Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Policy On Spousal Preference In Govt Promotions, Flags Procedural Issues

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the constitutionality of a 1999 Government Order that gave priority in promotions to candidates whose spouses were working in the Government.

The court was hearing a plea moved by doctors working in medical colleges across the state who challenged the government order claiming that giving priority to the spouses working in the Government for selecting the place is irrational and arbitrary and, hence must be struck down. 

Referring to various Supreme Court judgments, Justice Subba Reddy Satti  held that the scheme of giving preference in promotions to those candidates whose spouses work in the Government is a policy decision that is neither irrational nor in defiance of logic.

"A conspectus of the expressions of the Apex Court discerns that if the decision or clause is to be declared as irrational it should be outrageous and illogical. However, in the case at hand, this Court doesn't find any such illogical or outrageous in giving preference to an employee in choosing a place on spouse ground". 

However, flagging procedural impropriety in the procedure adopted by the respondents, which was defeating the “laudable object” of the policy, the Court held,

"Therefore, in the case at hand, the Government, as a policy, provided preference to the spouses in employment, to work at one place. Such a policy, prima facie, cannot be termed as irrational or is in defiance of logic. Fostering family stability among employees and allowing the employee's spouses to remain together or close by, cannot be termed as irrational. However, disregarding the seniority, in the opinion of this court, amounts to procedural impropriety, thereby warranting the interference of this court.”

Background

The petitioners in the present case were doctors working in different Medical Colleges across Andhra Pradesh and were subject to the control of the Directorate of Medical Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh. These doctors were seeking promotions from the positions of Assistant Professor to Associate Professor and from Associate Professor to Professor. However, a Government Order dated May 21, 1999 Government Order G.O.Ms.No.273 circulated by the Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department, in Para (4)(2)(i), prescribed that priority in promotion will be given to the candidates whose spouses are working in Government. The priority was given to the personnel covered under 4(2)(i) and the other persons in seniority were not given an option for selecting a preferred place.

The relevant part of Para 4 of the GO read as:

“4. The Procedure to be followed is as follows:

1. The posting shall be given on Counselling basis, i.e. the list ofvacancies shall be displayed and candidates called in one by one based on seniority to indicate their choice of posting. Orders shall be issued on the spot to the candidates, and a permanent Register maintained for recording postings on Counselling.
2. The following categories shall be given priority & shall be called for Counselling first in order of seniority:

i. Spouses working in Government:”

The petitioners moved the high court challenging this provision and arguing that extending priority to spouses working in the Government for selecting the place of posting is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Additionally, they argued that owing to the preferential treatment extended on the pretext of spouses working in the Government, many candidates were able to dodge seniority and choose preferred postings despite not being in the same or nearby place as their spouses. This enabled such candidates to choose the best colleges under the guise of preference.

Contrary to this, it was contended by the respondents that the provision recognises the challenges faced by employees working in different places and giving such priority on spousal grounds fostered family stability among the employees and allowed them to remain together or closer, thereby, enhancing their quality of life and job satisfaction. Such a provision was argued to be a policy decision and upon counselling, the employees were at a will to choose the place where the other spouse is working or a nearby place.

Primarily, the Court was to determine whether the scheme of prioritisation in promotions as contemplated in Para 4(2)(i) of the GO was irrational and arbitrary.

At the outset, it was observed that it is not for the High Court to determine whether an administrative policy or any decision taken in the fulfilment of such policy is fair. The Court, instead, was only concerned with the manner in which such decision has been taken. Judicial Review can only be exercised if the administrative action suffers from any of the broad grounds of- (i) illegality, (ii) irrationality, or (iii) procedural impropriety.

Regarding the issue of irrationality, the Court held that there was nothing “illogical or outrageous in giving preference to an employee in choosing a place on spouse ground.”

Overriding of Seniority 

Moreover, in order to establish procedural impropriety, which connotes a failure to follow established procedures or rules resulting in unfairness, injustice or illegality, the Court had to scrutinise whether the employer was following the policy in letter and spirit.

The Court noted that under the guise of spousal preference, preference is given to the employee who stands bottom in the seniority list, ignoring the person stood above, to choose the place of choice, though the other spouse has not been working in the chosen place, and thereby seniority has been overridden, which does not align with the intended object. 

No justification in decision making

Additionally, the respondents had failed to furnish any justification as to why certain candidates were being given priority under the policy despite there being no proximity to their spouse, the court noted. 

With respect to the instances at hand the court noted that preferences were allowed to the employees on spouse grounds, though they are shown at a lower level in the seniority list; most of the time, the authority has given a go-bye to the seniority. The court observed that the selection of the places on the spouse's ground is not in consonance with the object put forth in paragraph No.15 of the counter affidavit

“Ignoring the seniority and giving preference, though the employee stands below in the seniority, such an exercise by the authority sounds no logic. If both spouses work in one place, such an instance can be considered to achieve the object. However, considering and giving preference to the employees, whose spouses are government employees, though the promotion and posting, will not get a chance to the station, is defiance of logic and such a course adopted is procedural impropriety. Preference needs to be provided if the spouse chooses a place where the other spouse is working.”

While the Court disposed of the petition, it directed the respondent to implement the concerned policy in its letter and spirit and ensure that its intended purpose is achieved logically without disturbing or disregarding the seniority.

Case title: Katikala Indira Priyadarsini and Others v.The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

WRIT PETITION NO: 7291/2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order