts in any Office or Establishment exercising territorial jurisdiction over a part of

the sate 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.

(d) the transfer of a person from one local cadre to another local cadre on a reciprocal basis subject


to the condition that the persons so transferred

shall be assigned seniority in the latter cadre with reference to the date of his transfer to that

cadre”.

6.1.1 Government have laid down its decisions on transfers, sequel to the

Presidential Order, in G.O.Ms.No.374, General Administration (SPF)

Department, dated 20-05-1977, which over-rides all existing

provisions on the subject in different Rules. The G.O. also prohibits

making any provision for transfers in any ad hoc Rules that may be

made after this G.O. The main provisions contained in the G.O. are

reproduced below:-

“1. All provisions for inter-local cadre transfers now existing in the special or Ad hoc rules may be

deleted;

2. No provision for inter-local cadre transfers need be made in any special or Ad hoc rule that may be

issued hereafter;

3. Inter-local cadre transfers will be permitted only

under the circumstances stipulated in Clause (c) of Sub-paragraph (2) of Paragraph 5 of the Andhra

Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order,

1975; and

4. The power to effect inter-local cadre transfers will be exercised by Government alone only in the

circumstances stipulated under the above provision”.

6.1.2 Ad hoc rules will be issued by General Administration (Services)

Department enabling Government to effect inter-local cadre

transfers under the circumstances stipulated in the Presidential

Order.


6.1.3 All Heads of Departments were requested to ensure that no inter-

local cadre transfers are hereafter made by them or by their

Subordinate Officers and they are requested to send proposals if

any for inter local cadre transfers to Government.

6.1.4 In G.O.Ms.No.569 General Administration (Services-A) Department,

dated 22-08-1977, Orders were issued that Clause (c) of the Sub-

paragraph (2) of Paragraph 5 of the Presidential Order enables the

State Government to make a provision for 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”.

Relying on the above provision and also in the light of the orders in

the G.O.Ms.No.374, General Administration (SFP-A) Department,

dated 20-05-1977, the following ad hoc rules were issued:

(Quote) “Notwithstanding anything in the Andhra Pradesh

State and Subordinate Services Rules, or the Special or the ad hoc Rules transfer of a person, holding post in a

category organized into local cadre, under Paragraph 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation of

Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975 as amended, from one local cadre to another shall

be made by the Government where no qualified or suitable

person is available in the latter cadre or where such transfer is otherwise considered necessary in the “Public

Interest.” (Unquote)

6.1.5 The General Administration (SPF.A) Department U.O. Note No.1588/SPF-A/77-1 dated 03-10-1977 says:

“A number of representations are being received for

transfer of wives / husbands from one local cadre to another to join their spouses. These request can be

categorized into the following three types:


1. Both wives and husbands working in State Government /

State Public Sector Offices.

2. Either wife or husband in Central Government / Central Public sector Service and the other spouse in State

Government / State Public Sector service.

3. Either wife or husband in State Government service and the other spouse in private employment.

It was, however, seen that a large majority of the

requests are for transfer to the city of Hyderabad cadre”.

6.1.6 The same U.O.Note (U.O.Note No.1588/SPF-A/77-1 dated 03-10-

1977) states that this issue has been carefully considered and it has

been decided that it would be more appropriate to accommodate

such requests at the stage of consideration of representations

against allotment orders rather than resort to inter cadre transfers

immediately after local cadres have been formed. It may be

clarified that such transfers would be made subject to availability of

vacancy in a local cadre prior to 18-10-1975. It has also been

decided that once the process of organization of local cadres is

completed it would be more appropriate to effect such transfers

only in clear vacancies without seriously affecting the chances of

promotion of persons in the feeder local cadres. Where competing

claims from the three categories referred to above arise the order

of priority as indicated in item No.1, 2, 3 above may be followed

while considering such requests.

6.1.7 In General Administration (SPF.A) Department U.O. Note

No.1030/SPF-A/82-1 dated 20-11-1982, the Government has

directed that the transfer of State Government Employees from one

cadre to another should be confined to cases where spouses are

employed under the State Government, Central Government, State


Public Sector or Central Public Sector only and in all such cases a

minimum of two years service may be insisted upon before

requests for transfers are considered. In other words, requests for

such transfers on the ground that either wife or husband is in State

Government Service and the other spouse in private employment

need not be considered.

6.1.8 In General Administration (SPF.A) Department U.O. Note

No.540/SPF-A/96-1 dated 17-09-1996, further instructions have

been issued according to the provisions contained in Para 5 (2) of

the Presidential Order and the ad hoc Rules issued in


dated 15-10-1981, that transfer of Government employees from

one local cadre to another may be made by the Government alone.

According to the existing instructions issued in the U.O. Note

No.291/SPF-A/84-1, General Administration (SPF.A) Department

dated 02-03-1984, and U.O. Note No.963/SPF-A/88-1 General

Administration (SPF.A) Department, dated 21-10-1988, all cases of

inter-local cadre transfers are required to be made in consultation

with the General Administration (SPF.A) Department and after

circulation to the Chief Minister through the Chief Secretary and the

Minister concerned.

6.1.9 Further it was ordered that the powers of the inter-local cadre

transfers for all eligible cases, which are in accordance with the

Presidential Order/instructions issued thereon, be delegated to the

Chief Secretary to Government.

6.1.10 Accordingly, all the Departments of Secretariat are to refer the

cases of transfer of a person from one local cadre to another local


cadre under the provisions of the Presidential Order, to General

Administration (SPF.A) Department and orders obtained, by

circulation to the Chief Secretary to Government. Cases which are

not as per guidelines should not normally be entertained. However,

the cases which are exceptional and which are in deviation of the

advice of the General Administration (SPF.A) Department, will have

to be circulated to the Chief Minister through the Chief Secretary to

Government and the Minister concerned.

6.1.11 After reviewing the above instructions the Government in the

General Administration (SPF.A) Department U.O Note No.18333/

SPF-A/99-1, dated 26-04-1999, further instructed that the cases

which are exceptional and which are in deviation of the advice of

the General Administration (SPF.A) Department shall henceforth be

circulated to the Chief Minister through Principal Secretary, Finance

and the Minister concerned.

6.2.0 Many complaints were made to this Commission

that transfers have inducted non-locals into zone V and VI and

particularly into Hyderabad City, Ranga Reddy District and parts of

Medak District, distorting the ratio of locals to non-locals and also

adversely affecting the promotion chances and seniorities of the

locals. The Commission called for particulars of transfers from all

the Departments. Detailed results of the information received and

the analysis made there on are given in Appendix V.

6.2.1 From the Districts the Commission called for particulars of locals

and non-locals and the results are given in Part-2 of this Report,

under Para 5 (1) of G.O.Ms.No.610 covered by this Part.

Finding No.48


6.2.2 Representations were also received by the Government and a set of

transfers was stopped by the Government in D.O.Lr.No.7708/

SPF-A2/2002, General Administration (SPF.A) Department dated

18-02-2002 from the Principal Secretary to Government (SAR) FAC

address to all Special Chief Secretaries, Principal Secretaries and

Secretaries of the Departments of Secretariat. Government‟s latest

orders on transfers were issued in G.O.Ms.No.767, Finance (W & M)

Department, dated 21-8-2002 which totally bans transfers.

6.2.3 Certain peculiar individual cases of transfers have come before the

Commission. These can be seen in the Proceedings Nos.28, 29, 51

and 54 in Volume II of this Report.

6.3.0 The principles that should govern transfers

under the Presidential Order have been amplified by the Hon‟ble

High Court of Andhra Pradesh in its Judgment in W.P.Nos.13458,

13545, 13558, 13572, 15101,19341 and 19375 of 2001 (extracts

at Annexure-2).

These principles are as under:

(Quote) “Understood in the context of its evolutional history, the power conferred on the State

government under Para 5 (2) must necessarily be interpreted as a power to make a provision for

transfers for exceptional reasons, which will have to be such as to warrant a departure from the

framework of local cadres carefully structured under

the provisions of the Presidential Order. If the expression “nothing in this order shall prevent the

State Government” from making provisions for transfers [Para 5(2)] is to be given its ordinary,

natural and grammatical construction, the entire scheme of the Presidential Order including the

immunity provided to such Order from the legislative and executive power of the State would be rendered

Finding No.49


nugatory and illusory. After a local cadre is

organised and allotments / direct recruitment made to such local cadres, the State would be free to

make provisions for transfers, totally disrupting the harmony of local cadres so achieved, by the device

of free transferability and the cellular discipline of local cadres could be totally subverted. Such

irrationality cannot be imputed to the Presidential Order.

On the above analysis we hold that the power of

the State Government to make a provision for transfer in any of the circumstances and exigencies

set out in sub-paras (a) to (c) of Para 5 (2) is a power circumscribed by the limitation that such

transfers are to be only in exceptional

circumstances, in exigencies of over-riding public interest or where no qualified or suitable persons is

available in a particular local cadre and predominantly only for a transient period for which

such contingency exists, an exception being the circumstance enumerated in Para 5 (2) (d) namely

reciprocal basis.

To maintain the sanctity of the local cadre discipline in particular as set out in the provisions of

Para 5 (1), we also hold that while effecting any transfers by virtue of a provisions made by the State

Government under Para 5 (2), clear and specific reasons must be recorded justifying such transfer

within the contours of Para 5 (2) (a) to (d). Such

recording reasons is essential to enable conformity of the State‟s power to transfer with the provisions

of the Presidential Order. Such recording of reasons would facilitate and ensure the exercise of power of

transfer within the confined and limited contours available to the State”. (Unquote)

6.4.0 A new dimension to transfers has been added

by the Supreme Court Judgment which distinguishes between

lateral transfers form vertical transfers, the latter being called

Finding No.50


“appointment by transfer”, leading to higher category of post. The

Supreme Court has ruled that Para 5 (2) of Presidential Order does

not empower the State Government to effect transfers, in its

Judgment dated 07-11-2001 in Civil Appeal Nos. 9643 and

9644/95. It has held that “employees working in the posts which

are not localised cannot be appointed by transfer to the posts which

were organized into local cadres and that such appointments are

against the provisions of the Presidential Order”.

6.4.1 The Government have therefore issued orders in General

Administration (SPF.A) Department Circular U.O. Note No.

44232-B/SPF-A/2002, dated 15-02-2003 as under:

“In different service Rules there are provisions for appointment by transfer of employees of Secretariat

and Heads of Departments (belonging to the categories of Section Officers, Assistant Section

Officers and Superintendents etc.,) to certain executive posts localized under Presidential Order,

like ACTO‟s, Excise Inspectors, Mandal Parishad

Development Officers, Municipal Commissioners, Regional Transport Officers etc.”

The Circular U.O. Note, citing the aforesaid

Judgement of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, further states that “all the Departments of Secretariat and

Heads of Departments are requested to stop the appointment by transfers of Section Officers/

Assistant Section Officers, Superintendents etc., working in Secretariat and Heads of Department

Offices to the executive cadre posts localised under Presidential Order in the districts, till further orders”.

6.5.0 The Commission had called for statistics on

transfers. Only 50 Heads of Departments, responded. An analysis

of this sample of 50 shows the particulars of 716 transfers both in

Finding No.51


the inter-district and inter-zonal categories. Reason wise there are

81 cases of spouses, 113 of mutual transfers and 101 of public

interest transfers, 186 of other reasons and for 235 no reason

furnished. Under other reasons 160 are request transfers. The

Government had excluded request transfers in G.O. Ms.No.767,

Finance (W & M) Department, dated 21-08-2002, from the purview

of Para 5 (2). These constitute 22.3% of the total sample of 716

transfers. In terms of procedure, it is found that 508 were

transferred with Government‟s consent, regarding the other 208 no

information is given. The highest number of transfers is into

Hyderabad that is 79 and the second highest 61 is to Chittoor, but

strangely 79 transfers are from Hyderabad to other places bringing

the net figure to 0. The next highest is expectedly from

Adilabad (60).

6.5.1 As for the zones, 72 are into zone VI followed by 66 into zone II

and 59 have gone out from zone IV. The detailed figures are given

in Appendix V. The period of these transfers is not specified.

Remedial Action (XXI)

6.6.0 (1) It would need revision of most of the service Rules of cadres

affected by the Supreme Court Judgement on appointment by

transfer, unless a legal remedy is found to prevent such an

eventuality.

(2) While a blanket ban on transfers may freeze a run-away

situation at a particular time like the present time, such a ban has

three dimensions that might lead to a rethinking:


(i) When Para 5(2) of the Presidential Order

authorises the Government to effect transfers, albeit

with circumspection, as the Hon‟ble High Court has

pointed out, it means that the Presidential Order does

not contemplate a total ban on transfers.

(ii) A total ban on transfers may ultimately

tantamount to a total ban on inter-cadre and inter-

district marriages among the middle class among

whom normally both the spouses take up

employment. This may not be a good social situation.

(iii) For the sake of one or two districts where

transfers have become a contentious issue, there may

not be need to ban the transfers to all the districts.

(3) A fresh transfer policy may include the following suggestions in

the light of experience so far:

(a) In taking a decision on transfers Government

may be guided by the principles amplified in the A.P.

High Court Judgment in W.P.Nos. 13458, 13545,

13558, 13572, 15101, 19341 and 19375 cited

hereinabove.

(b) Mutual transfers may be taken out of the

purview of Para 5 (2) of Presidential Order as they

represent no public interest and hence such

transfers should be banned.

(c) In the case of an inter-cadre transfer of non-

locals to any local cadre, the number of posts for

local candidates should be increased to that extent

in that particular category of posts. Also, if


necessary, the balance of vacancies accruing in the

category of posts thus to local candidates may be

carried forward till all the vacancies lost by locals on

account of in-flow of transferred candidates, is

completely offset. This number should be

cumulatively carried forward for each category of

posts. If within one financial year, the number of

non-locals inducted by transfer are not offset by the

direct recruitment as mentioned above, transfers to

that particular local cadre in that local area and in

that category should be totally stopped till the

number is offset in the subsequent years.

(d) In any financial year, to any local cadre in a

given local area, the in-flow of non-locals by transfer

should not exceed 5% of the total intake of locals in

the particular cadre, subject to the overall

restrictions mentioned.

It is seen from the district statistics particularly

of Ranga Reddy District that the proportion of non-

locals in certain categories in the District cadre goes

far beyond 20%, which is the maximum one would

expect in the pattern envisaged by the Presidential

Order. In fact the full 20% itself should not be

reached. So, if the percentage turns out to be 40,

or 50% it is a case for alarm both for the

Government as well as the local people. Obviously

transfers and deputations have contributed

substantially to this number.


(e) Government may identify the districts where

inflow by transfers is very high, like Hyderabad City

and District, Ranga Reddy district, Medak district

and Visakhapatnam district. There may be some

other districts like these. In such districts

Government may devise a system of keeping a

continuous tab on the number of transfers and

deputations and the statistics of non-locals and their

ratio to the local employees. This could be reviewed

every April. Whenever the percentage of non-local

employees in any particular category under the

Presidential Order goes beyond 15%, the transfers

to such category in that district should be halted till

such time as the percentage falls below 15%. This

rule has to be applied category-wise, not in to-to.

For zonal posts the cut off percentage should be 25

for non-locals at any given time. At that stage

transfers should be stopped to that zone in that

category.

(f) Where the percentage of non-locals in any

category presently is already higher than 15% in

district cadres and 25% in zonal cadres the

transfers/deputation to such local cadres and to such

categories in such cadres may be frozen till the

percentage goes below the cut off limits.

(g) The request transfers may be probed into.

Instructions against such orders may be issued by

the General Administration (SPF) Department, and

the Finance Department may be informed of this


figure and may be requested not to permit cases of

request transfers.

Deputations And Fair Share Principle

(Deviation Genre No. VIII)

6.7.0 The process of deputations on tenure basis has been observed to

have been freely utilised without much regard for Presidential Order

or Para 9(B) of G.O.P.No.728 General Administration (SPF.A)

Department dated 01-11-1975, that governs deputations. In some

cases it is found that the deputations are effected in contravention

of Fundamental Rules/General Rules and in disregard of third party

rights and interests and sometimes with hidden agendas. Some of

the purposes for which these seem to have been resorted to are:

1. Where some resourceful individuals fail to get inter-local-cadre

transfers they manage to get a deputation to the local cadres of

their choice, which is normally the State capital where

opportunities of deputation abound.

2. To provide promotion opportunities in the department, persons

are sent out on deputation creating vacancies for promotion. In

some cases (in Police Dept) this device was used for getting

multiple promotions in one single vacancy by sending out the

promoted officials on deputation one after the other, after the

promotion in the same vacancy and by promotion in absentia, in

violation of Fundamental Rules / General Rules as well as the

aforesaid G.O.P.No.728. This may be seen in Proceedings

No. 63 in Volume II of this Report.


3. To provide opportunity for deputed person for getting the benefit

of promotion prospects in the borrowing department while at the

same time leaving behind a vacancy for promotion in the lending

department.

Deputations to HODs, State Level Offices/Institutions, Special Offices etc.

6.8.0 It is seen that most of the deputations are either in promotion posts

or in the direct recruitment vacancies of zonal cadre levels. The

organisations listed out in Para 14 (b) to (f) provide fertile ground

for such deputations. In Para 9(B) of G.O.P. No.728, General

Administration (SPF.A) Department, dated 01-11-1975, deputations

to the offices of the Heads of Departments and to State Level

Offices or Institutions, Major Development Projects and Special

Offices or Establishments are based on certain principles of fair

share for the local cadres as stipulated in Sub-paras 1 & 2 of the

aforesaid Para 9(B). In fact this Para stipulates prior fixing of the

share of deputation posts for the different local cadres. This

anticipated share is to be calculated and added to the Basic cadre

strength of the local cadre and is taken into account to arrive at its

effective cadre strength by adding these posts to the basic cadre

strength of a local cadre. Such is the importance of the fair share

principle. Fair share is then fixed on such basic cadre strength.

6.9.0 In the Commission‟s meetings with the

departmental Officers it was found that the Heads of Departments

are not necessarily confining themselves to the 12.5% deputation

quota that is stipulated in most of the service rules of various

departments, but the number is left flexible. Similarly, they are

also not following the fair share principle but taking people on

Finding No.52


deputation on the basis of the requests of individuals or discretion

of the Heads of Departments.

6.10.0 In the case of the other organisations in Para

14 (c) to (f) there is no number stipulated. It is possible that each

of them in its own service rules may have stipulated a number for

deputationists. However like the Heads of Departments no one is

inhibited by any such stipulation nor by Para 9(B) of the G.O.

mentioned above. They just take any number on deputation from

anywhere.

6.11.0 This deviation source:

(a) Is responsible for the loss of opportunities for

local candidates and induction of many non-locals

into the State capital.

(b) It deprives the staff within the borrowing

organisation, of promotion prospects to the extent of

the number of deputationists in the promotion posts.

On the other hand it provides promotion

opportunities at their cost to the candidates of other

local cadres from which they borrow the

deputationists. That is the reason why the fair share

proportion principle has been laid down in G.O.P.

No.728 to ensure that all the local cadres share

employment opportunities equitably when

deputations are resorted to.

Finding No.53

Finding No.54


(c) The most disconcerting aspect of deviations

through deputation process is that deputation is

given to employees of excluded organisation of Para

14 of the Presidential Order. There the employees

come from all over the State and taking them on

deputation deprives the local cadres of their fair

share as is expected to be apportioned to them by

Para 9(B) of the said G.O.P.No.728 and even added

to their basic cadre strength. These excluded

organisations can take employees on deputation and

that too following the fair share ratio for local

cadres. They cannot give employees on deputation

as mentioned above. But unfortunately we find that

excluded organisations are taking from excluded

organisations. See Proceedings Nos. 63 in Volume II

of this Report.

6.12.0 In case of deputation to any organisation, which

is, excluded under Para 14 of the Presidential Order or

G.S.R.No.529 (E) under Sub-Para (8) of Para 3 of Presidential

Order; (a) the principles & instructions of Para 9(B) of

G.O.P.No.728 shall apply strictly. Non-observance of these should

be treated by the Government as a contravention of the

Presidential Order by the Head of the Organisation.

6.13.0 To the extent the deputation process is used as

a substitute for transfers, it directly subverts and circumvents the

Finding No.55

Finding No.56


regulation of inter-cadre transfers by the Government, for which

provision is made under Para 5(2) of the Presidential Order.

Deputation from Department to another organisation/local

body/office:

6.14.0 Another source of deputation is “Foreign

Service” i.e. deputation from one department to another

organisation or department. Such deputations on Foreign Service

take place largely from the Engineering Departments, the Co-

operative Department, the Treasuries and Accounts Departments,

Endowments Department, Municipal Administration Department,

Panchayati Raj Department, Commissioner of Land Revenue,

Health Department, School Education Department, Higher

Education Department, Fisheries Department, Forest Department,

State Audit Department, in some cases from the Police Department

etc., These deputations on foreign service take place to other

Government Departments and in many cases to local bodies.

Deputations also take place to organisations which are not under

the purview of the Presidential Order ab initio such as various

institutions, „inter alia‟, to Temples, Registered Societies,

Co-operative institutions, Public Sector undertakings, Companies

etc.,.

Transfer on Foreign Service from a Government Department

to Local Bodies

6.15.0 The Department of Public Health deputes

Engineers to local bodies. In G. O. Ms. No. 610 cases of 13 Deputy

Executive Engineers of the Department, belonging to zones I to IV,

Finding No.57

Finding No.58


who were working in the city of Hyderabad and were allegedly there

in violation of Presidential Order. The Government have ordered in

G.O.Ms.No.610 in Para 5(14) that they should be repatriated. This

Commission in its Preliminary Report has also examined the matter

and given its finding that the Department failed to carry out the

Government Order. Now, again, the Commission has received

representations on the same lines in different cases and referred it

to the Government with the observation that the posting of Deputy

Executive Engineers from other zones to Hyderabad Metropolitan

Water Supply & Sewerage Board is in contravention of Presidential

Order and should be stopped. This case has been discussed in

Chapter-2 under Projects. Details may be seen in Proceedings

No.64 and 67 in Volume II of this Report.

6.16.0 The Government Departments as well as local

bodies are both covered by the Presidential Order. Some of the

Government Departments depute officers to posts in local bodies.

In the Municipal Department all the engineering posts are filled only

by the Public Health Engineering Department though they are paid

for by the concerned local body. Therefore these may be

technically called deputations on foreign service. Since the lending

and the borrowing bodies are both governed by the Paras 6 & 7 of

the Presidential Order requiring local candidates for local cadres, all

deputations between them should be in terms of Paras 6 & 7 of the

Presidential Order. In other words only local candidates should be

sent to the corresponding local cadres i.e. Deputy Executive

Engineers (or Assistant Executive Engineers) required for zone VI

should be a local candidate of zone VI. The grievance mentioned

above is covered in Proceedings No. 64 in Volume II of this Report.

Finding No.59


Deputations from one Department to another Department

covered by Presidential Order:

6.17.0 The issue to be considered is: to what extent should the principles

of Para 6 & 7 of the Presidential Order be followed when the

deputation is from one Government Department to another?

6.18.0 In the case of deputation from one department

to another department, since all the departments are covered by

the Presidential Order, such deputations should follow Paras 6 & 7

of the Presidential Order, except where the borrowing department

takes the posts into an excluded category under Para 14 of the

Presidential Order or G.S.R.No.529 (E). In such cases the fair share

principle laid down in Para 9(B) of G.O.P.No.728 General

Administration (SPF.A) Department, dated 01-11-1975 should be

followed. Only a local candidate should be sent on deputation to

the other department in the same local cadre i.e. the same district

or the same zone as the case may be.

Deputation to an organisation ab initio not covered by

Presidential Order:

6.19.0 Such organisations are non-Government

organisations and non-local bodies like Societies, Co-operatives

etc., In the case of such deputations, the lending department

should take care to send only local candidates on deputation to

„local areas‟ (districts/zones, as the case may be).

6.19.1 The borrowing organisation may argue that they are not bound by

the Presidential Order. But the Government employee who is being

deputed belongs to a local cadre and the lending department should

always insist on giving the candidate of the local cadre, so that the

Finding No.60

Finding No.61


consequential vacancy is filled up by a local candidate either by

direct recruitment or by an employee of the local cadre by

promotion.

6.19.2 As of today this principle is not being followed. The Commission

holds that this should be done in pursuance of the spirit of the

Presidential Order and to plug a big leakage in it.

The Departments that are following the fair share ratio for Head of Department offices.

6.20.0 Some of the Departments that categorically

asserted that they are following the fair share ratio in the Head of

Department offices (1) Director of Treasuries and Accounts and

(2) Director of State Audit Department. Both these Departments

take Audit Officers/Assistant Audit Officers/Senior Auditors and

Junior Auditors, all on deputation from the local cadres on a fair

share basis following the principles laid down in Para 9(B) of

G.O.P.No.728.

Departments where Deputations are found common:

6.21.0 Some of the instances of deputations that

have come to our notice in the meetings are as under:

1. Animal Husbandry

Department:

Staff has been taken in A.P. livestock

Development Agency on deputation basis.

2. B.C. Welfare

Department:

A) Some of the Wardens Posts in the

Department are filled by deputation from among Secondary Grade Teachers by the

District Collector for specific periods, in some districts.

B) 25% of the posts of the Executive

Directors of B.C. Welfare Societies in the District are filled by the Departmental

personnel on deputation basis.

Finding No.62

Finding No.63


3. School Education

Department

Staff to work in District Primary Education

Programme is taken on deputation from respective Heads of Departments to work in various wings of the Project.

4. Finance (Small Savings & State

Lotteries) Department

All the staff in the Regional Offices are on deputation from the Revenue Department from

the same district/zone.

5. General Administration

Department

A) ACB: All categories of posts of Inspectors and above are taken on deputation.

B) Press Academy: All the staff is on deputation from the Information and Public Relations Department.

6. Home Department Director of Prosecution: The staff in the directorate was originally taken

on deputation and has been absorbed subsequently, except L.D.C. and below who are

recruited through Employment Exchange.

7. Housing

Department

Director Weaker Section Housing Program:

There are only 10 persons in the Department who have come on deputation from other Departments.

8. Minority Welfare Department

There is no Head of Department for this Department. The staff in District Minority

Welfare Offices in 12 Districts is taken on deputation basis. There is no permanent staff.

9. Municipal Administration &

Urban Development Department

Municipal Commissioners, Public Health Engineers in Municipalities, Medical Officers in

Municipalities etc., are given by the Government to the Urban Local Bodies (Municipalities)

10. P.R. & R.D. Department.

A) M.P.D.Os, M.E.Os etc., are given by the Government to the Mandal Parishads.

B) C.E.Os, P.E.Os, C.A.Os etc., are given by the

Government to the Zilla Parishads. C) D.R.D.A.: Staff consists of a number of

officials who are taken on deputation from Panchayati Raj, Education, Audit, Department, etc.,

D) Commissioner, Rural Development: All the posts of the Head of Department are taken

on deputation.

11. Tribal Welfare

Department

The Tribal Welfare Engineering Department fills

all the posts through deputation from various Engineering Departments and also from Commissioner of Tribal Welfare office.


12. Y.A.T. & C.

Department

In the office of the Director of Youth Services

persons are taken on deputation from various Departments as the rules do not provide for direct recruitment.

13. Fisheries Department

Deputes staff to Co-operative Institutions and Companies etc.,

14. C.C.L.A. Deputes staff to the Departments which requisition the services of Revenue Staff.

15. Endowments Department

Deputes staff to the Temples, Trusts, etc.,

16. Forest Department Deputes staff to the Rural Development Agencies, Corporation, Organisations like Paper

Mills

17. Irrigation & CAD,

Roads & Buildings and P.R. Engineering

Departments

Deputes AEEs, DEEs to various Institutions and

Departments as per rules and requirement

18. State Audit

Department

Deputes Auditors to Local Bodies

19. Medical Education

Health and Family Welfare

Department

Deputes Medical Officers and subordinate staff

to local bodies

20. Director of

Treasures and Accounts

Deputes Non-Gazetted staff to local bodies.

21. Co-operation Department

Deputes Junior and Senior Inspectors to Co-operative Societies and Institutions

In all the above cases Government may kindly ascertain

through a fool- proof process whether the principles for deputation

enunciated hereinabove are being followed. Cases of deviation may

be corrected.

Promotion while on Deputation

6.22.0 Cases have come to notice where deputationists

are given promotions in the borrowing organisations. This is

wrong. They have lien in the lending departments in their

respective local cadres, that is, where they should get their

Finding No.64


promotions, and not deprive the borrowing department‟s staff of

their due promotional opportunities.

6.23.0 In some cases lending department give a

promotion and send the promoted person to an equivalent post to

another department and use the same vacancy for one more

promotion. In a peculiar case in Police Department it is found that

an excluded organisation goes on sending its promoted officers on

deputation and using one vacancy like a cocoon to spin out multiple

promotions, while depriving the borrowing departments or other

possible lending departments with local cadres who could have

deprived a local candidate, of their opportunities. This is the case

mentioned in Proceedings Nos.63 in Volume II of this Report.

6.24.0 Deputations from excluded organisations of

Para 14 and G.S.R. 529 (E) are not envisaged by Para 9(B) of

G.O.P.No.726. They can only take on deputation not give on

deputation. But it is observed in certain cases that this dictum is

violated. The excluded organisations tend to use deputations for

creating promotion opportunities for themselves while depriving

local candidates in local cadres of their due opportunities as

envisaged in Para 9(B) of G.O.P.No.728. We have found that there

is hardly a case where such a deputation is necessary from

administrative point of view or in public interest, whatever the

rationale given on paper, such deputations are in most cases

dispensable.

6.25.0 The Commission has found that Para 9(B) of

G.O.P.No.728 has been almost entirely ignored and violated, in

taking people on deputation to the offices of the Head of

Finding No.65

Finding No.66

Finding No.67


Departments and to other excluded organisations of Para 14 of the

Presidential Order and those included under GSR.No.529 (E).

6.26.0 It is also found that there is no fixed number or

percentage actually being followed in taking people on deputation

to the offices of the Head of Departments.

6.27.0 It is found that the effective basic strength of

the local cadres is not fixed in most of the cases and in any case

they have no indication from the excluded organisations of Para 14

of the Presidential Order as to what is their respective fair share in

the deputations which can be added to their respective basic

strengths as envisaged in Para 9(B).

6.28.0 Where a local body borrows from the

Government, the deputation shall be from the same local area

(local cadre). This principle was also found to have been violated.

6.29.0 Where deputationists to an organisation ab-

initio out side the Presidential Order the candidate should be given

from the local cadre of the area where he is to be posted on

deputation. But this principle is also not being followed, depriving

local candidates of their due opportunities.

6.30.0 The Rules governing deputations and foreign

service are very clear and comprehensive in chapter XII of the A.P.

Fundamental Rules. These should be read with the elaborate rules

regarding probation in the General Rules 8, 10, 11, 18 and 19. It

will be clear that a person has a right to get promotion when he is

on deputation only after he returns and joins his parent unit. He

then begins his probation to his promoted post. So, he cannot go

Finding No.72

Finding No.68

Finding No.69

Finding No.70

Finding No.71


on deputation from the promoted post until his probation is

declared and he becomes an approved probationer in that post. He

also cannot get promotion in absentia. If he does then the

promotion post has to be kept vacant and nobody can be promoted

to that vacancy, as has been done to churrn out multiple

promotions from such vacancies in the Police Dept, both, in SAR

CPL, Amberpet and allegedly also in the City police. (Please see

Chapter-2 of this Report for this case and also Proceedings No. 63

in Volume II of this Report). There are indications of such

happenings in Irrigation & Command Area Development

Department also. The deputations by other lending departments

have also to be put to this test. And perhaps also this has happened

in lending departments. Similarly it is clear that a person on

deputation cannot be accommodated in the upgraded post or even

in a promotion post in a borrowing dept. In this regard the two

important recommendations of the High Power Committee

constituted in G.O.Ms.No.46 General Administration (S.W)

Department dated 28-01-1994, which were accepted by the

Government, as detailed in Paras 4 and 5 of the Executive

Instruction 2 of Fundamental Rule 110 of Chapter XII of the A. P.

Fundamental Rules may be seen. These are reproduced below:

“5. The Government accepts the recommendations and

issue the following guidelines pending amendment to rules by General Administration (Services) Department

wherever necessary:

(i) a person on promotion can be retained in foreign

service on deputation in respect of institutions indicated at (iii) below, if the promotion post is

vacant;


(ii) no post shall be upgraded by the Borrowing

Authority for accommodating a person who is being promoted while on foreign service, and such person

shall be repatriated for joining in the promoted post in his parent department;

(iii) Such benefit may be confined to co-operative institutions, agricultural market Committees,

DRDAs/SC/BC/ST/Women Cooperative Finance Societies ; and Institutions like APVVP which have

yet to build their own cadres;

(iv) Under no circumstances, a direct recruit who is not

an approved probationer shall be deputed to foreign service”.

Remedial Action (XXII)

6.31.0 (1) In Heads of Departments offices if the deputationists are:

(a) more than the percentage stipulated in the Service Rules

(normally 12.5%) the excess number of deputationists should

be sent back; (b) less than the percentage stipulated in the

service rules the total number should be brought to the level of

stipulated percentage.

(2) In all other organisations if there is any stipulation of

percentage the same principles as above under 1 (a) & (b)

should be followed mutates mutandis.

(3) Unless it is absolutely essential and is permitted by the

Government through the procedure laid down for inter-cadre

transfers, deputations should be avoided particularly to

promotion posts. This principle should apply even to

deputations within the same local cadre as it results in

depriving the borrowing department‟s personnel, even in the

same local cadre, of the opportunities of promotion while

unduly benefiting the lending departments. Government may


unequivocally order that deputations from excluded

organisations of Para 14 of the Presidential Order and G.S.R.

529 (E) are banned.

(4) The deputationists should be reshuffled in each of the

organisations to which Para 9(B) of G.O.P.No.728 applies, such

that the fair share proportion stipulated in that Para is

obtained.

(5) Deputationists who have exceeded their tenure should be

forthwith replaced.

(6) Those who have received undue benefit of promotions etc.,

through the misuse of the deputation process as discussed

above should be demoted to their original positions which they

would have held but for the undue promotion. In their places

retrospectively the candidates of the organisation who have

been deprived of the promotion due to the deputationists

should be given notional promotion.

(7) Action may be taken under Para 9(B) of G.O.P.No.728 for all

the local cadres of all the Departments to fix their basic cadre

strength and to apportion to them their fair share of

deputations in the excluded organisations and organisations

under G.S.R.No.529 so that they can arrive at their affective

basic strength as envisaged in G.O.P.No.728. This process may

be watched and monitored by a nodal agency in the

Government such as General Administration (SPF.A)

Department.

(8) The action suggested in the other findings with regard to

different aspects may be taken with such consequential action

as may be due in each individual case.


(9) In the specific cases, the remedial measures may be carried

out as proposed in this Commission‟s Proceedings, particularly

the cases in Proceedings No. 63, regarding Police Department

pertaining to SARCPL, Amberpet mentioned above and

Proceedings No. 64 in the case of Public Health Engineering

Department, from Volume II of this Report.

6.31.1 The Commission would like to sum up its findings on this Genre, by

observing that deputations should be brought under extreme

vigilance as they seem to be resorted to, more for undesirable and

hidden agendas, than for any administrative expediencies. Except

where deputation is the normal source, as in local bodies or

excluded organisations of Para 14 or non-Government institutions/

organisations to which the Presidential Order does not extend.

However the principles laid down hereinabove cover most of the

aspects of deputations. If these are followed with strict vigilance

the misuse of this source could be minimised if not avoided.

6.31.2 All deputations, promotions of deputed persons, and Promotions in

the vacancies of deputed persons - as has happened in Police

Department, Irrigation Department, Public Health Engineering

Department and HMWS & SB etc should be reviewed retrospectively

and undone with all the consequential action (a) to take away the

wrongfully enjoyed benefits retrospectively and (b) to restore

retrospectively to those deprived on account of such wrongful

action the benefits that should have accrued to them in terms of

seniorities, promotions etc. ●


ON OTHER DUTY (O.D)

(Deviation Genre No. IX)

6.32.0 An Employee may be sent “On other Duty” only for very short

period for a specific purpose, normally in the case of a contingency

or an administrative exigency. He goes on other duty to one

particular post but only to perform duties for a given period. His

salary is drawn in original post and there is no lien or any such

thing involved. It is neither a transfer nor a deputation nor it is an

appointment as an officer on special duty. It is just a working

arrangement.

6.33.0 It is noticed that in Irrigation Department the

device of “On Other Duty” was used as a substitute for transfers

and deputations. Employees sent on other duty continued on other

duty in the organisations where they were sent without any

particular post available for them. This has been done to provide

the employee a device to circumvent the procedure for inter cadre

transfer under Para 5 (2) of the Presidential Order defeating the

purpose of localisation of cadres. In a typical case where this

device was detected, an individual even got promotions “on other

duty” and was even posted against a regular vacancy. This device

of OD may be seen in detail in Proceedings No. 58 in Volume II of

this Report. This case indicated that it is not an isolated case.

6.33.1 In another case of the Department which may be seen in

Proceedings No. 61 of Volume II of this Report, “the services of a

blue-eyed boy have been diverted to a division in a different local

cadre and in this diverted post this Senior Assistant was given

promotion as a Superintendent and was kept “in additional charge”

Finding No.73


which is a supplementary device to benefit him doubly. The posts

are not as such require any special skill to resort to these ingenious

devious methods excepting that it is a thinly veiled case of

individual favouritism.●

Remedial Action (XXIII)

6.34.0 (1) Reverse the entire obnoxious process of individual favouritism

and revert the wrongful beneficiaries to where they should be

but for the invalid promotions.

(2) Bring to book the Officers responsible for such audacious

favouritism and violation of Rules and Norms.

(3) Restore the deprived persons to their rightful positions.●

* * * * *


CHAPTER - 7

WORKCHARGED ESTABLISHMENT

(Deviation Genre No. X)

7.1.0 Right from the beginning of the Presidential

Order, workcharged employees have been treated as being outside

the purview of the Presidential Order by the recruiting authorities,

whether in the regular establishments like the old irrigation systems

like Godavari, Krishna, Tungabhadra, etc. or Roads & Buildings

Department and P.R. Engineering or other Engineering

Departments. These authorities have formed their regular

departmental local cadres sequel to the Presidential Order. They

had no reason to keep workcharged establishments outside the

Presidential Order. In the Projects it is understandable till they were

brought under the Presidential Order in 1985. But after that they

too had no reason to recruit workcharged establishments without

following the local cadre principles. Workcharged establishments

constitute the bulk of manpower in the Projects.●

7.1.1 Perusal of some of the original G.O. disposals viz., G.O.MS.No.234,

Irrigation & CAD (Ser.V) Department, dated 01/08/1995,

G.O.MS.No.267, General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated

17-07-1998, G.O.Ms.No.36 General Administration (Ser.A)

Department, dated 25-01-1990, G.O.MS.No.24, Finance (SMPC)

Department, dated 09-01-2002 and Government Memo

No.220/SER.A/91-1, General Administration (Ser.A) Department,

dated 20-02-1991 show that:

Finding No.74


7.2.0 All along, all the concerned authorities have

been quite aware of the fact that workcharged employees are

covered by the Presidential Order like all other localised cadres.

7.2.1 That is the reason why, as seen from disposal of the aforesaid

G.O.Ms.234, the Engineers-in-Chief of I & C.A.D Department have

been pleading with the Government over a period of time, to keep

workcharged employees out of the purview of the Presidential Order

or invoke Para 5 (2) of Presidential Order for their cross-cadre

mobility. At no time have they shown any sign that they are not

aware of the fact that the workcharged employees are not under

Presidential Order. In fact, the aforesaid G.O.Ms.No.36 of General

Administration Department clearly spells out this position.

7. 3.0 Yet, in practice workcharged employees were

recruited and later redeployed/absorbed without applying the

Presidential Order, as was going on right from the day Presidential

Order came into effect in 1975. The same position continues.

7.4.0 Some Officials have argued that a workcharged

employee does not fall under the definition of “civil post”

contemplated under Para 3 of the Presidential Order. This is a

fallacious argument.

7.4.1 The Andhra Pradesh Civil Services Code mentions the following

criteria for a “Civil Post”:

(Quote) “To arrive at a conclusion whether a particular post is a civil post under the State or the Union the courts

generally consider the following factors:

Finding No. 75

Finding No.76

Finding No.77


1. Whether the appointment was made by the

Government and whether the Government is the authority competent to dismiss.

2. Whether the post he holds is created by the State and

could be abolished by it.

3. Whether the conditions of service of the employees are regulated and controlled by the State.

4. Whether the pay and allowances are paid out of the

State Funds.

5. Whether the functions discharged by the employee are functions relating to the State.

6. Whether the State exercises control over him or his organisation.

Generally, if the employee satisfies the above tests, he is

regarded to be the holder of a civil post. Contingency staff are not usually considered to be holders of civil posts.”

(Unquote).

By all these criteria:

7.5.0 A workcharged employee is in a “civil post”

created out of a percentage of the State‟s expenditure on works as

laid down in the PWD Code, for the specific work of petty

supervision.

7.5.1 From the history of workcharged establishments the following facts

are clear:

7.6.0 That workcharged establishments are not only

in the Projects but also almost everywhere particularly in the

Engineering Departments, even in the training Institution like

WALAMTARI and Engineering Research Labs. In fact where there is

Finding No.78

Finding No.79


an Engineer, there are workcharged employees, whatever be the

department. They were there in the regular Engineering

Departments at the time of the Presidential Order and Projects of

that time and have continued since then, through 1985 when the

Projects were brought under the Presidential Order, till now.

7.7.0 Progressively their number has gone on increasing

because they were neither retrenched after the work was over nor

moved to new works as the Engineers-in-Chief have been arguing

from time to time to get them outside the purview of the

Presidential Order.

7.8.0 Contrary to the original concept of workcharged

establishment in the PWD Code, this establishment continued even

when work was over and in effect became permanent without any

repatriation or movement to other sites of work. On the other hand

gradually they came to get regularised and became eligible for

pensions also. They have ended up getting better position than

regular employees who are organised into local cadres and who are

also transferable and have regular assigned duties unlike

workcharged employees, the bulk of whom are idle and identified as

surplus, i.e. without work.

7.8.1 The then Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation, Sri Rajendra Kumar in his

D.O.Lr.No.W2/92791/86, dt: 6-6-86 addressed to Sri T. R. Prasad,

IAS, the then Secretary to Government, Irrigation, had written as

under:

“When machinery is transferred from one Project to

another, the crew engaged on it is also being transferred along with the machines. Due to the

Presidential Order if any constraint is placed in this

Finding No.80

Finding No.81


regard it leads to retrenching the personnel engaged

in the machinery and transfer the machines alone to other Projects, Organisations etc. To circumvent the

difficulty my suggestion is that whenever any machinery is transferred from one zone to another the

crew should go along with it but it may be treated as on deputation. Their seniority etc., would still be

maintained in parent division/circle. The avowed policy of the Government is not to retrench

workcharged employees and under these circumstances the procedure suggested by me

becomes inevitable”.

7.8.2 It is clear that in 1986 the Department and the Government were

fully aware that workcharged establishment was under the purview

of the Presidential Order. The little difficulty about machinery crew

was also proposed to be solved by the deputation process. In any

case such crew forms an infinitesimal part of the total workcharged

establishment, which today stands at 40,870. Despite this clear

awareness, the Presidential Order was never applied to these

establishments.

7.9.0 Ultimately it is seen that workcharged

establishments remained in tact even in the Projects, which were

completed. For every fresh work or a Project, fresh workcharged

establishment was engaged with the result that even in Nagarjuna

Sagar Project the workcharged establishment continues. Even for

Telugu Ganga Project the workcharged establishments from the

completed Projects were not permitted to work and fresh

workcharged establishment was engaged there.

7.10.0 In any case, the specious argument of mobility

was used to keep the workcharged establishment outside the

Presidential Order but that mobility did not take place due to

Finding No.82

Finding No.83


whatever ground realities. The result is that most of the surplus

has occurred because they remained in their original places of

completed works and projects. They have had the best of both the

worlds. They are as much directly appointed personnel as any

other to the regular posts, the difference being that they are not

appointed by APPSC or District Selection Committees but directly by

the Executive Engineers or departmental Officers incharge of works

by method which could be called “back-door” or ”decentralised

patronage” entry into civil posts of the Government. It draws its

salaries from the State exchequer, not from the contractors. It

matters little that the exchequer pays through the works budget or

any other budget head.

G.O.Ms.No.564 dated 05-12-1985 pertaining to the demands of the Rayalseema employees and G.O.Ms.No.610 dated

30-12-1985

7.11.0 In Paras 5 (i), (ii) and (iii) of G.O.Ms.No.564 and paras 5 (i) and (ii)

of G.O.Ms.No.610 would indicate that the basic cause of agitations

based on the demands portrayed in these paras must have been

the bulk of manpower of workcharged establishments mainly in the

Projects.

7.12.0 Finance (SMPC) Department G.O.Ms.No.24

dated 09-01-2002 shows 17,161 in the workcharged establishment

in Irrigation Department alone. In addition to these the

Commission has received following figures: (i) Roads & Buildings

Department 5,849 (ii) Panchayati Raj Engineering Department

7,860. These three figures alone account for 40,870. Public Health

Engineering Department and Tribal Welfare Engineering

Department, Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage

Finding No.84


Board have not yet given figures. In 1994 when Act 2/94 was

passed, in the white paper issued by State Government the figure

of workcharged employees was less than this figure. This would

show that far from vanishing with the completion of work this work

force has become a permanent part of the State‟s work force and

should have been treated as “civil posts” under the Presidential

Order.

7.13.0 There is no provision in the Presidential Order

that either excludes workcharged establishment or validates its

exclusion. These establishment have been a major cause of

grievances for the local candidates of the entire State.

7.14.0 There are two different dimensions of the

workcharged establishment - one, which we have discussed herein

above, viz recruitment and deployment of workcharged

establishment in which the Presidential Order has been totally

contravened, the second is the absorption/redeployment of surplus

manpower which includes the bulk of workcharged establishment.

In this second phase also Presidential Order has been contravened

for untenable and specious reasons.

Redeployment/Absorption of identified surplus workcharged employees and other surplus employees

7.15.0 While absorbing work-charged employees in

regular Departments as part of the surplus manpower, along with

the other surplus manpower, the Presidential Order has been

contravened. Appointment by absorption or redeployment, call it

what you will, into a Department, is as much a direct appointment

as appointment from any other source. There is no rationale or

Finding No.85

Finding No.86

Finding No.87


legal basis for bypassing the Presidential Order while making

appointments by redeployment or absorption into regular local

cadres. The rule of local candidate for local cadre which is to be

applied for direct recruitment should have been followed for

redeploying/absorbing of the surplus manpower. This has not been

done and is not being done even now. The surprising element in

this is that General Administration (SPF) Department who

administer the Six Point Formula has given an opinion in the file of

Irrigation and Command Area Development Department that

workcharged employees can be absorbed as a part of the surplus

manpower pool without applying the Presidential Order! This

opinion in turn resulted in the issue of G.O.Ms.No.234 dated 01-08-

1995 by Irrigation Department placing the absorption of all surplus

manpower including the workcharged employees outside the

purview of the Presidential Order.

7.15.1 Presuming for the sake of argument, without conceding, that

workcharged employees were outside the Presidential Order, how

could their absorption into regular departmental posts organised

into local cadres also be outside the Presidential Order when the

posts to which they are thus appointed themselves form part of

local cadres? For example, the general public as such is outside the

Presidential Order, but when members of the public are recruited to

posts which are organised into local cadres they are recruited on

the basis of their status as local candidates or non-local candidates

as the case may be. The same principle applies to the workcharged

employees even if they were kept outside the Presidential Order, (in

any case, as already discussed above, they too should have been

organised into local cadres and not kept outside the Presidential

Order).


7.16.0 G.O.Ms.No.24, Finance (SMPC) Department,

dated 09-01-2002 clearly speaks of redeployment of surplus

manpower “in direct recruitment vacant posts”. In other words, it

concedes that absorption or redeployment of surplus manpower,

the bulk of which consists of workcharged employees (surplus

workcharged employees 21,866 as per this G.O) tantamounts to

direct recruitment. The Memo No.220/Services-A/91-1,General

Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 20-02-1991 has

unequivocally clarified that “they have to be absorbed in other

departments treating them as direct recruits for the purpose of

determining their seniority only…”. Only the agency in this case is

the District Collector, in the case of district cadre posts, and the

Government, in the case of zonal level posts. However, the

clarification No. 12 with regard to absorption/redeployment issued

in Memo No.29730/484/SMPC/99, dated 20-09-1999 of Finance

and Planning (FW:SMPC) Department authorises the redeployment

of surplus employees in any district cadre or in any zonal cadre. ●

7.16.1 The aforesaid clarification No. 12 in this regard is reproduced below:

(Quote) No.12. Allotment of personnel across zones:-

As per the orders issued in the G.O.Ms.No.36, General Administration (Ser-A) Department, dated 25-01-1990

where it is not possible to make re-allotments to absorb within the local cadres, the provisions of the

Presidential Order can be invoked. As per the Presidential Order, Government employees can be

posted across zones in public interest. As the availability of surplus people in one zone without

meaningful job or where they cannot be absorbed is a

drain on public exchequer, it serves public interest to make use of their service elsewhere in a different zone

where there is a need of such personnel. Hence, the surplus personnel available in one place can be

Finding No.88


allotted to any other place in a different zone where

vacancies are available, in the public interest. (Unquote)

7.16.2 This is a case of stretching the Presidential Order to breaking point.

To the understanding of this Commission Para 5 (2) of the

Presidential Order to which the above narration is related and to

which it makes an implicit allusion (by citing “public interest”

principle enunciated in this Para only) cannot apply in this case.

This Para applies only to transfers of people in the existing posts

and not to appointments by Direct Recruitment. In fact, the

Supreme Court in its Judgement in Civil Appeal Nos 9643 – 9644 of

1995 between B. Jagannadha Rao and others (Appellants Vs State

of A.P and other Respondents) (available with General

Administration (SPF.A) Department and also Law Department) has

held that even “appointments by transfer” which are normally made

under the Service Rules almost in every Department for employees

of the Heads of Departments Offices and Secretariat, to higher

posts, cannot fall under this Para. Then, how can absorptions which

are nothing but direct recruitments be brought under the ambit of

transfers? Thus:

7.17.0 It is obvious that the clarification by Finance

Department, cited above in Memo No.29730/484/SMPC/99, dated

20-09-1999 of Finance and Planning (FW:SMPC) Department gives

an erroneous legal position, to say the least. Therefore absorptions

across the district cadres and zonal cadres without taking into

account whether the candidate is a local candidate for these cadres

appears to the Commission to be patently in contravention of Paras

6 and 7 of the Presidential Order.●

Finding No.89


7.18.0 It may be reiterated that appointment of

workcharged Employees by the Executive Engineers etc., and

redeployment/absorption of the surplus manpower including work-

charged employees into regular departmental cadres are both

appointments by Direct Recruitment. ●

7.18.1 In this connection it is relevant to reproduce here definition of

„Direct Recruitment‟ in Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate

Service Rules 1962 as revised from time to time:

(Quote) “Direct Recruitment: A candidate is said to be recruited direct to a post, class or category in a

service, in case his first appointment thereto is made

otherwise than by the following methods:

(i) By promotion from a lower post, category or class

in that service or from a lower grade of any such post, category or class, or

(ii) By transfer from any other class of that service, or

(iii) By appointment by transfer from any other service, or

(iv) By re-employment of a person in case he had retired from service of Government prior to such

appointment, or

(v) By appointment by agreement or contract”.

(Unquote)

It is clear that appointment through redeployment/absorption, not

falling under the above modes, is therefore “direct appointment”.

7.18.2 There is some misunderstanding that Direct Recruitment is through

and by only Public Service Commission or District Selection

Committees or only to permanent posts etc. Direct Recruitment

Finding No.90


can be to any post, which is paid from the State‟s exchequer by any

method other than those mentioned above.

In conclusion, The above Findings may be summed up as

under:-

7.19.0 A) Workcharged employees in the regular departments came under

the provisions of the Presidential Order from the day Presidential

Order came into effect from 18-10-1975. But the departments,

though quite aware of this position, did not apply these provisions,

i.e. (a) they do not seem to have made initial allotments of these

employees under Para (4) of the Presidential Order nor fitted them

into local cadres; (b) did not apply Paras 6 and 7 of the Presidential

Order for direct recruitments at any time till today. Thus they were

treated as if they did not come under the purview of the

Presidential Order.

B) The Major Development Projects being excluded from the

Presidential Order till they were brought under it on 03-10-1985,

the workcharged employees for them, like all the other categories

of employees were recruited without applying Paras 6 & 7 of the

Presidential Order for direct recruitment and no local cadres were

formed for these Projects. But, after the Presidential Order was

extended to the Major Development Projects on 03-10-1985 (Vide

amended sub-para (e) of Para 14 of the Presidential Order), the

workcharged establishment continued to be treated as if it is

excluded from the Presidential Order, while other non-gazetted

categories of these Projects were formed or fitted into local cadres.

Various relevant files show that all the concerned authorities right

up to Government level were fully aware of the fact that these

were not excluded. Thus (a) they were not organised into local


cadres as should have been done and non-locals beyond the

permissible ratio neither identified nor repatriated; (b) further

appointments of workcharged employees into these Projects have

also not been made under Paras 6 & 7 of the Presidential Order as

ought to have been done. So no one knows how many locals and

how many non-locals there are in the total workcharged

establishments in these Projects. A total of 21,866 employees in

the State have been identified as surplus, the bulk being

Workcharged employees, wrongly kept outside the local cadres.

C) Appointment by redeployment or absorption of the workcharged

employees and other surplus employees falls under direct

recruitment provisions of Paras 6 and 7 of the Presidential Order.

But, this is not being done, with the result that the local status of a

candidate is not taken into account while absorbing/redeploying

him/her.

D) Aforesaid G.O.Ms.No.36 and later G.O.Ms.No.24 which lay down

the guidelines have not rectified the position and instead seem to

have validated the contravention of the Presidential Order.

E) Double jeopardy has been caused to local candidates in all the

local areas of the State: first, by wrongfully keeping workcharged

employees outside the Presidential Order and then again, by

keeping the surplus manpower pool outside the Presidential Order

even though they are being appointed into local cadres into posts

that are organised into local cadres.

F) There is no estimate made or exercise undertaken to arrive at

the figure of the non-locals, who have deprived the prospective

local candidates of their opportunities of employment to these


posts, employed through absorption/redeployment, in each district

cadre and in each zonal cadre in the State.

G) The Finance G.O.Ms.No.24 gives the district wise break up only

of the Irrigation Department workcharged employees, not of the

other Departments. In the Irrigation Department the total number

of workcharged employees in V and VI zones is shown as 4,785 out

of the total of 17,161.

Remedial Action (XXIV)

7.20.0 (1) With regard to workcharged establishments as such:

(i) The first and foremost action needed is for the Government

to issue a G.O clarifying that all the workcharged employees

always were and continue to be under the Presidential Order,

regardless of whether they are surplus or not. The Commission

would like to state the obvious, since obviousness of the

obvious does not seem to have been obvious to the authorities

concerned with regard to this work force viz., that there was no

consent of Government of India obtained for any amendment

to the Presidential Order to exclude workcharged establishment

from the purview of the Presidential Order.

(ii) They have all to be subjected to localization (almost all of

them would be falling under the district cadre where 80% is

reserved for local candidates)

(iii) The local status of each of the workcharged employees

should be ascertained by the concerned controlling officer by

following the procedure laid down in Para 22 to 26 of G.O.P.No.

729 General Administration (SPF.A) Department, dated 01-11-

1975. Certified copies of the documents verified should be

appended to the service register of each and his local status


i.e. the district in which he is a local candidate should be

recorded in the service register and signed by the officer

authorised to do so.

(iv) On this basis, a precise census of local and non-local

employees should be quickly conducted so that a clear picture

emerges of how many of each of these categories are there in

each district/zone as the case may be, depending on whether

the post is in the district cadre or in the zonal cadre.

(v) On this basis all the local employees should be retained

even if they go beyond 80% because the remaining 20% is not

a quota for non-locals but for merit candidates, non-locals and

locals together. In this case there is no question of merit at

this stage. Hence, all the locals should be retained in their

respective local areas, the district/zone as the case may be, to

which they are local. Similarly in such a case all the non-

locals, below 20% may also be retained in the same local area

(viz. the district/zone as the case may be).

(vi) If the locals are below 80%, there would be need to

repatriate the excess non-locals to their respective local areas

(Districts). In such a case there are two different scenarios:

(a) Those excess non-locals who are not in the surplus

category, they will have no work of the type that they are

doing and will become surplus in those Districts. They will

leave behind vacancies for locals to be recruited to, no

doubt. But can the Government afford to add to the

surplus manpower by recruiting fresh persons?

(b) Those excess non-locals who are already identified as

surplus: What purpose will it serve for the locals if they are


repatriated? The surplus leaves behind no vacant posts as

they are themselves surplus and the consequential

vacancies cannot be filled. If there is no gain to the locals

in terms of employment opportunities, their repatriation

serves no purpose.

7.20.1 A prudent and human approach might be to compensate the locals

in future by stipulating that in any future recruitments to the

District Cadre posts the number arrived at for repatriation of non-

locals shall be treated as backlog vacancies for locals only, and

filled up as such with 100% for locals till the number arrived at in

each District/Zone is totally offset through such recruitments.

7.20.2 This solution is easier given than implemented. Much will depend

upon the numbers. It might be better to find an agreed settlement.

As mentioned above the option of the nature of action would

depend on numbers. In fixing responsibility, it would have to be

remembered that the process has gone on since 18-10-1975 and

aggravated after 03-10-1985. Recalling these dates and the time

frame might make a settlement easier to arrive at.

7.20.3 (2) With regard to Appointments by absorption/redeployment:

(i) Immediate orders may be issued that all absorptions/

redeployments etc should be done on the basis of paras 6 and

7 of the Presidential Order. All stipulations to the contrary in

the aforesaid G.O.Ms.No.36 dated 25-01-1990 and the item

No.12 in the clarificatory Memo No.29730/484/SMPC/99 dated

20-09-1999, and G.O.Ms.24 Fin (SMPC) Department dated 09-

01-2002 and in any other Orders of the Government should be

rescinded.


There will be one difficulty in this regard: the orders of

absorption/redeployment for the district cadre posts will be

issued by the Collectors who would not be able to keep a tab

on how many locals have been absorbed in each district

cumulatively as there is no bulk recruitment or absorption for

any particular district as such. Similar difficulty will be found at

Government level also for zonal posts. It is therefore

suggested that all absorptions regardless of the percentage

prescribed for local candidates should be done only by posting

candidates who are local to the district cadre or zonal cadre, as

the case may be, in which they are absorbed and no non-locals

should be absorbed.

(ii) The non-locals absorbed already may be transferred to

their local areas (district/zone as the case may be) as and

when vacancies arise there. In the consequential vacancies,

local surplus candidates should be absorbed.●

* * * * *


CHAPTER – 8

GAZETTING OF POSTS AND SPECIFIED GAZETTED

CATEGORY

(Deviation Genre No. XI)

8.1.0 In Commission‟s Preliminary Report, Preliminary Finding Nos.12 (A)

to 12 (D) with particular reference to sub-Para (ii) of Para 2.28.0 of

the Preliminary Finding 12 (A) important issue pertaining to

immutability of local character of a post is mentioned. A reference

made by this Commission to the Government on this issue is given

in Appendix VI to this report. After the Preliminary Report, the

Commission held meetings with the Officers of the Heads of the

Departments to find out about the deviations if any from the

Presidential Order.

8.2.0 One of the most important issues that has come

to the notice of the Commission is that in many departments the

posts which were hitherto non-gazetted before 18.10.1975, the

date of the Presidential Order, have been made gazetted either with

the same designation or with some change of designation. As non-

gazetted posts these were zonal posts with 70% preference for

local candidates. On becoming gazetted, a post becomes Statewide

posts and also loses the preference (reservation) percentage for

local candidates. Thus, through this process the Presidential Order

is leaking out in respect of many important posts at the zonal level

and local candidates of all the zones are losing the advantage of the

preference for local candidates. How many unknown local

candidates of each zone have thus lost their opportunities for

Finding No.91


recruitment and promotion on account of Gazetting of the posts

since 18-10-1975, no one can tell.

8.2.1 Apart from the posts that have come to the notice of this

Commission, the Commission understands that there is a demand

from many Service Associations for gazetting some of their posts

and that these demands have been referred to Anomalies

Commission for examination. The Anomalies Commission will no

doubt examine the administrative and other aspects of the

demands for making the posts gazetted. ●

8.3.0 The one aspect that needs to be safeguarded is

that when a post is gazetted or any change is made in a post, its

original local character should be preserved so that there is no

leakage of any posts from out of the Presidential Order and local

candidates‟ interests are not adversely affected. ●

8.3.1 The Secretary, General Administration (Services & SPF) Department

has written to the Anomalies Commission in this regard in response

to this Commission‟s letter. Copy of this note of the Government is

at Appendix VII.

8.3.2 One finds from the Third Schedule that even up to 1993 some posts

were added to this category, but not all the posts that have been

gazetted to date have been added to this category.

8.3.3 Adding to the Third Schedule of Presidential Order under the

category of Specified Gazetted Posts only preserves the zonal

character of the post, but that brings no solace to the local

candidates because the preference for local candidates does not

apply to all the posts which are included in this category excepting

for a few posts like Tahsildars and Assistant Executive Engineers

Finding No.92


etc., in this Schedule which were originally given the preference of

60% for local candidates. Inclusion in this category does not restore

the local candidate preference of 70% which is lost when a non-

gazetted post is gazetted. In many of the cases that have come

before the Commission, the posts have not even been brought to

this Specified Gazetted Category after being gazetted so that even

the zonal character is lost and they become State-wide posts. In

two cases - one of Forest Range Officers and another, of Prohibition

and Excise Inspectors, the proposals for inclusion in the Third

Schedule as Specific Gazetted Category posts were even rejected

by the Government of India. On the latter case this Commission

has written to the Government of Andhra Pradesh already. Please

see Appendix VIII to this Report.●

8.3.4 The utility of inclusion in the Third Schedule is limited to promotions

and not for direct recruitment. Specified Gazetted Category, which

is what this Schedule contains is a result of the stipulation in Point

No. (3) of the Six Point Formula which states „inter alia‟:

“ In order to improve their promotion prospects, service

cadres should be organized to the extent possible on appropriate local basis up to specified gazetted level, first

or second, as may be administratively convenient”.

This would indicate that:

8.4.0 Six Point Formula stipulation in Point No. 3

intended that up to the first or the second gazetted level all the

posts should be organised into local cadres (district or zonal as the

case may be). The gazetted posts selected for this purpose by each

department that existed at the time of the Presidential Order (as

listed out in Annexure to G.O.P No.728, General Administration

(SPF.A) Department, dated 01-11-1975) had to be specified in the

Finding No.93


Specified Gazetted Categories of the Third Schedule. It is seen from

the Third Schedule that from some of the departments in the

aforesaid Annexure, no gazetted post has been included in this

category. These Departments with their respective serial numbers

in the said Annexure are (2) Tourism Department, (5) Civil Supplies

Department, (11) Indian Medicine and Homoeopathy Department,

(12) Fire Services Department, (14) Jail Department, (15) Judicial

Department, (19) Excise Department, (22) Registration and Stamp

Department, (25) Public Libraries Department, (27) NCC

Department, (29) Archeology and Museums Department, (30) A.P

Text Book Press, (35) Weights and Measures Department, (37)

Mines and Geology Department, (41) Electrical Inspectorate, (45)

Tribal Welfare Department,(47) Factories and Boilers Department,

(48) Industrial Tribunal and (49) Forest Department (Total 19 out

of 51 Departments). In the case of some of the departments, more

than one or two gazetted categories of posts have been included. ●

8.4.1 In the Preface to “Guidelines and Instructions for Implementation”

of the Presidential Order (Revised Edition corrected up to 01-03-

1999 by General Administration (SPF.A) Department) the Principal

Secretary to Government has stated that “a list of gazetted

categories which are proposed for inclusion and pending with the

Central Government have been shown separately in the Third

Schedule at the appropriate place in this book”. But no such list

appears in the Third schedule.

8.4.2 Reading the entire Point No. 3 of the Six Point Formula it is clear

that the Six Point Formula intended that up to non-gazetted level,

the posts organised into local cadres shall have a specified

reservation which in the Presidential Order appears as 80% for


district cadre posts and 70% for zonal cadre posts. It stipulates

reservation only for six select gazetted posts namely the posts

mentioned in (Sub-Paras 3 and 5) of the Presidential Order, which

have been given 60% reservation for local candidates.

8.5.0 Reading the entire text of the third Point of Six

Point Formula, it is clear that the intention was that the gazetted

posts (first or second as may be specified in the Specified Gazetted

Category for each department) were not to have any reservation

for local candidates for direct recruitment but would have the

benefit of promotional opportunities by virtue of their inclusion in

the local cadre (zone or multi-zone, as the case may be).

8.5.1 To this extent the demand in G.O.Ms.No.610 has to be conceded

but only in respect of the 19 Departments left out as mentioned

above and only for the limited purpose that applies to the specified

category as amplified hereinabove. ●

8.6.0 The posts that were gazetted after 18-10-1975

have to be considered separately in the light of the principle of

immutability of the local character of a post as it existed at the time

of the Presidential Order. These posts having been non-gazetted

posts on the crucial date enjoyed the benefit of being zonal posts

with 70% reservation for local candidates. Therefore even after

gazetting, this benefit cannot be removed and all such posts have

to be restored this benefit with immediate effect through an order

of Government of India. It is found from the Third Schedule that

many of the posts in the Third Schedule have been included under

G.O.s issued in 1993, two were included in 1981 and one in 1989

and one in 1988. It is not known which of these posts were the

original gazetted posts at the time of the Presidential Order and

Finding No.94

Finding No.95


which of them were subsequently gazetted posts, which were got

included in the specified gazetted category.●

8.7.0 This process of gazetting is resulting in

consequences, which are against the principle enunciated in the

Preliminary Findings of this Commission cited above, that the local

character of a post as it was on 18-10-1975 should remain

immutable. ●

8.7.1 The reason for the recommendations in these findings cited above is

that if we do not accept the principle of immutability of the local

character of the posts as it stood at the time of the Presidential

Order on 18-10-1975, then the Government would find it difficult to

deny the demands for expanding the scope of the Presidential

Order in so many other dimensions. It will be found in

G.O.Ms.No.610 one of the demands which the Government had

agreed to look into was Paras 5 (4), 5 (5) and 5 (9), which read as

under: -

Para 5 (4)

“ In respect of first level gazetted posts in certain departments which are outside the purview of the Presidential Order, action should be taken to review the question of inclusion of such posts also in the scheme of

localization and the matter should be taken up with the Government of India for suitable amendment to the said

order”.

Para 5 (5)

“ The posts in Institutional/Establishment notified in GSR

No.526 (E), dated 18-10-1975 shall be filled up by drawing persons on tenure basis from different local

cadres on an equitable basis”.

Finding No.96


Para 5 (9)

“ The possibility of allotting persons from within the same zone/multi-zone against non-local vacancy in a particular

local cadre will be examined in consultation with the APPSC”.

8.8.0 It is a paradox, or an irony of the administrative

system, that has escaped the attention of the Government, that

while in G.O.Ms.No.610 Government have assured about taking up

with the Government of India, the question of localization of all the

first gazetted posts, the contrary process of pulling out from the

localized cadres of non-gazetted zonal posts through the process of

gazetting them has been going on unabated, after the Presidential

Order, causing jeopardy to local candidates in terms of loss of

opportunities for direct recruitment and promotions. ●

8.8.1 Talking of the expansion of the scope of Presidential Order, it may

be mentioned that the Services Associations, particularly of

Telangana, have also made demands for extending the Presidential

Order to Corporations and other Quasi-Government organizations,

which are now outside the Presidential Order.

8.8.2 The abridgement of the Presidential Order and the leakage of

localized posts through this process of gazetting is against the

principle that the Presidential Order‟s scope shall not be mutated

i.e., neither expanded nor abridged. If it is still allowed to be

abridged then the counter demands for expansion of the scope

cannot be easily ignored.

8.8.3 In pursuance of this principle of immutability of the local character

of post as it stood on the date of Presidential Order, the

Government have taken care to ensure that the posts of the

Finding No.97


Secondary Grade Teachers were retained as district cadre posts and

later on the Government took further action to ensure that the

original 80% preference for local candidates was also restored (vide

Government of India Gazette No.902 dated 13/12/2001 -

Appendix IX) even though the scale of the posts had been raised

by the 1994 Pay Revision Commission above the level of the LDC

Scales, which would normally have made them zonal posts with

70% preference for local candidates. Having accepted the principle

of immutability and applied in the case of the Secondary Grade

Teachers it is but fair that the same principle be applied wherever

there is any administrative action or change that mutates the

original local character of a post. This will give finality and stability

to the Presidential Order amidst the dynamics of a progressive and

expanding administrative system.

8.8.4 In pursuance of this principle and in view of the dimensions

mentioned above:

Remedial Action (XXV)

8.9.0 A) All the 19 Departments of aforesaid Annexure from which no

gazetted post appears in the Third Schedule should select the first

or second gazetted post, which existed at the time of the

Presidential Order and not created subsequently, and get it

included through the Government of India in the Third Schedule.

Explanation: Why it is suggested that the specified gazetted posts

should be included only from the remaining 19 Departments of the

aforesaid Annexure of G.O.P.No.728, is that all the Departments of

the Annexure have got divided and produced new offspring

Departments. Hence the Specified Gazetted Category posts in

these new Departments is the same as in the old 51 Departments


that are listed in the Annexure as on the date of the Presidential

Order. Covering all the Departments of the said Annexure would

automatically ensure that one specified gazetted post from each of

the categories of the Departments existing today is ipso facto

included in the Specified Gazetted Categories of Third Schedule.

However if there is any department from the new Departments

listed out in Chapter-2 of this Report and in Annexure-1 of this

Report, is left out, a gazetted post may be selected from each of

the gazetted categories of such Department and included in the

Third Schedule to make it comprehensive and complete as intended

in Point No. 3 of Six Point Formula.

B) The existing posts in the Third Schedule should be scanned and

those which have been gazetted after 18-10-1975 should be

removed. In their places each of the departments concerned

should specify a gazetted post that existed at that time.

C) All the posts gazetted after 18-10-1975, which may include

some posts that may be taken out of the Third Schedule under „B‟

above, should be made zonal posts and given a reservation of 70%

for local candidates through a general blanket order of Government

of India, so as to restore to them their original local character. Once

this order is applied they should be withdrawn from the Third

Schedule through a subsequent Order, or it can also be made a part

of the same Order as may be legally advised. This could be done

with prospective effect.

To this extent this Commission‟s letter to the Government in

Appendix-VI stands modified. (The procedure suggested here is

simpler.)


Thus, there will be three varieties of gazetted posts:-

(i) Those in the Specified Gazetted Category (Third

Schedule) after action is taken under „A‟ and „B‟

above;

(ii) Posts gazetted after 18-10-1975, which shall retain

their original zonal local cadre and reservation of

70% for the local candidates;

(iii) All other gazetted posts which will continue to be

State-wide posts.

Clarification: This amplification of the Third Schedule (Specified

Gazetted Category) is given to obviate any impression that to

remove an existing misconception that appears even in the Preface

to the aforesaid Guidelines Book of General Administration

Department, it is hereby clarified unequivocally that after gazetting,

if a post is included in the Third Schedule, the original local

character is neither safeguarded nor restored. It just serves no

purpose and is not contemplated by Point No. 3 of Six Point

Formula either. Unfortunately, that has been the erroneous thinking

so far.

D) To give finality to the scope of the Presidential Order this

Commission had suggested in the Preliminary Report that we

should put a stop to any kind of abridgement of the scope of the

Presidential Order and give an assurance to the Employees

Associations to this effect, while firmly refusing to expand its scope.

Both these decisions have to go as a package. They have to be an

indivisible package.

E) Any further gazetting of posts may be stopped unless absolutely

inevitable.


F) Till orders on action as at item (C) above are issued no direct

recruitment or promotions should be effected for such posts, as

that would cause jeopardy to the rights and interests of local

candidates●

8.9.1 Some of the posts that have come to the notice of the Commission

which have been gazetted with or without changes in designation

after the Presidential Order is given in Annexure-3. This list is not

exhaustive but information may be collected from all the

Departments, so that in one single reference Government of India‟s

orders may be obtained in the existing cases as suggested in

Appendix VI.

Rationale Against Gazetting of Non-gazetted Posts

8.10.0 The process of gazetting of posts has adverse effect not only on the

opportunities of local candidates under the Presidential Order, and

not only mutates the original local status of posts as of 18-10-1975,

the date of coming into effect of the Presidential Order, but it has

undesirable consequences for the administrative structure and its

operation. When the post is gazetted it becomes a first gazetted

post and first gazetted post becomes the second gazetted post.

The Appointing Authority for the first gazetted post is the Head of

Department in almost all the cases. This gives him the full powers

under the A.P. Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal)

Rules (disciplinary rules). But when the post is pushed up to the

second gazetted level this situation changes. The disciplinary

control of the Head of Department on this crucial post is loosened

resulting in administrative laxity.


8.10.1 Normally, for first gazetted posts 30 to 40% or more quota is fixed

for direct recruitment. The second gazetted post is normally a

promotion post to which the first gazetted post is a channel. With a

new first gazetted post coming in, there will be direct recruitment

both, to the first and the second gazetted posts, which will be a bad

administrative structure and will affect the promotional cannel of

the first gazetted posts.

8.10.2 The moment the status of a post is raised in our society, field work

and mass contact become taboo and a distance is created between

him and the clientele that he has to serve.

8.10.3 Hence even from the point of view of a good administrative

structure and efficient field level administration it is desirable not to

resort to gazetting of posts.

8.10.4 Gazetting creates a chain reaction as officers of different

departments make it a ground for their posts being gazetted saying

that they cannot coordinate from a lower status.

* * * * *


CHAPTER - 9

COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS

(Deviation Genre No. XII)

9.1.0 Compassionate appointments are governed

by the following Government Orders:

1. G.O.Ms.No.1005, Employment & Social Welfare (G) Department, dated 27-12-1974.

2. Government Memo No.529/G1/75-8, Employment & Social Welfare (G) Department, dated 19-08-1975.

3. G.O.Ms.No.687, General Administration (Services-A) Department, dated 03-10-1977.

4. Government Memo No.1900/Ser.A/79-1, General

Administration (Services-A) Department, dated 21-9-79.





7. Government Memo No.834/Ser.A/80-2, General Administration

(Services-A) Department, dated 30-07-80.

8. Government Memo No.1083/Ser.-A/80-1, General




10. G.O. Ms. No.84, General Administration (Services-A)

Department, dated 17-02-1982.

11. Government Memo No.380/Ser.A/82-1, General Administration

(Services-A) Department, dated 02-09-83.

12. Government Memo No.2047/Ser.A/83-1, General Administration (Services-A) Department, dated 10-10-83.

13. G.O. Ms. No.110, General Administration (Services-A) Department, dated 22-02-1984.

Finding No.98















Administration (Services-A) Department, dated 30-11-87



22. Government Memo No.331/Ser.-A/90-1, General Administration (Services-A) Depat.dt.15-3-90.

23. Government Memo No.831/Ser.-A/90-1, General Administration (Services-A) Department, dated 15-03-90.





28. Government Memo No.1094/Ser.-A/92-1, General Administration (Services-A) Department, dated 23-12-92
















9.2.0 It is said that inspite of 35 G.O.s on the subject

compassionate appointments are made without observing the

Presidential Order regarding appointment of local candidates to

local cadres in all direct recruitments. And compassionate

appointments are only direct recruitments in which the basis of

selection of a candidate to a vacancy on compassion. ●

9.2.1 Observing the Presidential Order in making a single or few direct

appointments has one problem and that is that 80% or 70% in the

case of a zonal post (of the vacancies in any particular recruitment)

are reserved for local candidates and 20% to 30% (as the case may

be) are vacancies to be filled in by merit. In effect, it means that

this rule can be followed only if at least five candidates are selected

for appointment at a time, so that four can be reserved for local

candidates. In making appointment under Compassionate

Appointments Scheme, the appointment may be an isolated case in

any particular local cadre at any given time. There may be a

number of isolated cases in a year. Since there is no roaster

system as there is for SCs, STs, BCs etc., following the percentage

in isolated few cases is difficult.

9.3.0 Government had clarified in Government

Memo No.1345/Services.A/87-4, dated 30-11-1987 of General

Finding No.99

Finding No.100


Administration (Services-A) Department that compassionate

appointments can be treated under Para 8 (8) of the Presidential

Order or as a part of the 20% merit quota and therefore local

candidate reservation need not be followed. The flaw in the first

course of action as the word „at least‟ indicates that there must

have been other appointment in which local candidates are

appointed. This provision seems to be completely out of place in

the context of compassionate appointments. As for the second

course of action, how can there be appointment to the 20% merit

quota, which is only a residual percentage after the reservation is

given to local candidates. Without the utilisation of the 80%, how

can there be utilization of the residual 20%? These questions are

not answered in the Government Memos. ●

9.4.0 Commission called for statistics on

compassionate appointments from 01-03-1999 to 01-01-2002

covering a period of 34 months. 62 departments responded. Out of

these 7 have reported no compassionate appointments. 55 Heads

of Departments have given a figure of 6,805 of such appointments.

They have shown 6,211 appointments of local candidates into local

cadres and 594 are appointments of non-local candidates, that is

8.73%. Out of these 594 appointments 462 were appointed in the

Offices of the concerned Heads of Departments and this is

permissible. 132 were appointed to cadres to which they were non-

local. Of the total employees 6759 were appointed to regular posts

and only 46 supernumerary posts were created.

Detailed statistics are given in Appendix X to this Report.

Finding No.101


9.5.0 The statistics regarding the pending

applications for compassionate appointments were given by 65

Heads of Departments. Out of these 65, 25 departments have

shown that there are no pending applications and in the remaining

40 departments there are 1547 applications pending. 14 Heads of

Departments account for 1467 out of the 1547 pending

applications that is 94.83%. The detailed statistics are given in

Appendix XI of this Report.

9.5.1 In as far as the other reservations are concerned, the Government

had initially not followed the reservations for compassionate

appointments but later on, on a reference from the Social Welfare

Department, they stipulated that the candidate for compassionate

appointment should belong to the same community or reservation

group for which the vacancy was reserved. Otherwise, he should

be appointed either on a vacancy of an OC or a supernumerary

vacancy, which will later be adjusted against OC vacancy. In the

same way, the candidate of any community which has a

reservation could be appointed in a vacancy reserved for that

community by roaster or in a supernumerary post which would

later be adjusted to a vacancy that would belong to that

community or group in the roaster system.

9.5.2 The view taken in the Government Memo is practical and could be

applied to reservations for local candidates also. That would be in

conformity with the Presidential Order.

Remedial Action (XXVI)

9.6.0 (1) A candidate for compassionate appointment should be

appointed only in a vacancy in the district to which he / she would

be local. This would not be difficult since, the District Collectors

Finding No.102


have the power to create supernumerary posts for compassionate

appointments if need arises, up to five in one year. Hence need for

the existence of a vacant post need not necessarily prove an

obstacle. The option of the candidate should not be taken as it has

no relevance to the Presidential Order. Neither the District where

the deceased last served nor the place where his family lives or is

settled at the time of compassionate appointment has any

relevance under the Presidential Order.

This would no doubt mean that not just 80% or 70% but 100% of

the direct recruitment through compassionate appointments will go

to local candidates. Since it will go to local candidates of different

local cadres, not to one single local cadre, nor in a single

recruitment of large numbers, this is justified and there is no

alternative. Para No. 8 (8) of the Presidential Order applies to

large-scale single direct recruitment in Para 8. It does not militate

against the suggestion herein above.

(2) This will require a fresh and clear set of instructions superseding

all other instructions to the contrary. This will remove the cause of

complaint of local candidates, which is genuine with regards to the

compassionate appointments, without in any way jeopardising the

chances of the candidates for compassionate appointments. Such

instructions may kindly be issued by the Government.

(3) Pending the issue of instructions suggested above, all further

compassionate appointments may be frozen except where there is

a vacancy in the cadre to which a candidate would be a local

candidate or to an excluded office under Para 14 of the Presidential

Order.


If he / she is appointed in a vacancy where Presidential Order does

not apply (like Head of Department office, Secretariat, Public Sector

Undertakings etc.) the question of local candidate and local cadre

will not arise at all. Such appointment does not require a candidate

to be a local candidate. In fact the data collected by the

Commission shows that the trend has been to appoint candidates

on compassionate basis more in the excluded offices. ●

9.6.1 Statistics pertaining to Compassionate Appointments collected by

this Commission is given in Appendix X to this Report.

* * * * *


CHAPTER - 10

CITY OF HYDERABAD

(Deviation Genre No. XIII)

10.1.0 City of Hyderabad consists of different types of local cadres, which

have often been confused and given rise to intended or unintended

misinterpretations and contraventions of the Presidential Order. The

City of Hyderabad has various dimensions within the Presidential

Order: -

(1) In the first place, we have Hyderabad District and

like all other districts it has its own district local

cadre.

(2) But within Hyderabad city we have also the

organizations listed under Saving Para-14 of the

Presidential Order from (a) to (d) and (f) which

excludes them from the application of the

Presidential Order. Among these are included the

Secretariat and Heads of Departments also.

(3) In addition to these we have in sub-para (8) of Para

3 a provision for the Central Government to notify

that “it is not practicable or expedient to organize

local cadres in respect of any non-gazetted category

of posts” in a particular department. This declaration

is contained in GSR 529(E) of the Government of

India. The Schedule in this GSR contains posts some

of which (not all) are in Hyderabad City.


(4) In the Presidential Order there is a provision in Para

3 (6) to notify the department in which and the

categories of posts for which a separate cadre has to

be organized for the City of Hyderabad. These

departments and posts have been notified under

GSR 528(E). This may be referred to as “City

Cadre”.

10.1.1 “Hyderabad” by itself has three different connotations. (1) One is

the area under Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. (2) Hyderabad

District i.e., the Revenue District of Hyderabad and (3) that which is

mentioned in Para 3 (6) of the Presidential Order as “City of

Hyderabad”. The jurisdiction of the “City of Hyderabad” has been

clearly defined in Para 2 (1) (a) of the Presidential Order as “the

part of the State comprising the territories specified in the First

Schedule.” The First Schedule to the Presidential Order issued

under this sub-para lays down the limits of the “City of Hyderabad”,

for purposes of the aforesaid Para 3(6) as under:-

The First Schedule

(See paragraph 2 (1) (a) City of Hyderabad)

(a) Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Area

i. Hyderabad Division ii. Secunderabad Division.

(b) Secunderabad cantonment area.

(c) Osmania University campus.

(d) Zamisthanpur Village.

(e) Fatehnagar - Panchayat Area

(f) Bowenpalle - Panchayat Area

(g) Macha Bolaram - Panchayat Area


(h) Lalaguda Village - Village

(i) Malkajgiri - Panchayat Area

(j) Uppal Khalsa - Panchayat Area

(k) Alwal - Panchayat Area

(l) Balanagar - Panchayat Area

(m) Musapet - Panchayat Area

(n) Kukatpalli - Panchayat Area

10.1.2 From (e) to (n) excluding (h), it contains 9 Panchayat Areas. In

course of time almost all of them have been made Municipalities. It

was found at least in one case that without verifying the position,

two villages were treated as parts of Hyderabad district cadre and

therefore of the cadre of zone-VI, though the Department and posts

concerned (Physical Education Teachers) are notified in GSR 528

(E) and therefore should fall in city cadre not in district cadre or VI

zone cadre. The text of the Proceedings of this Commission in the

case of the Physical Education Teachers may be seen in Proceeding

No. 60 in Volume II of this Report. The distinction between City of

Hyderabad [city cadre under Para 3(6)] on the one hand, and

district cadre and VI zone cadre on the other is to be carefully

observed. City cadre is for posts in GSR 528 (E).

10.1.3 A further misconception has arisen with regard to the various

connotations in the Presidential Order regarding the City of

Hyderabad on account of the fact that sub-Para (5) of Para 8 of the

Presidential Order makes a reservation of 60% posts in the

category of Civil Assistant Surgeons to be reserved and allocated

amongst the local candidates in relation to the local area specified

in Column-1 of the Table given in this para in the respective ratios

specified therein. In this Table, for purposes of this para alone,


seven “local areas” are specified from I to VII. The VIIth local area

is the “City of Hyderabad”. Here City of Hyderabad should be

construed to be as defined in Para 2 of sub-Para (1)(a) and as

delineated in the First Schedule. But because it is mentioned as

VIIth “local area” item after the VIth local area it is misconstrued to

be VII Zone for all purposes. Here it is not a „zone‟ (as given in the

Second Schedule to the Presidential Order) but a „local area‟ other

than a zone or a district, for this para only. The first five local

areas of this para, Nos I to V, are specified under Para 2 (1)(m) and

Para 8(4) listed in the Second Schedule as five zones (I to V) and

they are coterminous. For purposes of the ratios in which the Civil

Assistant Surgeons are to be allocated this “list of local” areas is

given because it is intended that the distribution should also be not

only in the six zones as they appear in the Second Schedule but

that they should be separately allocated to the “City of Hyderabad”.

It would be seen from the Table of “local areas” that the VI “local

area” is not the same as the VIth zone though the I to V “local

areas” are the same as the first five zones. The VI local area

consists of the VI zone excluding the “City of Hyderabad”. The VII

local area is the City of Hyderabad taken out of VI Zone. Here too

“City of Hyderabad” is as per the First Schedule given under Para 2

(1) (a) of the Presidential Order.

10.1.4 This Table has given rise to a misconception that the “City of

Hyderabad” is the VII zone, whereas actually it is a part of the VI

zone in all matters, excepting for purposes for which it is treated as

a separate cadre under Para 3(6) read with GSR 528(E) i.e., the

“City Cadre” and also for purposes of allocation of Assistant Civil

Surgeons in the prescribed ratio in seven local areas under Para 8


(5). For purposes of Para 3(6) and GSR 528 (E) city cadre is

simultaneously the district cadre as well as the zonal cadre,

covering in both cases the “City of Hyderabad” as per the First

Schedule.

10.1.5 We often find G.Os. issued referring to Hyderabad City as VII zone,

and often what they mean by this is the Municipal Corporation of

Hyderabad area. Most of the government offices, Departments

including Secretariat Departments and the public are not clear

whether by VII zone they mean the Municipal Corporation of

Hyderabad area or the whole of Hyderabad District which includes

certain Panchayat Areas which are now independent Municipalities

outside the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad area, or the “City of

Hyderabad” as per the First Schedule under Para 2 (1) (a). In fact

they do not know that there is no such thing as VII Zone.

10.1.6 Again many officials and a large part of the public also refer to

Hyderabad as “Free Zone”. This is because, as already mentioned

above, most of the offices which are excluded from the Presidential

Order under Para 14 (a) to (f) happen to be in Hyderabad Municipal

Corporation limits except (e) which pertains to Major Development

Projects.

10.1.7 This hazy conception about the position of the posts in Municipal

Corporation of Hyderabad area and Hyderabad District and “City of

Hyderabad” has resulted in many anomalies, mistakes and

sometimes wrong and illegal orders invariably in contravention of


10.1.8 Therefore it has to be clearly understood as amplified above that

there is a distinction and legal difference between Hyderabad


District and “City of Hyderabad” and the area lying only in Municipal

Corporation of Hyderabad.

10.1.9 For purposes of GSR 528(E) with stipulates constitution of a city

cadre for certain listed posts, it is the City of Hyderabad as defined

in Para 2 (1) (a) and delineated in the First Schedule. For purposes

of ratio in which Assistant Civil Surgeons have to be allocated also

“City of Hyderabad” has the same connotation i.e. as per First

Schedule.

10.1.10 For purpose of the Saving Para 14 (a) to (f) of the Presidential

Order, there is no territorial stipulation for the organizations that

are excluded from the Presidential Order. They may be located

anywhere. It is just incidental that they are located in the

Hyderabad City area which give an impression that Hyderabad

City is a Free Zone. Similarly, for purposes of GSR 529 (E) issued

under sub-Para (8) of Para 3 of the Presidential Order, the

territorial location of the 17 items mentioned therein for which it is

declared that it would not be practicable or expedient to organize

local cadres is not the criteria. It is the specific organizations and

categories of posts which are excluded from the need for

formation of local cadres.

10.1.11 Thus, Hyderabad District has to be considered like all other

Districts in which district cadre posts are to be formed for LDC

level and below and which belongs to zone-VI for zonal posts. This

has to be distinguished from the “City of Hyderabad” as defined in

Para 2 (1) (a) in the First Schedule for which a city cadre has to

be formed both for district cadre and zonal cadre posts but only

for posts listed under sub-Para (6) of Para 3 as listed out under

GSR 528 (E).


10.1.12 In the Presidential Order itself the concept of local areas is clarified

in Para 6 wherein, under sub-Para (3), the position of “City of

Hyderabad” has been clearly mentioned. Similarly also in the

clarificatory G.O.P.No.728, General Administration (SPF.A)

Department dated 01-11-1975, in Para 5, the “city cadre” is

clearly defined. Therefore, while referring to any posts in

Hyderabad District or City of Hyderabad the above distinctions,

may be kept in view. In no way should either Hyderabad District

or Hyderabad City be referred to either as VII zone or as a “free

zone” both of which are totally wrong usages and concepts.

To sum up

10.2.0 There are only six Zones and 23 Districts.

Hyderabad District is in VI Zone. All district cadre posts in the

District are Hyderabad District Cadre posts. The District is the

Revenue District with Panchayats/Municipalities around the MCH

limits and including the entire MCH area. The zonal posts within

District belong to VI Zone. ●

10.3.0 “ “City of Hyderabad” is defined in Para 2 (1)

(a) of the Presidential Order. It is delineated in the First

Schedule. It has a limited usage:-

(a) The posts listed in GSR 528 (E) under Para (3) of Para 6

belong to “City Cadre”. Both for district cadre Posts as well

as zonal cadre posts and the local area for this city cadre is

the “City of Hyderabad”.

(b) There is a prescribed ratio for the “City of Hyderabad” in

which the posts of Assistant Civil Surgeons shall be allocated

Finding No.103

Finding No.104


to it as per the Table of “local areas” given under sub-Para

(5) of Para 8 of the Presidential Order. As the “City of

Hyderabad” as mentioned as Sl.No.VII, it has given rise to a

misconception that it is VII zone. There is no VII zone in

the Presidential Order. ●

10.4.0 (1) Certain categories of posts are excluded

from the application of the Presidential Order under Para 14. Most

of the Offices/Organizations in (a) to (f) [except (e)] appear to be

located in Hyderabad City. That does not make the city a “free

zone.” Except for the categories/ offices in Para 14, and formation

of city cadre under G.S.R. 526 (E) issued under sub-Para (6) of

Para 3 of the Presidential Order, all the rest of the posts in the City

are like other posts, which belong to district or zonal cadre.

(2) Categories of posts listed in the schedule to GSR 529 (E) under

sub-Para 8 of Para 3 are declared as posts for which it would not be

practicable or expedient to organize local cadres. These are not

based in Hyderabad city alone. Location is not the intention for

these posts. Hence, they cannot be limited in any way to

Hyderabad City and

(3) Any misconception that because of (1) and (2) above,

Hyderabad City is a “free zone” is uncalled for. ●

10.5.0 The aforesaid First Schedule gives the

jurisdiction of the “City of Hyderabad” in terms of Panchayats in

addition to MCH, Osmania University Campus and Secunderabad

Cantonment Area and two Specific Villages. On the other hand

Hyderabad District jurisdiction is delineated in terms of Revenue

Villages in G.O.Ms.No.1391 Revenue (U) Department dated

Finding No.105

Finding No.106


11-08-1978. To compound the confusion many of the Panchayats

of First Schedule were later converted into Municipalities, the latter

not being totally coterminous with the erstwhile Panchayat areas.

In fact some of the Municipalities included more than one of these

Panchayats, fully or in parts. Therefore it is difficult to determine

which village lies in the First Schedule and which does not. ●

10.6.0 It was found at least in one case that without

verifying the position, two villages of city cadre were treated as

parts of Hyderabad district cadre and therefore of the cadre of

zone-VI, though the department and posts concerned (Physical

Education Teachers) are notified in G.S.R.No.528 (E) and therefore

should fall in city cadre not in district cadre or VI zone cadre. A

blue-eyed boy was transferred to an institution in one of these

villages which was misconceived deliberately or otherwise as

belonging to Hyderabad District and enjoyed promotions to posts

in VI Zone and was posted on promotion to a village in the City

Cadre but misconstrued as being in the VI Zone. Thus while he

went on rising through this ingenious device of misclassifying

villages of the City Cadre as VI Zone villages, his seniors and

compatriots languished in the City Cadre without promotions due

to some delay in giving promotions there. Any magic wand is good

enough to promote the prospects of a blue-eyed boy provided you

know some misconstruance mantra. For this unique case, please

see Proceedings No. 60 in Volume II of this Report. ●

Remedial Action (XXVII)

10.7.0 (A) The First Schedule should be revised to the extent that against

each Panchayats, the jurisdiction should be delineated in terms of

corresponding Revenue Villages.

Finding No.107


(B) The clarifications given in this chapter may be communicated to

all the Secretariat Departments as well as to the Heads of

Departments and other Governmental Organisations, to the District

Collector of Hyderabad and Andhra Pradesh Public Service

Commission.

(C) In the training module that may be prepared this Chapter may

be included in complete detail.

(D) Maps of City of Hyderabad as per the First Schedule, showing

therein all the names of Revenue Villages in the (i) City of

Hyderabad as per the First Schedule and (ii) Hyderabad District

with the correlation of the concerned erstwhile Panchayats and the

concerned present Municipalities should be prepared and supplied

to all concerned.

(E) Where any wrong action has been taken as in the case of

Physical Education Teachers vide Proceedings No. 60 in Volume II

of this Report, it should be retrospectively set right and those who

have been given benefit wrongly should be stripped of the benefit

retrospectively and those who have been deprived should be given

their due benefits retrospectively. ●

* * * * *


CHAPTER -11

ROLE OF EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES

(Deviation Genre No. XIV) 11.1.0 In G.O.Ms.No.610, General Administration (SPF) Department,

dated 30-12-1985, sub-Para (7) of Para 5 states:

“Action will be initiated in the concerned departments in

cases brought to their notice regarding bogus registrations

in Employment Exchanges”.

11.1.1 In this Commission‟s Preliminary Report, under point No. 2.31.0 and

2.31.1 a wider view is taken on bogus claims made by some

candidates through bogus certificates, to the status of “local

candidates”, while applying directly to District Selection

Committees.

11.2.0 “Bogus registration” in Employment

Exchanges is an issue that has now been gone into in greater detail

for two reasons:

1. Because, some of the departments whose posts had

been placed outside the purview of the Public Service

Commission had been taking candidates through

Employment Exchanges for direct recruitment or training

leading to direct recruitment, to regular / permanent

posts.

2. Because, till temporary appointments were made

illegal under Act 2/94, even posts not placed outside the

purview of Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission

were being filled under Rule 10 (a) (i) [now renumbered as

Finding No.108


Rule 10 (a)] of the General Rules, on temporary basis,

through local Employment Exchanges.

3. In both cases, the recruiting authorities were

assuming that the candidates were “local” candidates

because they were sponsored by the local Employment

Exchange.

11.2.1 Under this assumption the recruiting authorities did not verify

whether the candidates sponsored / selected were local candidates

in terms of the Presidential Order, or not. In fact, they also did not

apply the rule of reservation for local candidates in the 80% or the

70%, as the case may be. They were satisfied that they had

recruited only local candidates as they had come from the local

Employment Exchange.

11.2.2 This practice and assumption with regard to Employment

Exchanges vis-à-vis local candidates under the Presidential Order

must have resulted in non-locals also passing off as locals as the

verification of educational certificates for checking the criteria for

local candidates as defined in Presidential Order, was being

dispensed with. At the same time the reservation percentage was

also not applied, assuming all the candidates to be local.

11.2.3 This has been one of the channels of leakage of the provisions of


11.3.0 The actual position about the mode of functioning of Employment

Exchanges has been ascertained by the Commission and is given

below :


In the meeting with the Commission held on 01-01-2002, the

officers from the Directorate of Employment and Training have

given to the Commission their Manual of Instructions on Policy &

Procedures of Employment Exchanges in Andhra Pradesh and also

the Proforma which is filled by the candidates who register in the

Employment Exchanges and also the Proforma of the Card issued to

the candidates. They have drawn attention to the revised

instructions of the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued on

27-06-1994 in G.O.Ms.No.193 of the then Education (Employment)

Department. The Annexure to this G.O. which contains the

Guidelines to Employment Exchanges in Andhra Pradesh,

Registration Procedures at Employment Exchanges, states in the

first paragraph that “any Citizen of India is eligible for registration

at an Employment Exchange for assistance in securing

Employment/job”. However, in the sub-Para 2 of the same

paragraph it is clearly stipulated that “the candidates are eligible for

registration in one Employment Exchange only in the State, where

they are normal residents of the jurisdiction of the District. The

Employment Exchange may cause such enquiry or seek such

confirmation to prove the residential status of the person in that

area or that locality, as may be deemed fit”. In the sub-Para 4 of

the same Para, it is stated as under:

“No candidate shall be allowed to register at more than one Employment Exchange. To ensure this, certificates of

the candidate shall be marked with the seal of the Office (Employment Exchange) where he registered, along with

Registration number”.

11.3.1 Thus, the Employment Exchanges go only by residential

qualification which is verified from the „school/college‟ certificates or

MRO certificate.


11.4.0 Whether a candidate is a local candidate of the

District or zone in terms of the Presidential Order is not verified for

registering a candidate. Similarly when sponsoring a candidate,

automatically the candidate who is a resident of the district in which

he is registered gets sponsored for any job. It is the responsibility

of the recruiting body to verify the status as a local candidate under


11.4.1 Appointments under Rule 10 (a) (i) [renumbered as 10 (a)] of the

General Rules are now not taking place for many years particularly

after Act 2 of 1994.

11.4.2 Besides, most of the directly recruiting agencies are calling for

applications through Advertisements ever since the Supreme Court

Judgement, which held that such a procedure was permissible.

11.4.3 As a result, registration in Employment Exchanges has ceased to

have any utility.

11.4.4 With regard to the allegation of bogus registration, the officers

informed that ever since the issue of aforesaid instructions, in

G.O.Ms.No.193 of Education (Employment) Department, dated

27-06-1994, Employment Exchanges verify the certificates in

original to decide whether the candidate is a resident of the district

and therefore eligible for registration in terms of the G.O. But

whether the original certificates are genuine or fabricated cannot be

verified by the Employment Exchanges.

11.5.0 After G.O.Ms.No.193 of Education

(Employment) Department dated 27-06-1994, “bogus registration”

would mean a registration where certificates produced are not

Finding No. 109

Finding No. 110


genuine and which it is not possible for the Employment Exchanges

to verify or investigate.

11.5.1 Before this G.O. of 1994 there was no question of “bogus

registration”, because the candidates were free to register

themselves in any Employment Exchange regardless of residence.

They may falsely state local residence but the Employment

Exchange would know only if they verify it. Therefore many

candidates of other districts would possibly have registered

themselves with Employment Exchanges of Hyderabad, Ranga

Reddy and Medak districts in particular and zone V and VI as has

been alleged, and shown local residential address. Such

registration cannot be called “bogus”. If the recruiting authority

whether under Rule 10 (a) (i) of the General Rules or as a direct

recruiting agency for regular vacancies has treated a candidate as a

local candidate merely on the basis of this registration in a

particular Employment Exchange or particulars given by the

Employment Exchange, then it is a violation of the Presidential

Order by the recruiting agency because it is the duty of the

recruiting agency or department to ascertain the local status of a

candidate before appointing him in the vacancies reserved for local

candidates. ●

11.6.0 Detailed information on recruitment under the aforesaid Rule 10 (a)

(i) as culled out from the Proceedings of meetings with

Departments and called for through prescribed proforma may be

seen at Appendix XII.


Bogus Certificates

(Deviation Genre No. XV)

11.7.0 During the Meetings with the representatives of various Unions and

with Officials and non-Officials in the various districts the matter

regarding the “Bogus Certificates” arose as one of the means of

violation of Presidential Order to bring in non-locals in the quota

reserved for local candidates.

11.8.0 “Bogus Certificates” were stated to be either

bogus educational certificates or false residential certificates issued

by MROs produced at the time of registration in the Employment

Exchanges or before the District Selection Committees or Andhra

Pradesh Public Service Commission.

11.8.1 During the meeting of the Commission with the district officials of

the R.R. District, it was suggested that the verification of

certificates of all the candidates listed for interview should be done

at the very source itself. From the feed-back received from the

districts it is learnt that copies of the certificates are being verified

with the originals at the time of submission of their applications, at

the time of issuing appointment order and during the counselling.

Cases were filed in certain districts against the candidates who had

submitted the Bogus Certificates. The District Collector, R.R. District

also mentioned that the certificates are to be carefully verified not

only with the originals but also in the field, at the Institutions and in

the MRO offices, since 40 certificates were found to be bogus or

false during the process of selection of Teachers in that district.

Some educational certificates were found to have been issued by

non-existing schools.●

Finding No.111


11.8.2 It was suggested that when the Police verifies the antecedents of

the selected candidates before appointment they may verify the

existence / genuineness of the Institution, genuineness of the

certificate which is to be verified actually with the records of the

Institutions. The Commissioner and Director of School Education

have issued certain instructions vide Proc.Rc.No.196/C2-4/2000

dated 04-11-2000 with regard to the issue of the Certificates and

also for the verification of their genuineness. Some of the District

Collectors have also suggested action to be taken against the MRO‟s

concerned for the certificates issued without proper verification

about residential status. The Head of the Institutions were

instructed to verify the certificates and their genuineness at the

time of admitting the selected candidates into the jobs.

Remedial Action (XXVIII)

11.9.0 (1) Government may issue consolidated instructions in this

regard, as suggested by this Commission earlier in its

Preliminary Report, on the above lines.

(2) Although, presently there may be no sponsorship of

candidates by the Employment Exchanges, it will be very useful

for purposes of not only statistics but also for future

employment of candidates through Employment Exchanges, to

amend G.O.Ms.No.193 of Education (Employment)

Department, dated 27-06-1994 with particular reference to

Para 2 of the guidelines to include local candidate status under

the Presidential Order. Ascertaining the local candidate status

of the existing employees is also being done in the

“Employment Database” by the Planning Department under the


directions of the House Committee on G.O.Ms.No.610, General

Administration (SPF.A) Department, dated 30-12-1985. This

information by Employment Exchanges will also be in

conformity with that exercise if the Employment Exchanges

also create this database for the unemployed people who

register with them.

(3) All departments may be instructed that when recruitment is

not done through Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission or

District Selection Committees, if candidates are directly called

for from the local Employment Exchange, it is the responsibility

of the recruiting authority to verify the original certificates of

the candidates and ascertain whether a candidate is local or

non-local in terms of Presidential Order. Thereafter the

process of selection should follow G.O.Ms.No.8 General

Administration (SPF.A) Department, dated 08-01-2002 and


dated 07-03-2002, duly observing the reservation percentage

for local candidates. ●

Rule 10 (a) (i) Appointments

(Deviation Genre No. XVI)

11.10.0 Appointments under Rule 10 (a) (i) [now called Rule 10 (a)] of

Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules (General

Rules) were being made for a long time to temporary posts directly

by the concerned departments, before and after the Presidential

Order. These appointments were made by calling for candidates

from Employment Exchanges.


11.10.1 In course of time all the so called temporary appointments became

permanent de facto. In making these appointments, the

Departments relied on the Employment Exchange to sponsor local

candidates. But as the Commission has brought out hereinabove,

the Employment Exchanges do not verify the local status of a

candidate in terms of the Presidential Order but mention his

nativity and that too on his own declaration in the registration

form without any verification. The Commission feels that many

non-locals might have got into Government services in violation of

the local cadre principles. The nativity might have taken care of

local status also in most of the cases. However the Commission

has collected statistics of appointments made under Rule 10 (a)(i)

from 1985 to 2001.

11.10.2 The statistics collected regarding Rule 10 (a) (i) appointments are

given in Appendix XII to this Report.

* * * * *


CHAPTER – 12

RECRUITMENT/ALLOTMENT NEEDING ONGOING

SCRUTINY

(Deviation Genre No. XVII)

12.1.0 There are four types of departments/

categories of posts where the process of recruitment/allotments of

recruited candidates has to be closely watched through an ongoing

process of scrutiny to ensure that Presidential Order is being

adhered to. These are :

1. Departments and posts which are kept outside the purview of

Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission and/or District Selection Committees.

2. Departments with multiple wings but integrated cadre.

3. “Umbrella” Departments with an integrated cadre and centralised cadre management for all the offsprings.

4. Where a new dispensation is introduced as in the case of creation of the system of Panchayat Secretaries.

(1) Departments and posts placed outside the Andhra

Pradesh Public Service Commission and /or District Selection Committees:

12.2.0 (a) List of such departments and posts, furnished by the Andhra

Pradesh Public Service Commission is given in Annexure-4.

(b) List of Departments / posts placed outside the District Selection

Committees, furnished by General Administration (Services)

Department is given in Annexure-5.

Finding No.112


12.2.1 Police Department has set-up its own State Level Police Recruitment

Board. The agency itself has developed computer software for

recruitment to ensure recruitment in conformity with the

Presidential Order and also the rules of various reservations.

12.3.0 Not all the departments placed outside the

purview of Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission have

systematised their recruitment procedures. Many of them take

candidates from the local Employment Exchanges. ●

12.4.0 Judging from the cases of Sericulture

Department that have come before this Commission, it appears that

the department is not quite aware of the Presidential Order. It was

seen that the Department had taken candidates of L.D.C level

(Farm Foremen) for training, from Employment Exchanges from

certain districts of zones V & VI. But after training they were posted

to other districts not only of the same zone but different zones.

Details of these cases may be seen in Proceedings Nos. 8, 22, 44,

68 and 69 in Volume II of this Report. ●

12.5.0 In the meetings it also came to notice that

other departments of this category were relying on Employment

Exchanges and not verifying the local status of the candidates

themselves.

12.5.1 As will be evident from Chapter 11, it is not the function of the

Employment Exchange to verify the local status of a candidate in

terms of the Presidential Order. Therefore in such departments

there is a possibility that the recruitment is not in conformity with

Paras 6 & 7 of the Presidential Order and non-locals may have got

into the vacancies intended for locals on the assumption that they

Finding No.113

Finding No.114

Finding No.115


are locals because they were sponsored by the local Employment

Exchange. Since these departments are not fully conversant with

the Presidential Order their conformity with the provisions of that

Order in direct recruitment may also be loose.●

12.6.0 For example, an important case, where

recruitment was especially withdrawn from the purview of Andhra

Pradesh Public Service Commission for a specific period of about

five years due to urgency for the execution of some externally

aided programmes, is that of Panchayati Raj Engineering

Department. In the year 1991-95 Government had permitted the

department to recruit Assistant Executive Engineers (AEEs) for the

programmes directly, without routing the recruitment through

Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission.

The Engineer-in-Chief recruited 694 AEEs directly from among

qualified workcharged employees regardless of their posts and local

status. Thus, the AEEs were recruited from among Tracers to

Work-Inspectors. In this recruitment, the rules of local candidate

and local cadre were not followed. The Presidential Order was

totally overlooked.

Now, when requested to report about application of the Presidential

Order, the Engineer-in-Chief has mentioned that the SEs had

applied 60% reservation for locals. He admitted however that by

„locals‟ he meant the workcharged employees working in a local

area. Even by this criterion it is found that there were eight excess

non-locals in zone V and eight in zone VI. Whereas, there were

three locals excess in zone II, nine locals in zone III and thirty one

Finding No.116


locals in zone IV. However, this criterion is not relevant at all. It is

really doubtful if any percentage was earmarked for local

candidates at all. Workcharged employees were not recruited on

the basis of their local status.

The Commission has tried to find a post facto solution to this

intricate fate accompli of deviation from the Presidential Order

in-toto for the direct recruitment of 694 candidates. The case is

covered in this Commission‟s Proceedings No. 65 in Volume II of

this Report. The remedial action suggested in the Proceedings is

reproduced under Remedial Action sub-head herein below.

(2) Departments with Multiple Wings but integrated cadre

12.7.0 Such departments are Irrigation Department and other Engineering

Departments and also the Police Department. For details please see

the Chapter No. 2 on Heads of Departments.

12.8.0 In one case Irrigation Department explained

why certain candidates recruited to vacancies of one zone were

allotted to another zone and later allotted to the original zone

because there were no vacancies in the zone for them when Andhra

Pradesh Public Service Commission allotted them. That cannot

happen if candidates are allotted as per zonal vacancies. This case

could be the tip of a hidden iceberg of allotments to wrong zones,

perhaps with later corrections.

12.8.1 Another case of the same department, the case of 102 Engineers of

Hyderabad Engineers Association, originally appeared to be a case

of bungling to the detriment of candidates from zones V & VI. But

finally, after hearings, this Commission came to the conclusion that

Finding No.117


it was a case of initial allotments under Para 4(2) of the Presidential

Order which had after a bout of litigation through APAT remained as

a case of pending appeal that has to be disposed of. Commission‟s

Proceedings No.43 in this regard may be seen in Volume II of this

Report. This case falls under sub-Para 3 (a) & (b) of Para 5 of


30-12-1985 as a pending appeal. This case is also mentioned in

Part-2 of this Report. ●

12.9.0 In Karimnagar District, the Superintendent

of Police conducted recruitment to the posts of A.R. Police

constables filling the vacancies with 80% locals and 20% non-

locals, erroneously considering the latter to be a quota for non-

locals. This is in contravention of the Presidential Order. This

Commission‟s Proceedings No. 41 in this regard may be seen in

Volume II of this Report. ●

(3) “Umbrella Departments” with an integrated cadre and centralized cadre management for all the offsprings:

12.10.0 For the concept of “Umbrella Departments” and their offsprings

please see Chapter No.2 on Heads of Departments. All the

offsprings of the “Umbrella Department” like Health Department

and its offsprings, there is one cadre management authority which

is the Head of Department of the “Umbrella Department” and there

is an integrated cadre. It is not known to what extent the cadre

management authority calculates his vacancies for each offspring

department in terms of local cadres for purposes of direct

recruitment through Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission or

District Selection Committees. Such departments have an intricate

cadre management problem.

Finding No.118


(4) Where a new dispensation is introduced as in the case of creation of the system of Panchayat Secretaries:

12.11.0 In this category we may put the creation of

posts of Panchayat Secretaries combining the revenue and

panchayat functions in non-notified Gram Panchayats. In G.O.Ms.

No. 369 Panchayati Raj and Rural Development (Mandals II)

Department, dated 12-12-2001, the Government had ordered the

creation of posts of Panchayat Secretaries, to be recruited from six

categories of existing posts. G.O. does not state that the

appointments from among these existing categories of posts should

be made in accordance with the Paras 6 & 7 of the Presidential

Order. It is therefore quite likely that some of the appointment

may have been made without following the local candidate / local

carde rules and non-locals might have entered in contravention of

the reservations of 80% for locals. Though, no specific

representation regarding the compliance in this regard had come

before it, the Commission has taken cognisance of the fact that the

G.O. has omitted any reference to the Presidential Order. ●

Remedial Action (XXIX)

12.12.0 (1) All the departments taking candidates through Employment

Exchanges should be instructed to verify the local status of the

candidates with reference to the Presidential Order and not to

rely on Employment Exchanges to do so.

(2) The Sericulture Department may be exhorted to follow the

Presidential Order. If they do not do so the facility of direct

recruitment by them should be withdrawn and all their

recruitments routed through Andhra Pradesh Public Service

Finding No.119


Commission and District Selection Committees as the case may

be.

(3) In the specific cases of the Sericulture Department that

have come before the Commission necessary action to be

taken has already been given in the Commission‟s Proceedings

Nos. 8, 22, 44, 68 and 69 in Volume II of this Report. These

may be enforced.

(4) In the case of the Panchayati Raj Engineering Department

mentioned above the Commission has proposed the following

remedial action in its Proceedings No. 65 in Volume II of the

Report:

(Quote) “The remedial action logically would be to ascertain the local candidate status of each incumbent

and put him in his local zone. The non-locals have no quota. 40% is a merit quota. This is not a direct

recruitment done on merit. So this 40% for non-locals

has no meaning. There is also no way of finding out who would have been in the merit quota at that time. This will

show: -

A) Some zones with local candidates in excess of 100% vacancies.

B) Some zones with 100% local candidates for the vacancies.

C) Some zones with 80 or more than 80% but less than 100% local candidates for the vacancies.

D) Some zones with less than 80% local candidates.

In „A & B‟ the local candidates can occupy the vacancies upto 100%. In „C‟ all the local candidates can occupy the

vacancies even though these exceed 80%. The balance

vacancies left will go to the non-local who are the excess locals of „A‟ above. In case of „D‟, all the local candidates

can occupy vacancies to the extent of their number. The shortfall from 80% should be treated as local vacancies


carried forward as a backlog. 40% vacancies can be filled

from among the excess of local candidates of „A‟, who will occupy the vacancies as non-local candidates.

The backlog can be made good through the same

method as was used in this impugned recruitment, i.e., by special direct recruitment from among Work

Inspectors who would be local candidates for the zone in „D‟ category. If however there are not enough local

candidates available, then they should be recruited as AEES from the open market by a special recruitment.

The excess non-locals will have to occupy

supernumerary posts in the zone in which they are local candidates. Government can also revert them as Work

Inspectors to become part of the surplus manpower pool”. (Unquote)

(5) The vastness of some departments and the multiplicity of

their wings, and the decentralised recruitment in the large

departments require an on-going scrutiny and vigil to ensure

that the recruitment/allotments as the case may be, are made

in conformity with the Presidential Order. In the case of Police

Department, such on-going vigil should also be exercised by

the State Level Police Recruitment Board.

(6) Karimnagar Police case: The Procedure for recruitment is

clearly laid down in G.O.P No.763, General Administration

(SPF.A) Department dated 15-11-1975 and as revised in the

G.O.Ms.No.8, General Administration (SPF) Department, dated

08-01-2002. This case shows that in the decentralised

recruitment by departments withdrawn from the purview of the

Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission such contraventions

based on misconceptions must be quite common. The

safeguard against such contraventions has already been


suggested above. In this particular case, the detailed course of

action is given in the Commission‟s Proceedings cited above.

(7) The Government may review all the posting of the

Panchayat Secretaries to ensure that there are brought in

conformity with the Paras 6 and 7 of the Presidential Order,. ●

* * * * *


CHAPTER – 13

MISCELLANEOUS DEVIATIONS

(Deviation Genre No.-XVIII)

13.1.0 In direct appointments, calculations for merit percentage should be

based on the number of vacancies actually filled by local candidates

so that the percentage of preference for local candidates does not

get reduced or distorted. But the prevailing practice is that the

number of vacancies notified is being taken as the basis for

calculating the percentage for merit percentage not the number

actually recruited in the reserved seats for locals. Under the revised

procedure for selection under G.O.Ms No.8, dated 08-01-2002 this

procedure is unavoidable. By this procedure, the actual share of the

locals gets reduced whenever the full percentage for them is not

filled in. The unfilled vacancies for locals becomes a backlog

whereas full percentage of merit quota is utilized. At least the

backlog vacancies should be separately notified for 100%

recruitment of locals. But that is not found to be done in some of

the districts, like R.R. District.

13.2.0 Backlog of the vacancies for local candidates

were not being separately notified by certain DSCs like that of

R.R. District. The Commission visited the district in the early

months of 2001. These were being clubbed in the notification for

current vacancies. This resulted in again taking away the merit

percentage for the second time. This backlog should be 100% for

locals as it is a reservation backlog. ●

Finding No.120


Remedial Action (XXX)

13.3.0 The correct procedure spelt out in Government Memo

No.38011/Ser.VI.A1/97, dated 29-11-1997 of Education (Ser. VII)

Department, may be reiterated for Teachers‟ recruitment. General

Administration (SPF.A) Department may clarify similarly to all

departments for recruitments therein on the issue of carry-forward

vacancies. Shortfall due to the wrong procedure mentioned above

should be made good retrospectively. ●

13.4.0 In different zones seniority lists are released

on different dates, notwithstanding Government Orders to the

contrary. It was brought to Commission‟s notice that in zones V

and VI due to delayed release of seniority lists candidates had not

come up for consideration. ●

Remedial Action (XXXI)

13.5.0 Seniority lists in all the zones should be released as laid down in

General Rules 33 and 34.

13.5.1 Sometimes, there may be delay on account of Court Orders. In

such cases, it may be examined whether such cases could be left

out and seniority lists issued subject to Court Orders in such cases.

Very often, even promotions are given subject to Court Orders. In

case the delay is unavoidable, the Government may examine how

the adverse effect of the delay in that particular zone or district

could be neutralized, so that the concerned employees will not

suffer on account of the delay. ●

13.6.0 It was complained that in Integrated Tribal

Development Agencies (ITDAs) thousands of Teachers recruited

Finding No.121

Finding No.122


were non-locals. But as per the District Collector‟s report the

services of the non-locals and non-tribals had been terminated. It

may be useful if the circumstance under which this had happened

are looked into. It may also be useful to over check whether the

non-local Teachers had indeed been repatriated as reported and

replaced by local Teachers. ●

13.7.0 In Government Hospitals Auxiliary Nurses

(ANMs) were allotted by Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission

overlooking the Presidential Order. Auxiliary Nurses were from

among non-locals for want of local candidates. Actually, in case of

non-availability of locals, if non-locals had to be brought because of

the essential nature of the services of ANMs, they could have been

taken on tenure basis, not appointed in the vacancies of local

candidates. There has been dearth of trained Nurses in zones V and

VI. However, Director of Health has informed this Commission that

a number of Institutes for the training of Nurses have been

established in the zone V & VI, apart from other districts of the

State, to ensure more of these jobs for local candidates in course of

time. ●

Remedial Action (XXXII)

13.8.0 The present situation may be reviewed and watched continuously

by whatever monitoring device is set up for the Presidential Order ●

13.9.0 The posts of Junior Lecturers were created as

gazetted posts to replace the non-gazetted Tutors and

Demonstrators in the Junior Colleges. The recruitment to these

posts was made by the College Service Commission treating them

as zonal posts on the basis of their previous position under the

Finding No.123

Finding No.124


Presidential Order when they were non-gazetted. The College

Service Commission also gave 60% preference for locals in direct

recruitment of Junior Lecturers adopting the reservation percentage

for locals that appears in sub Para (3) of Para 8 of the Presidential

Order, which applies only to five specific gazetted posts mentioned

therein. This was obviously an error because gazetted posts

become State-wide posts unless they are included in the Third

Schedule to the Presidential Order under Government of India‟s

orders. Even such inclusion does not bring any preference

percentage to locals. In this case it was obviously an error on the

part of the College Service Commission, which happened to bring

benefit to the local candidates. This “benevolent error”, if we may

call it so, has been perpetuated by the Andhra Pradesh Public

Service Commission also as successor to the College Service

Commission. That is the present position. It is not known whether

it has led to any litigation. This „benevolent error‟ has got to be

validated. ●

Remedial Action (XXXIII)

13.10.0 The Government of India may be requested to issue orders with

retrospective effect from the date of the creation of the post of

Junior Lecturers in Junior colleges as gazetted posts, bringing them

under the Third Schedule and also fixing for them the preference

ratio of 60% for locals so as to validate what has already happened.

13.10.1 The Government of India may also be requested further that with

effect from the date of the same order that they may issue, the

percentage of preference for local candidates may be made 70%,

which is the percentage applicable to them before their being


gazetted. The Local candidates have been deprived of this benefit

that they enjoyed at the time of the Presidential Order, through the

process of gazetting. This will be in conformity with the principle

hitherto stated that the local nature of any post existing on the date

of the Presidential Order shall not be mutated either on account of

change of designation or on account of change of status like

gazetting etc., or for any other reason. ●

13.11.0 In a particular case in the Technical

Education Department non-locals have been directly recruited in

violation of Presidential Order. During the year 1985 three Model

Residential Polytechnics in the Scheduled Area at Paderu, Srisailam

and Bhadrachalam were established. Among other posts,

Government also sanctioned Last Grade Service posts to these

Polytechnics. These posts were filled up by the then Principal with

non-locals. ●

Remedial Action (XXXIV)

13.12.0 The Department has however sent proposals to transfer the non-

locals to their respective zones. Consequential vacancies may be

filled with local candidates. Government orders may be expedited.●

13.13.0 The Commissioner of Sericulture called for

candidates from all the Employment Exchanges and selected some

of them for training at Mysore and Bhuweneswar. After training he

has made certain appointments of Farm Foreman and the

candidates were posted to the Districts in which they were non-

locals. In this regard Proceedings Nos. 8, 22, 44, 68 and 69 in

Volume II of this Report may be seen. The Provisions of the

Presidential Order were totally ignored at all the stages. ●

Finding No.125

Finding No.126


Remedial Action (XXXV)

13.14.0 The candidates may be posted to their local cadres as and when

there are vacancies. Detailed remedial action has been given in the

Proceedings cited above. Government may pursue for compliance

with the Proceedings. Monitoring authority that may be set up may

also follow up. ●

* * * * *


CHAPTER – 14

MECHANISM TO ENSURE IMPLEMENTATION AND

MONITORING OF PRESIDENTIAL ORDER

Fundamental safeguards

14.1.0 The fundamental safeguard for the Presidential Order is to

categorically declare through a Government order the sanctity and

immutability of:

(i) The local character of a post or category of posts as it existed on the day the Presidential Order came into effect

viz. 18-10-1975 and

(ii) The scope of the Presidential Order as originally

promulgated on 18-10-1975.

Such a declaration alone can be the foundation of any system of

safeguards and it can be translated into action by making these the

acid tests while making any proposal or taking any decision on any

type of change in the structural organisation of the Government, or

any change in the designations or status of any post or category of

posts. This Commission had submitted this proposition in its

Preliminary Report to the Government dated 06-10-2001. It

reiterates this proposition as the fundamental safeguard for the

Presidential Order. All the rest of the safeguard propositions in this

Chapter or elsewhere in this Report must rest on this solid

foundation.

14.1.1 These fundamental safeguards as already amplified in the

Preliminary Findings 12 (A) to (D) in the Preliminary Report are

again amplified hereunder:-


Local Character of Posts, Immutable

14.2.0 The character of a post as belonging to the district or zonal or

multi-zonal cadre as of 18-10-1975, the date of coming into affect

of the Presidential Order, cannot be changed by any action of any

type, like up- gradation or down-gradation etc. Thus:-

(i) If a post‟s pay scale is changed into a higher pay scale, it

will still continue to belong to the same cadre as its

original cadre as of 18-10-1975 viz., district, zonal or multi

zonal, as the case may be, for purposes of „local area‟. It

should also continue to have the same percentage of

reservation for local candidates, 80%, 70% or 60%, as the

case may be as it had as on 18-10-1975.

(ii) Similarly, a post may have been gazetted, from its original

non-gazetted status as of 18-10-1975, but that shall not

take it outside the purview of the Presidential Order, nor

change its cadre or local area (district, zone or multi-zone

as it was on 18-10-1975), nor can the reservation

percentage be changed from the original percentage as of

18-10-1975. Any modification or mutilation of these basic

principles, even with the consent of the Government of

India, should be deemed to be violations of the

Presidential Order and of the Fundamental Safeguards.

(iii) Where the pay scale of a non-gazetted post is enhanced

from that of the equivalent scale of a Lower Division Clerk,

its local area and reservation percentage should not

change. The case in point is that of Secondary Grade

School Teachers. While, on enhancement of their pay


scale their local area was rightly kept as the District, the

percentage of reservation was changed to 70% from the

original 80% for inexplicable reason. The contradiction

and anomaly was evident „prima facie’. However, even

before the Preliminary Report was submitted, Government

had obtained Government of India‟s order and restored the

80% reservation while recruitment of teachers was in

progress. This was of great benefit to all the local

candidates in the State.

(iv) Where any changes are brought into the existing Service

Rules.

(v) When a field office, like a Regional Office, is abolished and

the staff is shifted to the office of the Head of Department,

the posts of the field office, such as Regional Office etc., so

shifted, should continue to have the same character under

the Presidential Order with the same local area and local

candidate reservation percentage. The case in point is

that of the abolition of certain Regional Offices like those of

the Cooperative Department and shifting of the post to

Heads of the Department‟s offices. There could be more

circumstances of the same genre where the same principle

will apply.

(vi) When any office is shifted to another district, the posts

should continue to belong to the local cadre of the original

district and zone as the case may be.

(vii) When a Department is divided, all its off springs cannot be

counted as Heads of Departments. It is only the original

Head of Department and its original cadre strength that

will be excluded under Para-14 of the Presidential Order.


All other staff shall be local cadre staff (for this genre of

change the Chapter-2 may be taken into account with all

the deviation genres within that Chapter.)

(viii) When any part of a department is excised and made into

a non-Government organisation all the posts in that non-

government organisation shall be continued to be under

the Presidential Order and in the same local cadres to

which they originally belonged.

(ix) When any posts cease to be utilised in a Project or in any

other excluded organisation, they shall be released from

the exclusion of that organisation and brought under the

respective local cadres depending on the location of the

office to which these posts belong.

14.2.1 These are some of the few examples that illustrate the fundamental

principle of immutability of local character proposed above. In this

Report itself many instances can be identified to which this principle

is applicable.

14.2.2 Why are these principles sacrosanct? Because, otherwise the entire

Presidential Order can be bled out through the haemorrhage of up

gradations, gazetting and upward revisions of pay scales, abolition

of field offices and shifting of their staff to the office of the Head of

Department or any such acts as amplified above. Mere consent of

the Government of India is not an adequate safeguard, because at

this distance of time and particularly when there is no protective or

vigilance device for the Six Point Formula, the Government of India

would go by the State Government‟s recommendation, which, in

normal times and in the existing state of lack of adequate

awareness or understanding of the Presidential Order, would be


based on administrative exigencies and pressures, in general. The

Six Point Formula would not enter the thoughts of the proposers

and acceptors in the context of other stresses of the moment. Two

good illustrations of such oblivion, if we call it so, are the case of

Panchayat Raj AEEs special recruitment in 1991-95 (see

Proceedings No. 65 in Volume II of this Report) and the recent case

of appointment of Panchayat Secretaries (See Chapter 12)

14.2.3 Hence, the immutability of the letter and spirit of the Presidential

Order must be made sacrosanct. In law it might fall under the

concept of “pith and substance”, or what the Supreme Court had

pronounced as the “Basic Framework” principle (in respect of the

Constitution) which cannot be changed by amendment. Presidential

Order too is a Constitutional Order, not a legislated one and

represents a part of that fine balance that holds together the State

as a single political entity. Hence, the „Basic Framework‟ of the

Presidential Order should not be tampered with, lest the basic

political framework of the State as a political entity should be

affected. All administrative changes must conform to the „Basic

Framework‟ of the Presidential Order, making that framework

immutable.

14.2.4 It may be mentioned that when this principle was submitted before

the Cabinet Sub-Committee and the Honourable Chief Minister,

after the Preliminary Report was submitted, it had found favour and

acceptance. In pursuance thereof the Government got restored, by

the Central Government, the 80% reservation for local candidates

for Secondary Grade Teachers, as has been mentioned elsewhere in

this Report.


Framework of safeguards

14.3.0 The Commission has received various suggestions from different

quarters. It has carefully considered all the suggestions some of

which are quite useful. The safeguards framework has to take into

account the deviations under the various Genres and Findings in

this Report. It is seen that the system of application of the

Presidential Order in the matter of direct recruitments either

through the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission or through

the District Selection Committees has been fairly well honed. The

main sources of deviations appear to be:-

(1) Expanding the scope and purview of the excluded offices

and organisations under Para-14 of the Presidential Order, G.S.R. 529 (E) under Sub-Para 8 of paragraph-3 of the

Presidential Order.

(2) Bringing more and more posts under categories not covered by the Presidential Order like gazetted officers,

which are State-wide posts.

(3) Appointments not done through the Andhra Pradesh Public

Service Commission or District Selection Committees though they are no less direct recruitment than the ones

channelled through Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission and District Selection Committees. Such

appointment are: work charged establishments, absorption/redeployment of surplus staff, compassionate

appointments, Rule 10(a) appointments through Employment Exchanges (till the Act–2 banned such

appointments), appointments to post or by departments withdrawn from the purview of the Andhra Pradesh Public

Service Commission and doing direct departmental recruitment.

(4) Confusions created regarding City of Hyderabad.


(5) Gross misuse of the process of deputations.

(6) Inter-cadre transfers.

(7) Misuse of the device of „On other Duty‟ and so on.

In this context, therefore, the following appear to be a

proper course of action for immediate and for long-term safeguards for the Presidential Order:

Immediate and Impact Measures

14.4.0 The Commission feels that the following measures if taken

immediately would have an impact and would also pave the way for

further action on this Report:

(1) Damage control measures: the first and foremost action on

receipt of this Report should normally be to take up

damage control measures. This will mean that wherever

indicated in the Report, further deviations should be

stopped forthwith. For example, recruitment and

promotions to the existing cadres of Heads of Departments

up to the Specified Gazetted Categories, further gazetting

of posts, further compassionate appointments and

absorptions/redeployment of surplus staff, deputations etc.

(2) Taking of immediate prospective action as proposed under

„Remedial Action‟ suggestions in this Report.

(3) Taking immediate action for the deletion of (e) of Para 14

of the Presidential Order and G.S.R. 525(E) as proposed in

Chapter 2 of this Report.

(4) To set right the maladies indicated under various „Findings‟

before resuming the normal process of recruitments,

promotions etc.


(5) Taking immediate redressal action on the “Individual

Petitions” as per Proceedings in Volume II of this report.

(6) Appointment of an appropriate Implementation and

Monitoring body to initiate action on the Report.

(7) Appropriate exposure to and induction of the persons in

the Implementation and Monitoring body into the

intricacies of the Presidential Order and this Commission‟s

Report.

(8) Issuing immediate orders that the Service Registers

should depict the local status of the employees. It appears

quite strange at this stage to find that the „nativity column‟

which was originally there in the Service Registers,

continues but after the Presidential Order, the „local status

column‟ and „local cadre column‟ were not inserted. If this

is done now and forthwith, Government would find that it

will facilitate handling the contentious issues, as well as

taking redressal measures effectively and promptly. The

Commission suggests the following particulars to be

recorded in every Service Register.

(A) Local status and local cadre: Under this it should be

noted whether the employee was appointed as: -

i) Local candidate in the quota for local candidates; or

ii) Local candidate in the merit quota; or

iii) Non-local candidate in the merit quota.

Each of these categories (i), (ii) and (iii) should be

given a code say „L‟ for (i); „LM‟ for (ii); „NL‟ for (iii); which should be noted in the Service Register.


(B) Name of the district cadre/zonal cadre to which he/she

was first appointed.

(C) Name of the educational institution/institutions in which the employee had studied for the last seven

years downwards counting from the year of first appearing for the X Class (or SSC) Examination, or 8th

class Examination in the case of Last grade employees. The village/town of its/their locations, and

districts should also be noted. In addition, the place of residence with its district and zone, for a period of

not less than four years from the date on which the post was notified for recruitment. If that date is not

known, the period may be reckoned from the date of appointment.

(8) Similarly, the selection, allotment, appointing authorities

should mention in their orders the particulars stipulated in

(A) above including the relevant code. In the case of a

candidate first appointed to an excluded office of Para-14

of the Presidential Order or G.S.R. No.529 (E), all the

particulars at (A) above should be mentioned except for

the district/zonal particulars. Instead, the category of the

excluded office as described in Para-14 of the Presidential

Order or G.S.R. No.529 (E) as the case may be, should be

noted. This should be given the code „EO‟.

(9) The employees‟ census should give the particulars based

on the above data in their Census Report. These Reports

should be prepared zone-wise also. They should show in

each zone/district wise the employees of each Service and

Category falling under each of the four codes viz. L, LM,

NL and EO.


Long term measures

14.5.0 (1) No safeguards will work unless there is Big Brother watching.

As George Bernard Shaw has said, “we are all gentlemen

because the policeman is round the corner”. In the present

context this vigilance role is best entrusted to a “Committee of

the House.”

(2) At the political executive level, a “Sub-Committee of the

Cabinet” would be effective.

(3) Government have already announced their intention to

constitute a Monitoring Cell. It is proposed that instead of a

mere Monitoring Cell the Government may consider

constituting an “Implementation and Monitoring Authority” to

be known in future by the acronym IMA. A person with stature

and insight into the Presidential Order and service matters

could head the Implementation and Monitoring Authority. He

should have a team that will be trained to be experts in these

matters. Everyone in the Authority should become well

versed through intense training and workshops on the

Presidential Order and all its relevant material most of which

appears in the hand-book entitled “Guidelines and Instructions

for the Implementation of Presidential Order” brought out by

General Administration (SPF.A) Department and also the

Commission‟s Final Report which has to be now read as a

necessary complementary document to the Guidelines Book.

Among the functions of IMA the following may be included: -

(i) To critically scrutinise any proposal made for change in any part of the administrative system whether in

structure, location of an office, formation of a unit, expansion of a unit, creation of a department, division

of a department, shifting an office, change of name of


a post, an office or department, excision of any

functions or any portion of a department to constitute a non-Government body, any change in personnel

matters particularly such as would affect the original local status of a post or category of posts, any matter

that will bring any posts out of the purview of local cadres and put them in an excluded category of Para-

14 of Presidential Order or in G.S.R. 529, any up-gradation or down gradation of posts that will either

bring them out of district cadre to zonal cadre or vice versa or take them out of the localisation scheme or

to the State level, any gazetting of posts, every proposal for deputation or other duty, any action that

would expand the scope of an excluded organisation under Para-14 or G.S.R. 529 (E) and kindred matters

which would impinge on the Presidential Order or on

the interests of local candidates. IMA will closely watch the Major Development Projects and monitor

every month the posts which are not engaged in Project work but are diverted to regular departmental

work and maintenance, either due to reduction or completion of work in a part of a Project or the whole

Project or for any other reason( this should be done till (e) of para 14 of the Presidential Order and G.S.R.

525 (E) are got deleted. The authority should order immediate inclusion of such posts in the concerned

local cadres if not ipso facto done by the concerned department to which the Project belongs. In short,

the Authority will really be a monitoring and vigilance body with a very sensitive antennae, safeguarding the

interests of the local candidates and ensuring the

implementation of the Presidential Order and this Report meticulously. It should particularly focus on

the types of deviations that have been brought out in this Report under the various Genres and Findings.

(ii) The Government may from time to time add to IMA‟s

functions and terms of reference such matters as may be considered expedient for its objective of

safeguarding the Presidential Order and interest of local candidates.


(iii) The Authority may receive representations regarding

grievances based on the Presidential Order and dispose them off with recommendations to the

Government but without entertaining any lawyers in this regard and without functioning as a Tribunal or a

Court. The immediate duty of Authority should be to take up the work of the implementation of this

Commission‟s Report from the stage at which it is implemented by General Administration (SPF)

Department up to the point of constitution of IMA (SPF). The General Administration (SPF) Department

will work in close coordination with the IMA and provide the Governmental backbone to it.

(iv) The IMA will submit its comprehensive report to the

aforesaid Cabinet Sub-Committee, as and when called

upon to do so.

(4) General Administration (SPF.A) Department needs to be

strengthened not only in terms of manpower but also in

terms of intense and rigorous training that can be

imparted in the matter of entire Six Point Formula

including inter-alia both the Presidential Orders and the

various Reports, Documents and this Report.

(5) Orders may be issued that any changes in personnel

matters or in the structural organisation, however small,

must be cleared by General Administration (SPF)

Department, duly considering the view of the IMA which

must necessarily be obtained in respect of all the matters

entrusted to it. General Administration (SPF) Department

should shed its hitherto adopted role of being an advisory

Department as it has been considering itself and to accept

the role of a nodal department for Six Point Formula and


the implementation of all the Points including the two

Presidential Orders.

(6) In the Business Rules it may be inserted that where any

Department of the Secretariat differs with the opinion of

the IMA and/or General Administration (SPF) Department,

the file should be circulated for orders to the Hon‟ble Chief

Minister. It will be the discretion of the Hon‟ble Chief

Minister to give his ruling or to refer the matter to the

Sub-Committee of the Cabinet or to the Cabinet itself.

(7) Training and workshops: By now the Government and the

Employees Associations/Unions would have a clear insight

into the actual functioning of the Presidential Order and its

soft areas and leakage points which have been brought out

in this Report.

(8) The dynamics of administrative system of the State

function within dynamics of political, economic and social

systems, set within a federal polity and a pro-active and

vigilant Judicial system. Such an administrative system

has to steer through the maze of any restrictive scheme of

administrative functioning with great circumspection,

sincerity of purpose behind the restrictive rules and above

all dexterity. Without sacrificing the goals of State policy

such an administrative system has to function in harmony

with the Presidential Order which represents a delicate

political balance which is the foundation of an integrated

State. Development is as much dependent on dynamic

and efficient administration as it is on the stability of this

political settlement which is embodied in the Six Point

Formula. It is therefore important to ensure that the


whole official set-up at all levels from the apex level to the

Junior Assistant level is fully conversant with the

Presidential Order and its intricate nuances, in letter and

spirit. It is in fact more important that the political

leadership, regardless of Party affiliations, is also made

fully aware of the Presidential Order in letter and spirit.

The officials can be trained at the district level and the

State level through training modules and workshops to be

held at the district and State levels. The training

programmes/workshops can be brief, of one or two day

durations. The political level awareness workshops can be

organised by the concerned Parties or by the aforesaid

House Committee or perhaps by the Government itself.

The useful course material would be the Guidelines Book of

General Administration Department, this Commission‟s

Report and, for case studies, Volume II of this Report.

Further case studies can be got conducted and culled out

from the cases that have gone before the Hon‟ble Andhra

Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and Hon‟ble High Court

with issues pertaining to the Presidential Order. The

collection of case study material from the latter two

sources may be entrusted to the IMA who can get this

done on a consultancy basis.

(9) A website may be created for the Presidential Order. In

this website, if the Government so desires, this Final

Report may be shown. However, the entire Guidelines

Book with latest amendments should be necessarily

shown. The website could be kept up-dated showing

whatever action the Government takes from time to time


on this Report. This will dispel doubts, rumours and

apprehensions and instil confidence and hope.

(10) A copy of this Final Report may be made available for

guidance and reference to all the Departments and

Secretariat Departments and Collectors as a guidebook

Suggestions regarding safeguards received by the Commission From Various Sources

14.6.0 Various measures have been suggested during the meetings with

the various Associations, officials and non-officials in the Districts,

for working out a mechanism for safeguards. These have been kept

in view while proposing the framework of safeguards given

hereinabove. Following are some of the suggestions received by the

Commission:

(A) A permanent accountability authority for the entire Six Point

Formula should be established on the lines of Development

Councils in the Hill States of Northeast.

(B) A permanent Accountability Commission should be appointed

for Six Point Formula like B.C. Commission, SC/ST Commission,

Human Rights Commission, Official Language Commission and

Minorities Commission.

(C) A Legislature Committee on the lines of Committee on Public

Accounts, Committee on Estimates, Committee on Government

Assurances, Committees on Scheduled Castes/Scheduled

Tribes/ Backward Classes/ Women and Children/Minorities etc.

be established to have an ongoing scrutiny regarding the

strict implementation of the Presidential Order.


(D) To open a Website for the Presidential Order and the relevant

Government orders issued from time to time. Including the

Guide Lines Book - Guide Lines and Instructions for

implementation of Presidential Order - complied by the General

Administration (SPF.A) Department and brought out in this

regard, so that total rule position and all the nuances of the

Presidential Order available to the general public and all the

Government Departments, Local Government Bodies,

Government officials, Non-Government Organisations, Service

Associations, Governmental Institutions etc.

(E) In Dr. M. C. R. H. R. D Institute, a training module be prepared

for giving training to all the senior officers including Secretaries

and Heads of Departments and those dealing with Service

matters, with regard to the Presidential Order and related

matters. In fact, awareness lectures on the Order may be

included in all the training programmes.

(F) The Reports of the One Man Commission (Six Point Formula)

should be placed before the Assembly.

(G) The Survey and Settlements Department have suggested that

for safeguarding implementation of the Presidential Order there

shall be a watch/check over the implementation, for which a

Committee consisting of higher departmental officials may also

be formed to have periodical meetings/inspections and check

over the performance of the implementing officials.

(H) The General Administration (SPF) Department felt that there is

a centralized Section in General Administration Department,


Secretariat to monitor the inter-local cadre transfers strictly as

per the provisions of Presidential Order wherein the case of

public interest transfers on reciprocal basis are being

monitored. Earlier there was a Six Point Formula section in

every Department of Secretariat to facilitate organization of

local cadres of the posts in different levels. However, the GAD

does not have the mechanism to monitor and control the

implementation of the Six Point Formula in the appointments/

recruitment/selections being done in various departments.

(I) Reservation Roaster should be maintained in various Offices.

Apart from other reservations local candidate reservation

should also be included in that Roaster so that it is

automatically followed. This Commission, during its meeting

with the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission had

suggested to the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission to

try an exercise of juxtaposing the roaster points fixed for the

local candidates as per the local character of the various posts

under selection over the “Community Roaster” which is being

strictly followed by the Public Service Commission and see how

far it is feasible and what are the difficulties that might crop

up. While mentioning that prima facie it is possible, they felt

that it has to be actually worked out to see the difficulties.

(J) In the meeting with the State Police Recruitment Board also

this Commission advised the Board to prepare a software in

this regard as they have already prepared certain software to

maintain the SC/ST/BC/PH/Sports/Minority reservation quotas.

Such a Software will be of great benefit in fixing the points as

per the local character of the posts along with the Communal


Roaster. These sorts of Roaster points the Commission feels

will be ensuring transparency and authenticity in the

recruitment‟s to posts falling within local cadres. The Secretary,

Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission informed that the

Roaster Registers are expected to be maintained by each Unit

Officer as per the Government Orders and this Register will be

maintained as per the roaster approved in the General Rules.

Woman reservation and communal reservation points are

identified as per General Rule 22 and 22(a) and suggested that

to ensure reservation to local candidates properly it is

advisable, if specific points therein are identified for local

candidates also in the Roaster. In such a case, a specific

provision should be made in the Presidential Order and in the

General Rules, only after Andhra Pradesh Public Service

Commission has been requested to try out and advise the

Government on the feasibility and utility of the system.

(K) It was also suggested that unless the job of periodical

inspection is entrusted to a specific authority, the efficiency of

the roaster system cannot be ensured.

(L) The Telangana Employees Unions have suggested that to a

Committee consisting of one Member from each Region,

headed by an Officer belonging to some other State, the

implementation of the Presidential Order can be entrusted.

(M) The Telangana Non-Gazetted Officers Union has also suggested

that the date of appointment and local status of each employee

should be collected in the form prescribed by the APPSC –

“APPSC Attestation Form” to get at the precise data and to


monitor the implementation of the Presidential Order in the

State. (Form appears as Annexure-6 to this Report).

14.7.0 In concluding this chapter the Commission strongly feels that any

framework of safeguards would be of no avail unless:

1) the fundamental safeguards mentioned at the beginning of this

chapter are provided.

2) awareness and complete understanding of the Presidential

Order is created among all the levels of the Administration.

3) the higher officials particularly at the level of the Principal

Secretaries/ Secretaries, Heads of Departments and District

Collectors take the trouble of making themselves fully

conversant with all the nuances of the Presidential Order and

the Fundamental Rules and General Rules which are closely

connected with the Presidential Order.

4) there is a system of fixing responsibility and taking disciplinary

action in the case of deviations from the Presidential Order. In

this regard Act-2 of 1994, the Andhra Pradesh (Regulations of

appointments to Public Services and Rationalisation of Staff

Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994 sets the trend. It makes

violation of this Act by any officer of whatever rank, a criminal

offence punishable up to six months of imprisonment. This Act

also stipulates some type of penalty for the political

administrators who violate the Act. These stringent provisions

were made in the Act because it involved vital economic

aspects of the State. In the same way, since the Presidential

Order involves vital political aspects of the State perhaps a

similar approach as in Act-2 of 1994 could be considered.


5) the people, the political leaders, the employees unions and the

employees themselves should clearly realise three basic

truths:-

(a) that the deviations from the Presidential Order have

occurred in respect of all the district cadres and all the zones and therefore they are a matter of concern not for

any particular district or zone but for the entire State.

(b) that the safeguards will also be beneficial to the local

candidates of the entire State in all the 23 districts and in all the six zones.

(c) that the Presidential Order which is a part of the Six Point

Formula is not merely a guarantee of opportunities of employment being equitably shared by the local people of

all the districts, but a part of the delicate political settlement on which the integrity of the State is

predicated. It should therefore transcend any narrow, particularistic or individual interest and considerations.

This basic truth has to be imbibed by the higher civil servants, and the employees themselves. It should

permeate all their thinking and decision making in matters

that impinge on the Presidential Order, directly or indirectly, perceptibly or imperceptibly. Just as the

financial and legal aspects are always considered in making any proposal or decision, so too the Presidential

Order aspects should also be taken into consideration.

* * * * *


CHAPTER – 15

CONSPECTUS

15.1.0 The two years study, which has culminated in this Final Report, has

shown that any legal framework which tries to provide some

flexibility in its operation will end up by the soft points becoming

leakages and the basic purpose of the legal provisions start trickling

out through these leakages some of which tend to become

breaches. When that happens the tank of the legal dispensation

tends to get empty and nearby fields tend to get flooded. At this

stage people wakeup. In the socio-political system, that situation

leads to social tension. In the case of the Presidential Order we

have found so many soft areas leading to leakages and some

leakages widening into breaches. Fortunately, the awakening has

come not too late, yet not early enough. The first and emergency

action to be taken as is done in the case of breached tank, it to

build ring bunds to stop the outflow. In Chapter-14 of this Report, it

has been suggested that at this juncture this emergency operation

of buildings ring bunds is essential. What those ring bunds and

emergency operations are going to be is clearly delineated in the

very beginning of that Chapter. The Commission feels that if this

emergency action is not immediately taken things may go out of

hand and the Presidential Order may keep flowing out through

these breaches such as gazetting of posts (Chapter-9), expanding

the scope of excluded organisations of Para-14 of the Presidential

Order (Chapters-2 and 3), cross-cadre movements particularly

deputations (Chapter-3), absorption / redeployment of surplus


employees (Chapter-8), compassionate appointments (Chapter-10)

etc.

15.1.1 The Commission feels that this Report can be used as a Guide for

all the authorities concerned with the implementation of the

Presidential Order so as to avoid pitfalls.

15.1.2 “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” Eternal vigilance is also

the price of all delicate political settlements like the Six Point

Formula in general and Presidential Order as a part thereof.

15.1.3 It may not be out of place to mention here that localisation of

cadres has an inherent administrative advantage apart from

providing an equitable system of sharing of employment

opportunities. An ex-Minister of Karnataka approached this

Commission more than once, with a few politicians, to understand

the implications of localisation of cadres and how it could be done in

Karnataka State. Their objective was not sharing of job

opportunities in different regions but to find a solution to a nagging

administrative problem. They said that Teachers and functionaries

of that level were selected from all over the State and posted in

areas far removed from their homes. For the sake of employment

they accepted the appointments but at their economic level they

could not really move to the places of postings. This was resulting

in large-scale absenteeism, authorised as well as unauthorised, and

also pressures for transfers etc. Thus it may be seen that our

Presidential Order and system of localisation of cadres is very

conducive to administrative efficiency and beneficial to the

employees as well as the institutions like Schools etc. It is thus

evident that the rigorous and meticulous implementation of the


Presidential Order is not only necessary for protecting the delicate

political settlements or providing equitable job opportunities but

also an important factor for good governance.

15.1.4 The two year study has exposed again the same weakness of our

system which I, the One Man Commission, had occasion to

encounter before taking up this assignment as Member Secretary,

Staff Review Committee. The experience is that in spite of

computerisation, the database is not available to the departmental

Heads even in matters of personnel and the various performance

indicators. Where powers and functions are de-centralised to the

regional and district levels, the departmental heads do not feel that

they should have access to all the data pertaining to those matters.

So even today for any data not available directly at the Head of

Department level – and there is very little that is available to them

- the eighteenth century system of calling for reports from Mandal

level upwards still persists. Any commission waiting for such reports

has to wait till Kingdom comes. Sending statistics to Commissions

and Committees is anathema, as may be seen from the reports

annexed to this Report. Hardly one-third of the total number of

Departments have responded during the last two years. This is one

aspect of our administration, which should be addressed by those

engaged in the problem of good governance. Though we have the

age-old system of periodicals, there seems to be no attempt at

reviewing the periodicals to remove the obsolete ones and

introduce those relevant to contemporary and current issues. It

was recently discovered that a periodical regarding sending a

special variety of cheroots tobacco for Churchill‟s cigars from some

place in Tamil Nadu was still continuing. An updated M.I.S.


(Management Information System) duly computerised, with Mandal

to State capital networking, seems to be the basic need of good

governance today. These remarks may seem out of place but are

relevant to any enquiry or study that any Commission may

undertake.

15.1.5 The Commission also found that many grievances which were

patently genuine and exposed gross violations either of the

Presidential Order and/or of the General Rules, Fundamental Rules

and even natural justice, were quite often not taken seriously when

they were brought before the concerned Head of Department or

even the Government. This resulted in pushing the aggrieved

parties to the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and High

Court. At the same time the contraventions that could have been

taken cognisance of and corrected for the future, continued to be

perpetuated. It is this unfortunate trend in dealing with the

grievances of employees that has multiplied the contraventions

which have filled the almost two hundred pages of this Report. This

Commission finds that it is the individual cases that are the best

source of detecting deviations and contraventions from the rules in

general and from the Presidential Order in particular. Perhaps, this

point can be driven home to the Secretaries and Heads of

Departments, through whatever proper means as may be decided

by the Government. It could be taken up in the regular Secretaries‟

Meetings or at some Good Governance Workshop or at least by a

D.O. Letter from the Chief Secretary to all the Principal

Secretaries/Secretaries/Heads of Departments and the District

Collectors to focus their attention on this matter.


15.1.6 In the shrinking scope of employment opportunities in Government

and local bodies, Government may be pleased to consider whether

any new jobs created in the Government sector should be brought

into the fold of the Presidential Order or kept out of it as the

present trend shows. Out-sourcing, contractual appointments,

creation of Societies registered under the Societies Registration Act

etc. are some of the devices through which the job opportunities in

the Government, created through various programmes and projects

are kept out side the scope of the Presidential Order. In fact, there

was a demand before the Commission that all the organisations like

Corporations, Universities etc. should be brought within the purview

of the Presidential Order. The Commission noticed that in the

Agricultural University there was a lopsided high share in the jobs

for candidates from zones other than V and VI zones. In this way

the organisations outside the purview of the Presidential Order give

an impression of being rather apathetic to the aspirations and

expectations of the local people of the area for jobs or any idea of

equitable sharing of job opportunities. This apathy has nothing to

do with merit which is held out to be the consideration. This

Commission has taken the view that the scope of the Presidential

Order should neither be abridged nor widened. The reason for such

a view is that one should not open Pandora‟s Box. While taking this

view the Commission feels that Government might negotiate with

the organisations kept out and persuade them to adopt on their

own, some formula that will ensure natural justice and equitable

distribution of job opportunities. In fact, the Board of the A.P.

Dairy Development Corporation (Now APDDCF) had on its own,

adopted the Presidential Order and are implementing it though not

very meticulously. Similar arrangement could be negotiated by the


Government with the APSRTC and A.P Transco and A.P. Genco,

District Poverty Initiatives Project, DPIP (Velugu), Schools run by

Singareni Collieries Education Society etc. In fact, the House

Committee had recommended this principle for the Andhra Pradesh

Residential Educational Institutions Society (APREIS).

15.1.7 Since this Commission started its work it has from time to time

been addressing the Government on some of the important issues

that needed immediate action. The Commission is grateful to the

Government for prompt action on such matters that resulted in

providing immediate and effective redressal and strengthened the

belief of employees in the earnestness of the Government about

implementing the Presidential Order. In this connection, mention

may be made of the fact that in the case of Secondary Grade

Teachers Government took action to retain the local cadre at

district level only and later also to retain the 80% reservation for

local candidates, even after the Teachers had gone above the LDC

Pay Scale as a result of the upward Revision by the Pay

Commission. Again, the Government changed the procedure of

selection by putting merit selection before the reservation selection

so that the merited local candidates got their due opportunity. Yet

again, Government banned transfers when protests were made

against large-scale transfers. On the Commission‟s suggestion the

Government has stayed the process of gazetting of posts which was

resulting in placing local candidates out side the purview of the

Presidential Order. The Commission had written to the Government

very recently expressing its concern at the persistent deputation of

candidates of other cadres into posts of city cadre of Hyderabad

Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board. Later, in September


the full picture was placed before the Government by the

Commission in its Proceedings No. 64 in Volume II of this Report.

Within two days the Government seems to have issued orders

repatriating the 23 DEEs of other cadres back to their original

cadres from the City cadre posts which they had been occupying in

the name of Project work when the Project work had seized long

ago. This prompt response of the Government will instil confidence

among all the employees about the earnestness of the Government

to set matters right under the Presidential Order. This will go a

long way in working out any consensus approach to the

retrospective remedial action.

15.1.8 The Report has many Findings in which retrospective action may

not be possible because of the speculative nature as to who would

be the beneficiary. But it is not very difficult in finding out who

benefited unduly by the various deviations. Each finding will have

to be scrutinised from this angle separately. In the Remedial Action

proposals under each Chapter certain indications have been given

in this regard. The vast canvas that the report covers would

indicate the magnitude of the exercise involved in attempting any

retrospective measure. It may therefore be prudent to first take

the action that is immediately indicated so that confidence is

created about the earnestness of the Government to implement the

Report. After a brief study if the Government is convinced about

the genuineness of the findings it might consider declaring

acceptance of the Report, which would calm all the tensions and

alley, any apprehensions about action on the Report. Thereafter,

one of the options could be the consensus route to retrospective

action. In this regard, the experience of Karnataka State could be


studied. Under States Re-organisation Act, Karnataka State was

formed with four different entities:

(1) Mysore State

(2) Kannada-speaking areas carved out of Madras Presidency

(3) The Kannada speaking areas from Hyderabad State.

(4) The Karnataka speaking areas from Maharashtra.

15.1.9 As in Andhra Pradesh so in Karnataka the problem of preparing

common gradation lists had to be tackled. This led to many

seniorities being reshuffled. The Government brought the

Associations/Unions together to arrive at a consensus with regard

to retrospective effect of the common gradation lists. This

consensus resulted in the passing of the Karnataka State Civil

Services (Regulation of Promotion, Pay and Pension) Act, 1973,

Karnataka Act-11 of 1974 popularly known as the „PPP Act‟ which

received the ascent of the Governor in April 1974 and was amended

by Acts 40 of 1976 and 25 of 1982. The preamble to this Act may

be of interest to us in Andhra Pradesh. It is reproduced below:

(Quote) “…Whereas on the basis of the ranking of

civil servants in the several inter-State seniority lists prepared in pursuance of sub-section (5) of

section 115 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (Central Act 37 of 1956), courts have directed the

making of retrospective promotions to statutory and other offices;

And whereas as held by the Supreme Court in Ajit

Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in All India Reporter 1967, Supreme Court 856 and in Income-

Tax Officer, Alleppy Vs. N.C. Ponnoose, reported in

All India Reporter 1970, Supreme Court 385 appointments of civil servants to offices in which

statutory functions are exercisable cannot be made with retrospective effect;


And whereas retrospective promotions involved payment of large sums of money to person who

have not worked in the promotional posts of officers concerned, to the detriment of the finances

of the State, besides involving retrospective reversions rendering invalid the statutory functions

discharged by the persons reverted;

And whereas retrospective promotions preclude the determination of the suitability of the civil servants

to hold the promotional posts or offices and will enable them to continue in such posts or offices

only on the ground of their eligibility to promotions, resulting in the continuance of even unsuitable civil

servants in promotional posts or offices to the

detriment of public interest;

And whereas it is necessary and expedient to provide against the said consequences;

And whereas the Central Government has given

previous approval under the proviso to sub-section (7) of section 115 of the State Reorganisation Act,

1956 (Central Act 37 of 1956) communicated in letter No.5/5/73–SR (S) dated 22nd February 1973

of the Government of India, Cabinet Secretariat, Department of Personnel and Administrative

Reforms;

Be it enacted by the Karnataka Legislature in the

Twenty-fourth Year of the Republic of India as follows……………” (Unquote)

15.1.10 Copy of the Act along with copies of amending Act 25 of 1982 and

of the Rules is given in Annexure-7.

15.1.11 Working out the retrospective course of action for each of the

remedial measures is bound to be a very long-winding and time-

consuming process. After it is worked out, it would undoubtedly

unsettle many employees from their present positions. This could


lead to heartburning, and an unending process of litigations. This

could be possibly contained through the consensus route.

Hyderabad J.M. GIRGLANI, IAS (Retd.) Dated: ONE MAN COMMISSION (S.P.F.)


SECTION – B

FURTHER AND FINAL REPORT

ON

IMPLEMENTATION OF

G.O.Ms.No.610 G.A (SPF.A) DEPT., DATED 30-12-1985


SECTION - B

CONTENTS

SUBJECT Page Nos.

1. Introduction 229

G.O.Ms.No. 610 G.A (SPF.A) Dept.,

dt. 30-12-1985.

Further and final Report on:

2. Para-5 (1) 229-241

3. Para-5 (2) 241-245

4. Para-5 (3) (a) } 246-247 Para-5 (3) (b) }

5. Para-5 (4) 247-250

6. Para 5 (5) 250-251

7. Para 5 (6) 251-252

8. Para 5 (7) 252-253

9. Para 5 (8) 253-254

10. Para 5 (9) 255

11. Para 5 (10) 255

12. Para 5 (11) 256-257

13. Para 5 (12) (a) } 257-258 Para 5 (12) (b) }

14. Para 5 (13) 258-259

15. Para 5 (14) 259-260

16. Has G.O.Ms.No.610, G.A. (SPF.A) Dept., 260-265 dated 30-12-1985 been implemented ?


VOLUME-I

SECTION-B

FURTHER REPORT OF THE ONE MAN COMMISSION

(SIX POINT FORMULA) ON IMPLEMENTATION OF

G.O.MS.NO.610 GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (SPF.A)

DEPARTMENT, DATED 30-12-1985 AND SORTING OUT

OF ANOMALIES

INTRODUCTION

1.1.0 One Man Commission (SPF) was appointed in G.O.Ms.No.270

General Administration (Six Point Formula-A) Department, dated

25-06-2001. Among the terms of reference of the Commission in

the G.O., following term was one of the terms:

“The Commission will receive representations from Associations / individuals where the injustice is done in the

implementation of G.O.Ms.No.610, General Administration (SPF.A) Department, dated 30-12-1985 and to sort out the

anomalies. The Commission shall submit its report within 90 days”.

1.1.1 In pursuance of the above term of reference the Commission

submitted a Preliminary Report on 06-10-2001. The Commission

now submits further and Final Report with regard to this term of

reference. The Report is submitted with reference to the

Paragraphs of the aforesaid G.O.Ms.No.610.

2.1.0 Para-5 (1)

“The employees allotted after 18-10-1975 to Zones V to VI

in violation of zonalisation of local cadres under the Six Point Formula will be repatriated to their respective zones


by 31-03-1986 by creating supernumerary posts wherever necessary”.

2.1.1 In G.O.Ms.No.610 Para 5(1) it has been stated that “the employees

allotted after 1975 to zones V and VI in violation of local cadres

under the Rules of Six Point Formula will be repatriated to their

respective zones by 13-03-1986 by creating supernumerary posts

wherever necessary”.

2.1.2 In this connection, various figures ranging from 40,000 upwards

were given by Telangana NGO‟s Association and others.

2.1.3 This point was discussed in detail in this Commission‟s Preliminary

Report from Paras 2.2.0 to 2.23.3 including the various tables from

Table-I to Table-XIX. Included within these Paras are altogether

nine Preliminary Findings. That part of the Report may be read as a

part of this Final Report.

2.1.4 When the figures of employees census came before the House

Committee of the Legislative Assembly, the House Committee

desired that in the ongoing employees census 2001, information

may be collected on the locals and non-locals working in various

districts and zones in the Offices of the Government Departments

and Local Bodies, for those cadres of their employees which were

covered by the Presidential Order. The earlier figures were of

“natives” & “non-natives” Accordingly, Planning Department

collected this information on the basis of declarations that were

collected from employees themselves. The statistics thus collected

have been furnished by the Planning Department and appear at

Annexures 8, 9 and 10.


2.1.5 It may be seen that there are the following cadres/categories of

employees in Government and Local Bodies.

Government

Gazetted … 46,831 Non-Gazetted … 2,62,438

Class-IV* … 77,389

Others … 45,738 -----------

Total … 4,32,395 ======

Local Bodies

Gazetted … 7,168

Non-Gazetted … 1,73,041 Class-IV * … 40,437

Others … 21,624 -----------

Total … 2,42,270 ======

(* Last Grade employees)

2.1.6 If we exclude 46,831 gazetted posts from the total Government

employees we have 3,85,564 Government employees who are

covered by the Presidential Order. (We may ignore for statistical

purposes Gazetted employees presently in the Specified Gazetted

Category, being negligible in number) Out of these, the Planning

Department has given district-wise break-up for 3,54,131

employees. Regarding the remaining 31,433 employees the

Planning Department has shown 31,281 under the heading “not

covered under Presidential Order”, and 152 under the heading

“employees working outside the Andhra Pradesh” (these last being

in Delhi, etc.)


2.1.7 The district-wise figures of local and non-locals show the following

results:

1) The lowest percentage of non-locals ranging between 3.42%

to 4.81% is in eight districts of which one is in zone-I, one is in zone-II, four in zone-IV and two in zone-V. (Warangal and

Karimnagar).

2) In the second range i.e. between 5.16% to 5.99% we have seven districts of which one is in zone-I, one in zone-II, three

in zone-III and two in zone-VI (Mahabubnagar and Medak).

3) The third range is 8.52% to 11.63% with one district in zone-I, one in zone-II and two in zone-V (Adilabad and

Khammam) and three districts in zone-VI (Ranga Reddy,

Nizamabad and Nalgonda).

4) Beyond this, we have only one district viz. Hyderabad which has 18.06% non-locals which is far more than the 1st, 2nd &

3rd ranges mentioned above.

5) All the districts except Hyderabad District are far below 20% which is the highest permissible for open quota of district

cadre posts in which locals and non-locals can come without reservation. Hyderabad is just below 20% which shows

‘inter alia‟, and „prima-facie‟ not only that a large part of the open quota is filled with non-locals but also that there must

be a lateral inflow of non-locals through transfers, compassionate appointments, deputations etc.

2.1.8 In the zonal posts, the open quota limit is 30%, but those posts are

few as most of the zonal posts are promotion posts.

2.1.9 The conclusions that can be drawn from these figures are that in

the open quota the districts of zone-V and VI have a larger share of

non-locals than the other districts. Hyderabad stands out as a

distinctly different case. The figures of Hyderabad could show:

(i) that the locals of Hyderabad district have not been able to get into the open quota to any significant extent.


(ii) that because of the state capital a large number of non-

locals from all over the State must have applied, and in the tough competition, bagged the open quota on merit against

the locals of the District.

(iii) that there may be a larger number of zonal posts in

Hyderabad District and in the City Cadre. Zonal posts have 30% open quota. Nevertheless, since the percentage overall

is within 20% it cannot be ipso facto concluded that there is anything which indicates violation of the Presidential Order in

as far as statistics are concerned.

(iv) that the lateral inflow through transfers, deputations etc. must have swelled the figures of non-locals.

2.1.10 The significance of total statistics of locals and non-locals is limited.

First, because it is not known what the declarants have understood

when they have said that they are “locals” or “non-locals in open

quota” or “not covered by Presidential Order”.

2.1.11 Non-locals mostly comprise of the employees recruited from the

following sources:

1. some of those who were allotted in initial allotments in 1975 but continue to remain N.G.Os or last grade employees.

2. those who came in the open quota by direct recruitments

that have taken place from time to time.

3. those who have come on transfer from other local cadres.

4. compassionate appointments to the district cadre posts in

which local candidate criteria has not been applied.

5. deputations, in which, local candidate criterion has not been followed.

6. surplus/workcharged employees absorbed in regular posts.

In this category also local candidate criterion has not been followed.


2.1.12 It is obvious that in Hyderabad District, because of the State capital

non-local element has entered through sources 3 to 5 above, in

some significant numbers.

2.1.13 In the Rural Local Bodies statement we have the following

ranges of percentages of non-locals:

I. 3.38 – 5.56

II. 6.51 – 9.45

III. 13.16 – 16.60

(A) In the first range we have 13 Districts:

Two in zone-I, three in zone-III, three in zone-IV, three in

zone-VI and two in zone-V

(B) In the second range, we have total seven Districts:

Three in zone-II, one in zone-IV, one in zone-VI and two in

zone-V.

(C) In the third range, we have three Districts:

Ranga Reddy 15.33%, Hyderabad 13.16% and Visakhapatnam

16.6%.

2.1.14 In the Urban Local Bodies statement we have the following ranges of percentages of non-locals:

We have the range 0.00 to 4.82. This range covers all the 23

Districts.

EXCLUDED FROM PRESIDENTIAL ORDER

2.1.15 With regard to 31,433 employees for which break-up was not given,

the office of the Director of Economics and Statistics sent further

statements which show that 31,281 are not covered by the


Presidential Order though they are of the levels (last grade

servants, NGOs etc.) which come under the purview of the

Presidential Order. This number constitutes 8.11% of the total

number of NGOs in all the districts (Table-1A).

2.1.16 The Director, Economics & Statistics Department has further

furnished „Department-wise break-up for 31,281 employees „not

covered by the Presidential Order‟ as follows:

In Hyderabad - 13,245

In remaining 22 Districts - 18,036

---------

31,281 =====

(covering all the HODs in the state).

2.1.17 In Hyderabad, out of 13,245 employees not covered by the

Presidential Order, 22 Departments are having major share of

81.17% i.e., 10,751, of which the significant ones are:-

DG & IG of Police : 4,197

Printing & Stationary : 1,417

AP Special Protection Force : 1,294

2.1.18 In the remaining 22 Districts, out of 18,036 employees not covered

by the Presidential Order, 31 Departments are having major share

of 90.56% i.e. 16,335. Of these the significant ones are:-

DG & IG of Police : 5,828

C. C. L. A. : 1,398

AP Special Protection Force : 1,200

Prisons & Correctional Services : 955


2.1.19 In the remaining 103 Departments the employees „not covered by

the Presidential Order‟ are below 100 each, their total is 9.43% of

18,036 i.e., 1,701.

2.1.20 Of these excluded 31,281 posts, 13,245 are in Hyderabad district in

the offices of the Heads of Departments, State Level Offices and all

other offices covered under Para 14 (b) to (f) of the Presidential

Order.

2.1.21 Under “Deviation” Findings in the Final Report Part-1 it has been

shown that certain Offices have been wrongly labelled as Heads of

Departments and their employees who should have been in local

cadres of Hyderabad District and Zone – VI, have been wrongly

“excluded” under Para 14(b) of Presidential Order.

2.1.22 Since most of the excluded categories listed above belong to the

City of Hyderabad, it would mean 18,036 employees not covered by

the Presidential Order are in all the other districts of the State.

2.1.23 In zone-V and VI the total number of NGOs and Last Grade

Employees including the City of Hyderabad who are outside the

Presidential Order is 17,821, which constitutes 9.90% of the total

number of NGOs and Last Grade employees. (Table-1B).

2.1.24 These being the figures, there is no wonder that the

G.O.Ms.No.610 speaks of a large number of non-locals in zone-V

and VI. It is because 17,821 are outside the purview of the

Presidential Order and may be accounting for large number of

non-locals. Of these, of course some who are wrongly classed as

employees of Heads of Departments who are not really Heads of


Departments (as mentioned above) are excluded in violation of


DISTRICT COLLECTORS‟ FIGURES

2.1.25 The Commission has also called for figures from the District

Collectors in Proformas 5 (a) and 5 (b) (Annexures 11 and 12). The

results of the information collected through these Proformas may be

seen in Tables 2A to 2E and Tables 3A to 3D under

Annexure-12.

2.1.26 The responses to this proformas were received only from Collectors,

Warangal, Mahabubnagar, Nalgonda, Khammam and Prakasam,

Medak, Nizamabad, Adilabad and Ranga Reddy Districts. The first

five districts have given only status figures as on 31-03-2001 and

the remaining four Districts have given figures only with regard to

recruitment.

2.1.27 It may be seen that in Warangal District in 52 Departments Class-

III (LDC and equal cadre) posts show only 3.04% non-locals. But

the non-locals among School Teachers are 29.98%. The overall

percentage of non-locals is 18.83% due to higher percentage

among Teachers, who also accounts for large absolute number.

Break-up of the posts which have more than 15% non-locals is also

given for each of these districts in Table No.2A to 2E and 3A to 3D.

Apart from Teachers the posts that account for large percentage of

non-locals are Agricultural Extension Officers and VDOs. At that

time local reservation for teachers was 70% & 30% was of merit

quota but all of it could not have possibly gone to non-locals.


2.1.28 In Nalgonda District though the overall percentage of non-locals is

2.34%, few posts show higher percentage, like ANMs of Health

Department. The rest of the posts which are above 15% are those

that are normally workcharged posts and which have been treated

(erroneously) all along as being outside the purview of Presidential

Order. This Commission has given its own views regarding

workcharged employees in Chapter-7 of the Final Report Part-1.

2.1.29 In Khammam District VDOs Gr.II, Wardens-II, Assistant Marketing

Supervisors etc. are the posts which show above 15% non-locals

and three of them, to almost 20%. Apart from that, there are posts

of Teachers (Language Pandits Gr.II), which are above that

percentage. The higher percentage of non-locals in some of these

posts is not explicable.

2.1.30 In Prakasam District how Draughtsmen Gr.III and Fishermen have

gone up to a very large percentage of non-locals is not

understandable. They might be under workcharged establishment.

2.1.31 In Medak District within the 18 Departments, non-locals are only

2.11% but specific posts of Section Writers appear as 28.57%. This

is rather surprising.

2.1.32 In Nizamabad District overall recruitment percentage is only 7.70%

non-locals. But above 15% non-locals appear among Nurses in the

Health Department and overall from workcharged employees,

including work charged Inspectors.

2.1.33 Adilabad District shows 13.77% of Teachers as non-locals. 2.1.34 Ranga Reddy District has not given any post-wise break-up of

non-locals. But in recruitments by District Selection Committees


from 1976 to 1999 they have shown between 19% to almost 23%

non-locals. At that time 30% was merit quota for teachers.

CONCLUSION

2.1.35 These disaggregated figures give an idea as to where the non-local

element has entered. Mostly it is in the category of Teachers, and

Paramedicals of the Health Department. Non-Locals have also

entered in a big way among workcharged employees. This last

category has remained under complete camouflage because they

have been treated (erroneously) as outside the purview of the

Presidential Order. It is seen that large number of them in some of

the Zones are non-locals and were recruited by local Engineers, not

through DSC‟s. However, these are separately discussed in the

Final Report Part-1.

2.1.36 In a nutshell the statistics discussed above show as under:

1) The total number of various categories of employees mainly NGOs & Last Grade employees enumerated is 3,85,564 in

Government Departments.

2) The total number of employees of these categories which are excluded from the purview of Presidential Order under various

provisions of Presidential Order viz. Para 14 (b) to (f), which

includes also those listed in GSR 526 (E), GSR 527 (E) and GSR 529 (E) are 31,281.

3) This exclusion constitutes to 8.11 % of the total.

4) The employees covered by Presidential Order, are 3,54,283.

5) The total number of employees in Zone V & VI are 1,80,080.

6) Out of item no.5 above, the break-up of Locals and Non-locals is as under:

Locals Non-locals

1,45,606 16,653


7) Under item 6 above, the Non-locals constituted an aggregate of 9.25 % in Zone V & VI.

8) District Figures

The result of the figures taken directly by this Commission

through OMC formats 5(a) & (b) from various Districts shows as under:

Status Figures as on 31-03-2001

(A) Among the School Teachers in Warangal District, Non-

locals are 30 %.

(B) In Khammam District, among VDOs Gr.II, Warden Gr.II,

Asst. Marketing Supervisors, the Non-locals are around 20%. The Telugu Pandit Gr.II also shows a higher

percentage of Non-locals i.e. 20 %.

Recruitment Figures from 1975 to 2001:

(C) In Medak District, the Non-locals in Section Writer posts

are 28.57%

(D) In Nizamabad District, the Non-locals among Nurses and Para Medical posts are about 15%

(E) In Ranga Reddy District, the figures of District Selection Committee recruitment from 1976 to 1999 show 19% to

23% of Non-locals in Jr. Assts. and equal cadre posts.

2.1.37 With regard to individual grievances, Volume II of the Final Report

contains copies of all the Proceedings issued by the Commission on

the representations and Petitions received. Action of these will

alleviate the sense of grievance and instil confidence.

2.1.38 The violations of Presidential Order are those that have been

brought out in this Report under the various genres of “deviations


from Presidential Order”. As stated in Chapter-1 of the Final Report

Part–1 these cannot be quantified by the Commission either in the

aggregate or district-wise or zone-wise, because they are spread

over the whole State. Only concerned Departments can take up the

exercise with reference to all records over a period of 28 years to

see how many employees under each genre of “deviation from the

Presidential Order” are non-locals in each local cadre and arrive at

the numbers that can be treated as actually being in violation of the

Presidential Order. The nature of retrospective consequential action

can flow out of such an exercise. However detailed Findings and

Remedial measures have been indicated in every chapter.

3.1.0 Para-5 (2)

“In respect of Jurala, Srisailam Left Canal and Sriramsagar

Project Stage II, all the staff in the Non-Gazetted categories both technical and non-technical including Asst. Executive

Engineers (formerly JEs) coming under zonalisation of local cadres under the Presidential Order of 1975 who were

posted to the projects from outside zones V and VI after

01.03.1983, will be retransferred to their respective zones and posted either in existing vacancies in various

government establishments in those zones or in supernumerary posts where vacancies are not available.

Towards this the Government will also move the Government of India for seeking amendment to Government of India‟s

notification G.S.R. 525 (E), Dated 28-06-1985 to give retrospective effect to this order with effect from

01-03-1983.

3.1.1 In continuation of what is stated in the Preliminary Report, the

Commission has to add that, it is noticed that the Departments have

been treating the posts of AEEs and DEEs in all the Projects listed in

G.S.R. 525 (E) as not covered by the Presidential Order. Therefore

they have been resorting to deputations to these posts in the

Projects.


3.1.2 In this point the categories included are also AEEs (JEs). But, as

seen from (e) of Para-14 of the Presidential Order AEEs were not

brought under the Presidential Order. Till today, they continue to

be outside the Presidential Order since (e) of Para-14 of the

Presidential Order has remained unamended after G.O.Ms455 dated

3-10-1985 had first amended it to bring NGOs of Projects under the

purview of the Presidential Order. Therefore, the Department has

not repatriated non-local AEEs or DEEs from the three Projects

mentioned in this point. In fact, the inclusion of AEEs in this sub-

Para of G.O.Ms.No.610 implies that Government of India would be

moved to include the AEEs of Projects under the Presidential Order

either by a suitable amendment of (e) of Para-14 of the Presidential

Order or completely removing (e) from Para-14 and also removing

G.S.R. 525 (E), so that the exclusion of the Projects from the

Presidential Order would end totally and all the cadres in all the

categories of posts which are localised for the departments would be

localised for the Projects also. This would have brought them under

localisation scheme and fitted them into relevant local cadres.

Since, this has not happened, AEEs continue to be treated as

Projects posts, excluded from the Presidential Order, to be filled in

by deputation from anywhere (not even following Para-9 (B) of

G.O.P. 728, dated 01-11-1975). Similarly, when DEEs were

brought under the Third Schedule apparently in 1993, when they

seem to have become Zonal posts in the departments, they

remained non-localised in the Projects and continued to be filled in

by deputation.

3.1.3 The Projects have thus become a happy hunting ground for posting

AEEs and DEEs on deputation from anywhere. The glaring example


of this pathetic situation has been brought out in the case of

deputations from Public Health, Engineering Department to

Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board vide

Proceedings. No. 64 in Volume II of this Report.

3.1.4 For full details on this issue of AEEs and DEEs of Projects,

Chapter-2 of the Final Report Part-1 may be referred. Since the

adversely affected local candidates are spread over all the six

Zones, the remedial measure are also given in Part-1 of the Final

Report in the same chapter.

Workcharged employees in the projects

3.1.5 Even after: (1) the inclusion of all non-gazetted posts, technical and

non-technical, in the projects under the Presidential Order with the

issue of G.O.Ms.No. 455, dated 03-10-1985 amending (e) of para14

of the Presidential Order; (2) the issue of G.O.Ms.No.610; (3) the

specific commitment by the Government in G.O.Msno.564 Para-2

(c) accepting that workcharged establishments came under the

Presidential Order; (4) Preliminary Report of this Commission dated

06-10-2001 – workcharged establishments continue to be kept

outside the Presidential Order and no localisation scheme was

formed for them. On this subject Chapter-7 of the Final Report Part-

1 may be seen.

Completion of Project work

3.1.6 Even when work in the Projects is completed they continued to be

listed under G.S.R. No.525 (E) for the technical reason that

completion is not notified. It has been seen that this has been

misused for deputing people for posts AEEs & DEEs for the posts


earmarked for Project work without there being any Project work.

Actually they do regular departmental and maintenance work. But

in the name of the Projects the local candidates get deprived and

deputationists are brought from other Zones. In fact, this has

happened because, as mentioned already the Project AEEs and

DEEs are kept outside the purview of the Presidential Order. This

deprives the local of their job opportunities in their local Zones.

3.1.7 A glaring case in this regard is that of Public Health Engineering

Department. In the Projects of Hyderabad Metropolitan Water

Supply & Sewerage Board which were long completed, this

department continued filling the vacancies treating them as

Project vacancies though they were doing only departmental

work, by posting 48 DEEs from other Zones, though the posts

were in Zone-VI and in „City of Hyderabad‟. At the time, when the

matter came to the Commission‟s notice it was stated by the

Department that there are now only 23 such deputationists.

These posts had long ceases to be Project‟s posts and had become

departmental posts. These should have become a part of City of

Hyderabad Cadre and some of them of Zonal Cadre of Zone-VI.

Similarly, certain posts on the Krishna River Drinking Project were

treated as Project‟s posts though this Project has not been notified

under G.S.R. 525 (E). These too are located in the City of

Hyderabad and some are in the VI zone and are legitimately the

posts of City Cadre and some of them of Zone-VI which were filled

in by candidates of other Zones on deputation. For fuller details

please see Proceedings No. 64 in Volume II of this Report.


3.1.8 The Heads of Projects have been wrongly treated as Heads of

Departments which they are not by any definition. In this way, the

posts in these offices are kept outside the purview of the

Presidential Order and local candidates are deprived of such posts.

3.1.9 For full details on these matters, the entire Chapter-2 may kindly be

seen and particularly the Section under Major Development Projects

in this Chapter.

Retrospective Effect to 1983

3.1.10 General Administration (SPF.A) Department was not able to give

any information with regard to retrospective application of the

Presidential Order to the Projects mentioned in this Para from 1983.

It is understood that when last reminded in the year 2001, the

Government of India had asked for a copy of the reference making

such a proposal. At this stage this retrospective effect makes no

difference once the local cadres were formed after the extension of

the Presidential Order to the Projects in 1985. AEES were anyway

not included. Nor were DEEs. It would have been different if this

retrospective effect had come immediately in or after 1985. The

present issue is whether AEEs and DEEs will be brought under the

Presidential Order retrospectively from the date of commitment by

Government in G.O.Ms.No.610 by deleting (e) in Para 14 of the

Presidential Order and G.S.R. 525 (E) retrospectively from 1st Jan

1986 (as G.O.Ms.No.610 is dated 30-12-1985). The pros and cons

of such action are discussed in Chapter-2 Remedial Measures (VIII)

sub-Paras (3), (4) and (5)


4.1.0 Para-5 (3) (a)

“In respect of appeals filed against orders of allotment made

under paragraph 4 of the Presidential Order of 1975 to the competent authority in time and where such appeals are still

pending disposal, all such cases where details are furnished by the T.N.G.Os Union or individuals shall be disposed of by

31-03-1986”.

4.1.1 In response to this question only two Heads of Departments have

shown eight pending appeals but these are not pending with them.

Roads & Buildings Department has shown one appeal pending in

High Court. Irrigation & Command Area Department has shown

four in APAT and three in the High Court.

4.1.2 Hyderabad Engineers‟ Association submitted a representation to this

Commission against the initial allotment of 102 AEEs and DEEs to

Zones V & VI allegedly in violation of the Presidential Order. The

case had earlier gone to APAT and Andhra Pradesh High Court. 98 of

these 102 had already retired as Superintending Engineers. Three

were in service as Superintending Engineers and one was the

Engineer-in-Chief at the time of hearing. After hearing the whole

matter the Commission concluded that it is a case of pending appeal

before the Government which is yet to be disposed off.

4.1.3 The Commission‟s Proceedings No. 43 in this regard may be seen in

Volume II of the Final Report. The Proceedings were issued on

09-01-2003. It is not known whether these have since been

disposed.

4.1.4 This is the sole appeal pending before the Government within the

knowledge of the Commission.


4.2.0 Remedial Action: It would be good if the Government disposes the

appeal promptly, as the favourable report of the Department is

already available. It is because the E-in-C himself is the adversely

affected party if the appeal is allowed, and three SEs in office would

get adversely affected, that somehow or the other irrelevant pleas

have been taken by the Department to postpone the evil day for the

incumbents in office. One of the untenable pleas was some obiter

dictum in the judgement of the APAT which was used as the handle

for delaying the decision. It will have a salutary impact if Govt. can

take a prompt decision and thwart the dilatory tactics that have

been adopted by the Department for a long time.

5.1.0 Para-5 (3)(b)

“As a result of the above exercise, consequential vacancies if any, arising shall be filled up as per the procedure laid down

under the Presidential Order”.

At this stage this Para does not arise. But after favourable orders

are passed on the pending appeal, this action needs to be taken

promptly in fairness to the appellants.

6.1.0 Para-5 (4)

“In respect of first level Gazetted posts in certain

Departments which are outside the purview of the Presidential Order, action should be taken to review the

question of inclusion of such posts also in the scheme of localisation and the matter should be taken up with the

Government of India for suitable amendment to the said order”.

6.1.1 In continuation of what has already been stated in this

Commission‟s Preliminary Report dated 06-10-2001 under this

paragraph of G.O.Ms.No.610, in Paras 2.27.0 to 2.28.2 thereof, the


Commission would like to invite kind attention to its detailed

observations and Findings and Remedial Measures in Chapter-8 of

the Final Report Part-1 under the heading “Gazetting of Posts and

Specified Gazetted Categories.”

6.1.2 In its further study leading to the Final Report the Commission has

found that this paragraph 5 (4) in the G.O Ms 610 has its roots in

point (3) of the Six Point Formula. This point is reproduced below:

“(3) Subject to the requirements of the State as a whole, local candidates should be given preference

to specified extent in the matter of direct recruitment to:

(i) …..

(ii) …..

(iii) The posts of Tahsildars, Junior Engineers and

Civil Assistant Surgeons. In order to improve their promotion prospects, service cadres should be

organised to the extent possible on appropriate local basis up to specified gazetted level, first or second,

as may be administratively convenient.”

6.1.3 The gazetted posts were left to be actually specified by the

departments as the choice was between first or second level as may

be administratively convenient for each department in respect of

each gazetted category. In 1985 when the G.O.Ms.No. 610 was

issued, hardly any posts had been selected and specified in this

category and included in the Third Schedule. This was the reason for

the demand that led to this paragraph. The Government had

obviously conceded this demand on the basis of the point in Six

Point Formula, which is mentioned above. Thereafter, it is evident

that there was no follow-up action to bring the first/second gazetted

posts of all the departments into this category as the Third Schedule

shows. It is not known whether the exercise of asking


departments to suggest which level of gazetted posts they would

prefer to bring into the Third Schedule, was undertaken at all. This

commitment therefore remains unfulfilled to the present day.

6.1.4 Meanwhile, a new dimension has been added by gazetting of new

posts, which has been discussed in the Preliminary Report and in

detail, in Chapter-8 of the Final Report. These “new gazetted” posts

(i.e. those gazetted after 18-10-1975) have nothing to do with para

5(4) of G.O. Ms 610 presently under discussion. Under this

paragraph, only out of the gazetted posts existing on the crucial

date 18-10-1975, the first or second gazetted post had to be

selected by each department in each category of its services and

proposed to the government for inclusion in the Specified Gazetted

Categories List under the Third Schedule. The “new gazetted” posts

cannot enter in this Schedule. They were non-gazetted on the

crucial date. Gazetting these posts has deprived the local candidates

of their 70 per cent reservations in these posts and also taken them

out from the local zonal cadres. For these posts this Commission

has suggested in Chapter-8 of the Final Report certain action to be

taken to make their original local status, local cadre and percentage

of reservation for locals, immutable. Otherwise, the Presidential

Order could trickle out through this process and leave the local

candidates and local cadres high and dry.

6.2.0 Remedial Action: With regard to the originally gazetted posts as

of 18-10-75, this paragraph of G.O.Ms.No.610 has to be honoured

by immediate action at least at this stage to include the

first/second gazetted level, as may be selected by each

department, into the Third Schedule. This action has been overdue

since the commitment in this paragraph was made in


G.O.Ms.No.610. This Para covers the whole State, not just Zone V

& VI.

6.2.1 These observations may please be read along with the

Commission‟s observations in Chapter-8 of the Final Report, Part-1

and along with its observations and Preliminary Findings 12(A) to

12(D) in the Preliminary Report.

7.1.0 Para-5 (5)

“The posts in Institutions/Establishments notified in G.S.R. No.526 (E) dated 18-10-1975 shall be filled up by drawing

persons on tenure basis from different local cadres on an

equitable basis as per the orders issued in the G.O. 3rd read above”.

7.1.1 In continuation of the observations of the Commission in the

Preliminary Report under this paragraph, it may be stated that on a

thorough scrutiny in the meetings with the departments the

Commission has brought out in Chapter-2 of the Final Report Part-1

under the sub-heading “Other Entries Under Para 14 and G.S.R. 529

(E)” an updated list, proposing the deletion of those

Institutions/Establishments which no more exists and addition of

those that should be included.

7.1.2 With regard to the main issue whether the posts were being filled-

up by drawing persons on tenure basis from different local cadres

on an equitable basis as per Para 9(B) of G.O.P.No.728, dated

01-11-1975, the Commission found through its meetings with the

departmental representatives that this Para was observed mostly in

the breach. The process of deputations has been arbitrary, and

unrelated to aforesaid Para 9(B). In this regard also attention is

invited to this Commission‟s observations and Findings in Chapter-6


of the Final Report in Part-1 under the sub-heading “Deputations

and Fair Share Principle”, and also to Chapter-2 under the sub-

heading “Other Entries Under Para-14 and G.S.R. 529 (E)”.

7.2.0 Remedial Action

(1) The updating of G.S.R. 526 may be done under Government of

India‟s orders at the earliest, to avoid misuse of the process of

deputations by showing the posts under the non-existing

Institutions.

(2) Deputationists shown in posts under the non-existing

Institutions may be reverted to their original local cadres.

(3) In the existing Institutions/Establishments deputationists

should be put in position under the Fair Share Formula only.

(4) Appropriate, retrospective corrective action may be taken.

8.1.0 Para-5 (6)

“The provision in Para 5(2)(c) of the Presidential Order relating to inter-local cadre transfers shall be strictly

implemented and such transfers shall be affected only under exceptional circumstances in public interest”.

8.1.1 In continuation of this Commission‟s observations under this Para in

its Preliminary Report, the Commission would like to invite attention

to a thorough report on the issue of transfers contained in the

Commission‟s Final Report in Part-1 under Chapter-6 titled “Cross

Cadre Movement” under the sub-heading “Transfers”. A few

important matters in this regard may be noted here (1) At one

stage, Government had cancelled all the transfers when there were

bulk transfers around the month of May, 2002. Later the

government banned all transfers. The ban still continues.

(2) A. P. High Court has laid down very valuable principles for inter-


cadre transfers in its judgement in W.P.Nos.13458, 13545, 13558,

13572, 15101, 19341 and 19375 of 2001. This Commission has

commended that the transfer policy of the government may be

based on these principles. (3) Supreme Court of India has held in its

judgement in Civil Appeal Nos.9343-9644 of 1995, dt.7-11-2001

“appointments by transfers” under various service rules from the

offices of the Heads of Departments and from the Secretariat, to be

invalid. It is held that these are not transfers contemplated under

Para-5 (2) of the Presidential Order. Such vertical transfers

involving actually a promotion were not permitted under the

Presidential Order. (4). This Commission has suggested that a total

ban on transfers can only be a temporary measure. As transfers will

still continue to be inevitable, the Commission has proposed certain

compensatory principles where transfers deprive local candidates of

their opportunities. It has also proposed a sealing on the transfers

to certain areas where there is always an influx.

8.1.2 As this subject has been treated in detail in Chapter-6 of the Final

Report Part-1, it may not be necessary to duplicate the same matter

here.

9.1.0 Para-5 (7)

“Action will be initiated in the concerned departments in cases brought to their notice regarding bogus registrations

in Employment Exchanges”.

9.1.1 In continuation of the Commission‟s observations under this

paragraph in its Preliminary Report, the Commission would like to

state that the role of the Employment Exchanges has been rather

misunderstood. In its detailed discussion and Findings on this issue

this Commission has clarified in Chapter-11 of its Final Report in


Part-1 titled “Role of Employment Exchanges”, how employment

exchanges are not required to go into the issue of the candidate

being local candidate under the Presidential Order.

9.1.2 Some of the departments doing direct recruitment under rule 10(a)

of the General Rules for temporary posts, or directly for permanent

posts have tended to abdicate their responsibility under the

Presidential Order to verify the local status of the candidates and

instead relied on sponsorship by the employment exchange.

9.2.0 Remedial Action: (1) As given in Chapter-11 of the Final Report

Part-1; (ii) In the case of Panchayati Raj Engineering Department‟s

694 AEEs recruited in 1990-95, directly by the Department from

among workcharged employees, immediate redressal action

proposed in Chapter-12 may be taken because the worst affected

zones in that case are V & VI, (iii) Similar early action in the cases

of appointments in Sericulture Department as per Proceedings

Nos. 8, 22, 44, 68 and 69 of this Commission in Volume II of the

Final Report.

10.1.0 Para-5 (8)

“On receipt of complaints, if any, made by the TNGOs Union

relating to irregular allotments of candidates particularly to Zone V and VI in the category of village Assistants the

concerned departments shall take up the matter with the A.P.Public Service Commission and take such measures as

may be necessary to rectify the irregular allotments made if any”.

10.1.1 On this paragraph, apart from what has been observed by the

Commission in its Preliminary Report there is nothing else to add.

No complaints came to the Commission‟s notice in spite of its efforts

to find out on this issue from service associations, from


Public Service Commission and during its visits to the districts. Chief

Commissioner of Land Revenue has replied that no such complaints

were received and that the posts were filled through Andhra

Pradesh Public Service Commission as per Service Rules.

10.1.2 One of the reasons may be that the village set-up has gone through

further changes after the appointment of Village Assistants. The

next change was the appointment of Village Administrative Officers.

Most of the Village Assistants seem to have got into those posts.

The latest set-up is that of Panchayat Secretaries under

G.O.Ms.NO.369, PR&RD (Mandals-II) Department, dated

12-12-2001. With regard to this new set-up this Commission has

made some observations in Chapter-12 of its Final Report in Part-1.

There is complete omission of the Presidential Order in this G.O.

laying down the recruitment/appointment pattern for the new set-

up. This might have led to appointments without observing the rules

of local candidate and local cadres laid down in para-6 and 7 of the

Presidential Order. No specific cases in this regard have come

before this Commission. However, in principle any instructions

regarding recruitments must necessarily stipulate adherence to the

Presidential Order.

10.2.0 Remedial Action: The Commission has suggested in the Final

Report Part-1 reviewing these appointments from this angle. The

Village Secretaries have been recruited through in-service direct

recruitment from certain categories of employees, like VDOs etc.

They should now be allotted to the district cadres to which they

are local candidates. This may required some shifting as at the

time of recruitment this aspect was omitted due to the omission

about it in the G.O. constituting the Service.


11.1.0 Para-5 (9)

“The possibility of allotting persons from within the same zone/multi-zone against non-local vacancy in a particular

local cadre will be examined in consultation with the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission”.

11.1.1 The Commission has nothing to add to what it has already observed

under this paragraph in its Preliminary Report.

12.1.0 Para-5 (10)

“The T.N.G.O‟s Union will furnish to Government the service/categories where for want of trained personnel,

non-local candidates are being appointed in zones V and VI so that Government can provide training facilities in respect

of such services/categories with a view to providing adequate opportunities for recruitment and appointment of

local candidates in zone V and VI”.

12.1.1 In addition to what this Commission has stated in its Preliminary

Report the only information that the Commission has received

through its questionnaire sent to all the departments, is that twenty

non-locals were recruited by Agriculture Department for want of

trained local candidates and they are continuing. Out of 150

departments only 39 had responded to this question in the

questionnaire. 38 have given nil report under this paragraph. In the

meeting with the departments, however, it has come out that now

adequate facilities have been provided to ensure that there is no

shortfall of local candidates for the posts of Teachers except in

certain obscure subjects or under certain reserved categories like

B.C-A (women). Similarly for Nurses there is still a shortfall but the

training facilities have been expanded in the districts.


13.1.0 Para-5 (11)

“The Departments of Secretariat shall complete the review

of appointments/promotions made under the Presidential Order as required under Para 13 of the said order, by

30.06.1986”.

13.1.1 This para needs to be elucidated. It pertains to Para-13 of the

Presidential Order, which is reproduced below.

“Para-13 Certain appointments and promotions to be

provisional:-

Appointments or promotions made after the commencement of this Order or order made in

pursuance of the provision to paragraph 3, as the case be and before any local cadre has been organised

under the provisions (of) this order or any order made in pursuance of the provision to paragraph 3, to any

post which is required to be included in such cadre shall (be) provisional and shall, within a period of

twelve months after such organisation, be reviewed

and readjusted in accordance with the provisions of this Order.

Explanation:- For the purposes of this paragraph, any

local cadre shall be deemed to be organised with the allotment of persons to it under paragraph 4.”

(Vide G.O.Ms.No.34, General Administration (SPF-A) Department, dated 24-01-1981.”

13.1.2 Organisation of local cadres was to be completed within 27

months from the commencement of the Presidential Order, as laid

down in Para-3 (1) of the Presidential Order. With the allotment

of persons to the local candidates the organisation of local cadres

was to be considered as completed. This process was, therefore,

presumably completed in two years four months by 18-02-1978.

With the allotment of candidates under para-4 of the Presidential

Order all the provisional appointments also got


allotted to the local cadres. The question of review, therefore,

becomes almost redundant as the allotments took into account all

the factors which would be considered in the review. These

factors are laid down under sub-Para 2 of para-4.

13.1.3 In the Commission‟s meetings with the Officers of Heads of

Departments and of the Secretariat, no department said that it had

any such review cases pending. In the replies to the questionnaires

on G.O.Ms.No.610, eight Heads of Departments categorically said

reviews had been done. Another eight Heads of Departments wrote

that the reviews had not been done. In the meetings, however, it

became clear that the latter Heads did not know what the reviews

were about and what they had intended to say was that there was

no case for review with them. 17 others said review is not

applicable to them. The intention of this also seems to be to say

that they had no review cases with them.

13.1.4 This issue might have been a live issue at the time of

G.O.Ms.No.610 as the organisation of local cadres may have lagged

behind in some departments and some individuals under provisional

appointments might have still continued but as of today it may be

said that there is no further action to be taken in respect of this

sub-Para.

14.1.0 Para-5 (12)(a)

“Immediate action will be taken to finalise the common gradation list in respect of former Assistant Engineers

(Presently Dy.E.Es.) as on 1.11.1956, following the prescribed procedure under the S.R.Act. 1956”.


14.1.1 The Principal Secretary, Irrigation & Command Area Department

has informed that the seniority of DEEs as on 1.11.1956 was

already finalised and published in the Gazette vide G.O.Ms.No.210,

15.07.1993. Therefore this Sub-Para was complied with.

15.1.0 Para-5 (12)(b)

“In respect of former Junior Engineers (Present AEEs) the common gradation list published by the Government was

quashed by the A.P.Administrative Tribunal and the Government had gone in appeal to the Supreme Court.

Effective measures will be taken for the disposal of the matter before the Supreme Court, expeditiously”.

15.1.1 The Principal Secretary, Irrigation & Command Area Department

has informed that the Supreme Court Judgement dated

06-12-2000 had set aside the APAT judgement dated 14-07-1995

and upheld the Government‟s stand. Thus no case is pending in the

Supreme Court and this point also stands complied with.

16.1.0 Para-5 (13)

“The matter relating to allotment of 7 non-local personnel in

the cadre of Inspector of Local Fund Audit belonging to zone I to VI, allotted to Zone-V and VI against their options, will

be examined by the Department concerned keeping in view of the provision of the Presidential Order”.

16.1.1 Under this para the departmental report says that the case was

other way round. The seven Inspectors of Local Fund Audit

belonging to Zones I to IV had opted for Zones V & VI but were

allotted to Zones I & IV against their options. The Commission

intimated this fact to T.N.G.Os. Association along with the names of

candidates to verify with their records the actual position. They did


not refute the official version. This para therefore needs no further

action.

17.1.0 Para-5 (14)

“The question of repatriation of 13 Deputy Executive

Engineers of the Public Health Department working in the city of Hyderabad to zone-I to IV will be considered by the

Department concerned keeping in view the provisions of the Presidential Order”.

17.1.1 The Engineer-in-Chief, Public Health Engineering Department has

submitted a note on this Sub-Para to the House Committee. On

this Commission‟s request a copy of the note was furnished to this

Commission. To this Commission the note skirts the issue

involved as stated in the Preliminary Finding No.25. The

allotment of these 13 DEEs had to be reviewed which Government

had accepted to do in this Sub-Para. The note of the

Engineer-in-Chief, Public Health Engineering Department has

stated that “the Government have issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.245

M.A., dated 20-05-1986 and G.O.Ms.No.660, M.A., dated 08-11-

1989 duly reviewing the allotment of Junior Engineers and

Supervisors and the Government have created 13 supernumerary

posts of DEEs in Zone-VII for balanced cadre and maintain the

zonal status in G.O.Ms.No.128 M.S., dated

11-02-1981. Hence, there is no violation of Presidential Order

(SPF). The benefit of effected persons in Zone-VII has been

considered in the review of DEEs promotions in Zone-wise duly

reviewing the adhoc panels of DEEs while integrating the common

seniority list of DEEs of all Zones”. It appears to this Commission

that this reply is irrelevant to the issue which pertains to review of

allotment of 13 DEEs, after G.O.Ms.No. 610 was issued on


30-12-1985. The Engineer-in-Chief has mentioned about

reviewing the allotment of Junior Engineers and Supervisors in

1986 and creation of supernumerary posts of DEEs in

G.O.Ms.No.128, dated 11-02-1981 that is four years before the

G.O.Ms.No.610. The original G.Os show that they are all about

AEEs, not DEEs. To that extent, the Note to the House Committee

could be considered as incorrect, to use a mild word, and also

misleading on the face of it. Copies of the Note and the G.Os are

given as Annexures-13 and 14.

17.2.0 Remedial Action

The Action proposed in the Preliminary Report on this para has to be

taken. After scrutinizing the Note of the Engineer-in-Chief such

action as deemed fit may be taken against those responsible for the

apparently misleading and incorrect Note to the House Committee.

Has G.O.Ms.No.610, G.A. (SPF-A) Dept., dt. 30-12-1985 been implemented ?

18.1.0 What is G.O.Ms.No.610 ?

18.1.1 G.O.Ms.No.610 was issued on 30-12-1985. It is not the

Presidential Order. It is not the Six Point Formula. The Presidential

Order on public services was issued on 18-10-1975.

18.1.2 Six Point Formula is contained in the statement issued by the

leaders of Andhra Pradesh on 21-09-1973.

18.1.3 The Presidential Order on public services was issued in pursuance of

point No.(3) of the Six Point Formula. It is called The Andhra


Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation Of Local Cadres And

Regulation Of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975.

18.1.4 G.O.Ms.No.610 is more or less on the same lines muatatis

mutandis as G.O.Ms.564 which was issued 25 days earlier on 5-12-

85 pertaining to Rayalaseema Area (Zone-IV). Both these G.Os.

were a result of agreements entered into by the government

respectively with the service associations of these regions. The

G.Os. highlight some specific issues of concern at the time with

regard to the implementation of the Presidential Order on public

services.

18.1.5 The Commission would urge everyone concerned to first read

Chapter-1 titled “Keynote to the Report” sub-heading “Scope of the

Report” (distinction between Six Point Formula, Presidential Order

and G.O.Ms.No.610) in Part-1 of the Final Report.

18.1.6 Therefore, it will be very misleading to talk of G.O.Ms.No.610 or

implementation of G.O.Ms.No.610 as though the G.O. was the entire

Presidential Order.

18.1.7 While appointing the Commission, the government clearly

mentioned the first term of reference in G.O.Ms.No.270, General

Administration (SPF.A) Department, dated 25-06-2001 that the

Commission would receive representations from

associations/individuals where the injustice is done in the

implementation of the aforesaid G.O.Ms.No.610 and to sort out the

anomalies.

18.1.8 The further terms of reference are wider and the Commission has

been entrusted with the responsibility of looking into the


rectification of defects, anomalies, irregularities and deviations from

the Presidential Order and to suggest remedial action including a

mechanism to ensure implementation and monitoring…” The subject

of the G.O. mentions “implementation of G.O.Ms.No.610...”

18.1.9 The question arises, what constitutes implementation of this G.O.?

It means implementation of each of its paragraphs as the

Preliminary Report and this Further and Final Report on

Implementation of the G.O.Ms.NO.610 show. The popular version as

seen from the Press shows that implementation of this G.O. is

essentially seen as implementation of Para 5(1) of the G.O. In the

various representations to the government and in the Press a figure

ranging 40,000 to 58,000 of non-locals working in zones V and VI is

being given as those who are working in violation of the Presidential

Order. The statistical part of non-locals and locals has been

examined by the Commission and it will be seen that the percentage

of non-locals in the zones V and VI is negligible and far below the

sealing of 20 per cent. Therefore on the statistical aspect there is no

question of any action or implementation of the G.O.

18.1.10 The actionable point is with regard to the violations of the

Presidential Order. All the specific cases of violations based on

petitions and representations received are covered by this

Commission‟s Proceedings in each case, contained in Volume II of

the Final Report. On the findings in these Proceedings of the

Commission if the Government takes action it will mean

implementation of Para 5(1) of G.O.Ms.No.610. But that would not

be total implementation. In the Final Report, Part-1 in 12 Chapters

from Chapter-2 to Chapter-13 in 126 Findings arranged under 18

Genres of deviations, the Commission has pin pointed the


deviations from the Presidential Order and also suggested 35 sets of

possible Remedial Action. These deviations have affected adversely,

and most of them continue to affect adversely, the interests of local

candidates/employees in the local cadres of all the districts and

zones in the State, which include of course zones V and VI of

G.O.Ms.No.610. The deviations contained in some Chapters might

have affected the interests of some particular zones more than

others. Chapter-2 particularly has deviations which mostly affect

zone VI. The actual figure of the local candidates/employees of each

Local Area/Local Cadre (district/zone as the case may be) will have

to be worked out in respect of each Finding by the governmental

machinery. This, together with the number of local employees

affected as shown in the Proceedings of this Commission in Volume

II of the Final Report, will give the correct estimate of the non-locals

appointed in violation of the Presidential Order. In as far as Para

5(1) of G.O.Ms.No.610 is concerned, implementation of this Para

would really mean estimate and identification of the non-locals

occupying the position in zones V and VI to be culled out from the

above sources, viz. Findings in Part-1 and Proceedings in Volume II

of the Final Report.

18.1.11 Completion of Remedial Action with regard to those Findings and

action of the Proceedings, to the extent they pertain to zones V and

VI, would mean implementation of Para 5(1) of G.O.Ms.No.610.

18.1.12 The Commission, however, would like to add that implementation

in respect of zones V and VI cannot be clearly segregated from

implementation in respect of all the other zones. A look at these

Findings would show that almost each Finding spreads over the

whole State and implementation of Remedial Measures in respect of


these Findings is an integrated and holistic operation. It cannot be

divided zone-wise or district-wise.

18.1.13 Implementation of Sub-Paras 7 to 13 (both inclusive) of para-5 of

G.O.Ms.No.610 is either completed or does not arise. Sub-Paras 2 to

6 of Para-5 are not confined to zones V and VI but are a part of the

deviations from the Presidential Order contained in the Findings in

the Final Report Part-1, in which all the zones and all the districts

are involved. And, therefore, the implementations of these sub-

paras would really mean implementation of the Final Report of this

Commission.

18.2.0 Who are the Losers and who are the Beneficiaries?

Until each Finding is taken up for action in terms of the Remedial

Action proposed in the Final Report, no one can say which are the

zones that are beneficiaries and which are the zones that are losers.

18.2.1 “Out of evil cometh good.” If attention had not been drawn to the

implementation of G.O.Ms.No.610, the whole exercise of identifying

the deviations from the Presidential Order as a whole would never

have come to light. The G.O.Ms.No.610 turned out to be the tip of

iceberg through which the whole iceberg was discovered. It has also

helped many aggrieved employees who have suffered due to these

deviations and whose specific cases were either ignored or were

lingering, or who suffered silently. Proceedings in Volume II of this

Report have created the possibility of justice being done to these

employees, if government graciously takes prompt action on the

Proceedings of this Commission.


18.2.2 In the Preliminary Report this Commission has given about „60

Points‟ which came to its notice in the course of his tours of the

districts and meetings with the Associations. All these points are

now subsumed in the various Findings in the 15 Chapters of the

Final Report Part-1.

Hyderabad J.M. GIRGLANI, IAS (Retd.)

Dated ONE MAN COMMISSION (S.P.F.)