“Statutory Rules Don't Yield To Executive Instructions”: AP High Court Quashes Reappointment To Govt Department Beyond Retirement Age
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has set-aside re-appointment of the Director of State's Animal Husbandry Department— (Respondent 4), whose services were reinstated by the State in contravention to the statutory rules, and beyond the age of superannuation, holding that statutory rules do not yield to executive instructions nor give the right to an employer to bypass the prescribed procedure.
Justice Nyapthy Vijay referred to the A.P. State Animal Husbandry Service Rules, 1996 and Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, which collectively prescribe that appointment to post of Director of Animal Husbandry can be made only by promotion from the cadre of Additional Director. As the re-appointment was effectuated by the State by bypassing a Government Order of 2024— which delineates that proposals for re-employment must be placed before a Screening Committee in a prescribed pro-forma— and sought direct approval from the Chief Minister, the Single-Judge held,
“The first fundamental to be appreciated in relation to public employment is that every aspect is governed by statutory rules. These statutory rules do not yield to executive instructions or give a right to the employer to bypass the procedure prescribed under the Rules. When a statutory rule contemplates appointment only by way of promotion from the cadre of Additional Director of Animal Husbandry, no other procedure can be adopted for appointment by the Government, as that would run contrary to the statutory rules governing the appointment to the post.”
As the procedure for appointment was only through promotion, and in the absence of any power of relaxation or leeway to the State Government, the Single-Judge held that the impugned re-appointment cannot be sustained.
“Even assuming for the sake of argument that the appointment of the Respondent No.4 is in accordance with G.O.R.T.No.1466, dated 22.08.2024, the same would not be of any avail as an executive order cannot interdict the method of appointment prescribed under the statutory Rules on the principle of “doctrine of occupied field”, the Court added.
On the aspect of petitioner's re-appointment beyond superannuation age, the Court referred to Section 3 of the A.P. Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984— which mandated that government employees should retire on the afternoon of the last day of month in which they attain 62 years, and held,
“The age of superannuation for Government employees is 62 years and any continuance in a statutory post governed by statutory Rules beyond the said age is contrary to the A.P. Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984. The appointments of persons who are superannuated can at best be in non-statutory posts in the capacity of advisor, Officer on Special Duty etc., on contract basis only.”
The petitioners had challenged the re-appointment of Respondent 4— whose re-appointment, beyond the superannuation age, was officiated and confirmed upon his request for extension for a further period of one year on re-employment basis.
Challenging the re-appointment, the petitioners argued that it was contrary to the guidelines and procedure of re-employment prescribed in a GO of 2024, and that re-appointment beyond superannuation age was not supported by public interest, blocked promotional avenues of other candidates, and ran contrary to Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984. They further argued that the re-appointment bypassed the procedure stipulated in a GO of 2024 by seeking direct approval from the Chief Minister.
In contrast, the State and Respondent 4 argued that re-appointment was sought in order to carry forward ongoing departmental goals, programmes and the State's vision, and the same was carried out according to the procedure stipulated in the GO of 2024. However, while the matter was placed before the Screening Committee, the Government, owing to administrative exigency, obtained circular orders from the Chief Minister as per the AP Business Rules, 2018, who approved the recommendation, and Respondent 4 was consequently re-employed.
The Court explained that as per the procedure culled out in the GO of 2024, after approval of a candidate for re-appointment from the Screening Committee, the concerned Department shall take approval from the Chief Minister. Such procedure can be bypassed in exceptional cases, where the Department feels that re-appointment is essential and an absolute requirement.
However, in the present case, it was Respondent 4, and not the Department, who sought extension by addressing a letter to the Department. Notably, there was no letter preferred by the Department, and the extension was made solely on the basis of Respondent 4's request. Consequently, the Court held that the procedure stipulated in the GO of 2024 was not followed and thus, “the re-appointment of Respondent No.4 on the strength of his own letter dated 11.07.2025 cannot be sustained.”
Accordingly, the Court allowed the petitions.
Case Number: W.P.NOs:24508 and 22832 of 2025
Case Title: ANDHRA PRADESH ANIMAL HUSBANDARY GAZETTED OFFICERS ASSOCIATION v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH and Ors