ONE MAN COMMISSION-SIX POINT FORMULA-ANDHRA PRADESH Vol-1

One Man Commission (SPF) 1 Final Report
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

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
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

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
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

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

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 Finding No.1 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 Finding No.2 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
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 Finding No.3 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 Name of the Parent

Name of the
Department as per Department with
Secretariat
Annexure to Offspring Department
Department
G.O.P No. 728 (now)
1. Tourism 1. Director, Tourism Youth Advancement
Department 2. Director of Cultural Tourism and Culture
(Sl.No.2) Affairs Department
3. Director, Youth Services
2. Agriculture 1. Commissioner of Agriculture
Department Agriculture &
(Sl.No.3) 2. Commissioner of Co-operation
Horticulture Department
3. Public Health & 1. Engineer-in-Chief, Public
Municipal Health
Engineering 2. Engineer-in-Chief, Municipal
Department. Hyderabad Metro Water Administration &
(Sl.No.8) Supply & Sewerage Board. Urban Development
3. Chief Engineer, HMWS& Department.
SB.
4. Chief Engineer,
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 1. Director, Health.
Health Services 2. Director, Medical
Department. Education.
(Sl.No.9) 3. Commissioner, Family
Health Medical
Welfare.
&
4. Director, Drug Control
Family Welfare
Administration.
Department
5. Director, Institute of
Preventive Medicine,
Public Health Lab, Food
(Health) Administration
6. A.P Vaidya Vidhana
Parishad LET & F
7.Director, Insurance medical Department
Services
5. Municipal 1. Commissioner, Municipal Municipal
Administration Administration Administration &
Department. Department. Urban Development
(Sl.No.10) 2. Director, Town and Department
Country Planning
6. Jail Department 1. Director General &
(Sl.No.14) Inspector General of
Home Department
Prisons & Correctional
Services.
2. Commissioner, Juvenile Women
Welfare & Correctional Development, Child
Services. Welfare & Disabled
Welfare Department
7. Judicial 1. Registrar of High Court.

Department 2. Government Pleaders
(Sl.No.15) Office.
3. Member Secretary, State Law Department.
Legal Services Authority.
4. A.P Judicial Academy.
5. Director of Translations.
General
Administration
Department
8. Revenue 1. Chief Commissioner, Land
Department Administration.
Revenue Department
(Sl.No.18) 2. Commissioner, Small
Savings & State Lotteries.
9. Education 1. Commissioner & director
Department of School Education.
(Sl.No.24) 2. Director, Adult Education.
3. Director, oriental
manuscripts Library Education (School
Research institute. Education)
4. Director & Special Officer Department
Jawahar Bal Bhavan
5. Director for Government
Examinations.
6. Commissioner, Collegiate
Education.
7. Commissioner, A.P State Education (Higher
Archives. Education)
8. Commissioner, Department
Intermediate Education
10.Employment & 1. Director, Employment & Labour, Employment
Training Training Training & Factories
Department Department
(including S.S.A
Boards) 2. Director Sainik Welfare Revenue Department
(Sl.No.26)
11.Panchayati Raj 1. Engineer-in-Chief,

Engineering Panchayati Raj,
Department. 2. Chief Engineer, Rural
(Sl. No. 31) Water Supply.
3. Chief Engineer,
Panchayati Raj. Panchayati Raj &
4. Chief Engineer, Vigilance Rural Development
& Quality Control. Department
5. Chief Engineer, Human
Resources Development.
6. Chief Engineer, NABARD.
Chief Engineer, World
Bank.
12.Panchayati Raj 1. Commissioner, Panchayati
Department Raj & Rural Development. Panchayati Raj &
(Sl.No.32) 2. Commissioner of Rural Rural Development
Development. Department
3.Commissioner Women Women

Empowerment & Self Development, Child
Employment. Welfare & Disabled
Welfare Department
13.Treasuries & 1. Director of Treasuries &
Accounts Accounts.
Finance Department
Department. 2. Director of State Audit.
(Sl.No.33) 3. Director of Insurance.
14.Industries 1. Commissioner of
Industries &
Department Industries.
Commerce
(Sl.No.36) 2. Director of Sugar & Cane
Department
Commissioner.
15.Handlooms & 1. Commissioner of Industries &
Textiles Handlooms & Textiles. Commerce
Department Department
(Sl.No.38)
2. Commissioner of Agriculture & Co-
Sericulture. operation
Department
16.Public Works 1. Engineer-in-Chief

Department Irrigation (A.W)
(Irrigation) 2. Engineer-in-Chief, Major
(Sl.No.39) 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 Irrigation &
Project, Hyderabad. Command Area
9. Chief Engineer, NSRSP Development
10.Chief Engineer, Telugu Department
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.
17.Public Works 1. Engineer-in-Chief,
(Roads & Administration &
Buildings) NABARD. Transport, Roads &
Department. 2. Chief Engineer, Roads. Buildings
(Sl.No.40) 3. Chief Engineer, Buildings. Department
4. Chief Engineer, National
Highways.
18.Social Welfare 1. Commissioner, Social Social Welfare
Department. Welfare. Department
(Sl.No.43)
Backward Classes
2. Commissioner, Backward
Welfare Department
Classes Welfare.
Women
3. Commissioner, Disabled Development, Child
Welfare. Welfare & Disabled
Welfare Department
19.Tribal Welfare 1. Commissioner, Tribal
Department. Welfare Tribal Welfare
(Sl.No.45) 2. Chief Engineer, Tribal Department
Welfare
20.Factories & 1. Director of Factories. LET & F Department
Boilers
Department 2. Director of Boilers. Energy Department
(Sl.No.47)
21.Industrial 1. Chairman-cum-Presiding
Tribunal. Officer, Industrial Tribunal
(Sl.No.48) Cum Labour Court at
Visakhapatnam
Guntur
Warangal
Anantapur
Karimnagar
Hyderabad I
Hyderabad II and LET & F Department
Additional Industrial
Tribunal Hyderabad
The Presiding Officer of

Labour Court I Hyderabad
Labour Court II Hyderabad
Labour Court III Hyderabad
(Total 11)
Departments whose names have undergone a change
2.5.0 Finding No.4 The names of certain departments as they

appear in the Annexure have been changed as listed below:
Sl. As Per Annexure

Name of the Department (Now)
No. to G.O.P.No.728
1. Public Health & Municipal Engineer-in-Chief, Public Health
Engineering Department
(Sl.No.8)
2. Jail Department Director General & Inspector General of
(Sl.No.14) Prisons & Correctional Services
3. Prosecuting Staff Director of Prosecutions
(Sl.No.17)
4. Revenue Department Chief Commissioner of Land
(Sl.No.18) Administration.
5. Settlements, Survey & Commissioner, Survey Settlements &
Land Records, Land Records, Settlements & Jagir
Department (Sl.No.21) Administrator
6. Public Libraries Director of Public Libraries & Registrar of
Department (Sl.No.25) Publications.
7. Bureau of Economics & Director of Economics & Statistics
Statistics (Sl.No.34)
8. Weights & Measures Controller of Legal Metrology
Department (Sl.No.35)
9. Women & Child Welfare Commissioner, Women Development,
Department (Sl.No.44) Child Welfare & Disabled Welfare
Department
●
Judicial Department
2.6.0 Finding No. 5 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
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 Finding No.6 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 Finding No.7 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. ●
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

Department 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 Finding No.8 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 Finding No.9 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. ●
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 Finding No.10 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.●
2.14.0 Finding No.11 The Industrial Tribunals and Labour Courts are
8NNo.No.666:
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 Finding No.12 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. ●

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 Finding No.13 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 Finding No.14 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 Finding No.15 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.
2.21.0 Finding No.16 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 Finding No.17 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 Finding No.18 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.
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 Finding No.19 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 Finding No.20 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
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 Finding No.21 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
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 Finding No.22 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
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 Finding No.23 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.
(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:
Finding No. 24
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 Finding No. 25 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
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 Finding No.26 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 Finding No.27 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 Finding No.28 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.
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 Finding No.29 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
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 Finding No.30 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
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 Finding No.31 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
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 Finding No.32 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
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 Finding No.33 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
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 Finding No.34 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)
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 Finding No.35 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 Finding No.36 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
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 Finding No.37 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.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 Finding No.39 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
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 Finding No.40 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
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 Finding No.41 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.
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 Finding No.42 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 Finding No.43 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
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 Finding No.44 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)

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 Finding No.45 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 Finding No.46 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
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 Finding No.47 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
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.
Finding No.48
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.
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 Finding No.49 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
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 Finding No.50 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
“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 Finding No.51 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
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.
Finding No.52
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
deputation on the basis of the requests of individuals or discretion

of the Heads of Departments.
Finding No.53
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 Finding No.54 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.
(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 Finding No.55 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 Finding No.56 To the extent the deputation process is used as

a substitute for transfers, it directly subverts and circumvents the
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 Finding No.57 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 Finding No.58 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,
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.
Finding No.59
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.
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?
Finding No.60
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 Finding No.61 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
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 Finding No.62 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 Finding No.63 Some of the instances of deputations that

have come to our notice in the meetings are as under:
1. Animal Husbandry Staff has been taken in A.P. livestock
Department: Development Agency on deputation basis.
2. B.C. Welfare A) Some of the Wardens Posts in the
Department: 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.
3. School Education Staff to work in District Primary Education

Department Programme is taken on deputation from
respective Heads of Departments to work in
various wings of the Project.
4. Finance (Small All the staff in the Regional Offices are on
Savings & State deputation from the Revenue Department from
Lotteries) the same district/zone.
Department
5. General A) ACB: All categories of posts of Inspectors
Administration and above are taken on deputation.
Department 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 Director Weaker Section Housing Program:
Department There are only 10 persons in the Department
who have come on deputation from other
Departments.
8. Minority Welfare There is no Head of Department for this
Department Department. The staff in District Minority
Welfare Offices in 12 Districts is taken on
deputation basis. There is no permanent staff.
9. Municipal Municipal Commissioners, Public Health
Administration & Engineers in Municipalities, Medical Officers in
Urban Development Municipalities etc., are given by the Government
Department to the Urban Local Bodies (Municipalities)
10. P.R. & R.D. A) M.P.D.Os, M.E.Os etc., are given by the
Department. 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 The Tribal Welfare Engineering Department fills
Department all the posts through deputation from various
Engineering Departments and also from
Commissioner of Tribal Welfare office.
12. Y.A.T. & C. In the office of the Director of Youth Services

Department persons are taken on deputation from various
Departments as the rules do not provide for
direct recruitment.
13. Fisheries Deputes staff to Co-operative Institutions and
Department Companies etc.,
14. C.C.L.A. Deputes staff to the Departments which
requisition the services of Revenue Staff.
15. Endowments Deputes staff to the Temples, Trusts, etc.,
Department
16. Forest Department Deputes staff to the Rural Development
Agencies, Corporation, Organisations like Paper
Mills
17. Irrigation & CAD, Deputes AEEs, DEEs to various Institutions and
Roads & Buildings Departments as per rules and requirement
and P.R.
Engineering
Departments
18. State Audit Deputes Auditors to Local Bodies
Department
19. Medical Education Deputes Medical Officers and subordinate staff
Health and Family to local bodies
Welfare
Department
20. Director of Deputes Non-Gazetted staff to local bodies.
Treasures and
Accounts
21. Co-operation Deputes Junior and Senior Inspectors to Co-
Department 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 Finding No.64 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
promotions, and not deprive the borrowing department‟s staff of

their due promotional opportunities.
6.23.0 Finding No.65 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 Finding No.66 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.
Finding No.67
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
Departments and to other excluded organisations of Para 14 of the

Presidential Order and those included under GSR.No.529 (E).
6.26.0 Finding No.68 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 Finding No.69 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 Finding No.70 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.
Finding No.71
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.
Finding No.72
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
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 Finding No.73 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”
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)
Finding No.74
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:
7.2.0 Finding No. 75 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 Finding No.76 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 Finding No.77 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:
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 Finding No.78 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 Finding No.79 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
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 Finding No.80 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.
Finding No.81
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
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.
Finding No.82
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.
Finding No.83
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
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.
Finding No.84
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
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 Finding No.85 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 Finding No.86 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
Finding No.87
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
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 Finding No.88 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
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 Finding No.89 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.●
7.18.0 Finding No.90 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
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 Finding No.91 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
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 Finding No.92 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
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 Finding No.93 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
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 Finding No.94 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 Finding No.95 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
which of them were subsequently gazetted posts, which were got

included in the specified gazetted category.●
8.7.0 Finding No.96 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”.
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 Finding No.97 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
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 Finding No.98 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)
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)
11. Government Memo No.380/Ser.A/82-1, General Administration

Administration (Services-A) Department, dated 30-11-87
Administration (Services-A) Depat.dt.15-3-90.
25. Government Memo No.42/Ser.-A/92-1, General Administration
Administration (Services-A) Department, dated 23-12-92

9.2.0 Finding No.99 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 Finding No.100 Government had clarified in Government

Memo No.1345/Services.A/87-4, dated 30-11-1987 of General
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 Finding No.101 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.

9.5.0 Finding No.102 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
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 Finding No.103 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. ●
Finding No.104
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
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 Finding No.105 (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. ●
Finding No.106
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
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 Finding No.107 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.
(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 Finding No.108 “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
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 Finding No. 109 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.
Finding No. 110

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
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 Finding No.111 “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.●
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)
11.10.0Appointments 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)
Finding No.112
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.
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 Finding No.113 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. ●
Finding No.114
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 Finding No.115 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
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 Finding No.116 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
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 Finding No.117 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
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 Finding No.118 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.
(4) Where a new dispensation is introduced as in the case of

creation of the system of Panchayat Secretaries:
12.11.0 Finding No.119 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
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 Finding No.120 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. ●
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 Finding No.121 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 Finding No.122 It was complained that in Integrated Tribal

Development Agencies (ITDAs) thousands of Teachers recruited
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 Finding No.123 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 Finding No.124 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
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 Finding No.125 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 Finding No.126 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. ●
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.

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 1 st 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.

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

ONE MAN COMMISSION-SIX POINT FORMULA-ANDHRA PRADESH Vol-1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ONE MAN COMMISSION-SIX POINT FORMULA-ANDHRA PRADESH Vol-1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

One Man Commission (SPF) 1 Final Report

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

ONE MAN COMMISSION

J.M. GIRGLANI, IAS (Retd.)

GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (SPF) DEPARTMENT

SCHEME OF THE REPORT

REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE

(FOR PART – 2 SEE VOLUME III)

FURTHER AND FINAL REPORT ON

APPENDICES, ANNEXURES AND PROCEEDINGS.

REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE

Government of Andhra Pradesh appointed One Man

The Commission submitted a Preliminary Report more or less

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

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

Quite a few important issues and findings were brought out

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

Report on Implementation of the Presidential Order on Public Services

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

The sources of information of the Commission on which the

concerned departments and reports of the Departments on these

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am grateful to the Special Chief Secretaries, Principal

I am grateful to Information Technology Department for

I am grateful to the District Collectors who have extended all

I appreciate the cooperation received from the Service

cooperation received from various Services Associations/Unions in

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

I have already acknowledged in the Preface my gratitude to the

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

I also appreciate the work done by the Assistant Section

The Computer Operators who were supplied from time to time

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

I am thankful to Andhra Pradesh Technology Services Unit

REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE

FURTHER AND FINAL REPORT ON

Pages 229 to 265

SUBJECT Page Nos.

MAIN PREFACE 3-11

Chapter-1 : Keynote to the Report 15-31

Scope of the Report 16-22

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

Chapter-3 : Regional Offices 75-83

Chapter-4 : Urban Development Authorities. 84-86

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

SUBJECT Page Nos.

Chapter-6 : Cross Cadre Movement 96-126

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

Chapter-9 : Compassionate Appointments 156-162

Chapter-10 : City of Hyderabad 163-172