Principle Of 'Functus Officio' Does Not Apply To Executive Rule-Making Authority : Supreme Court

“The principle of functus officio normally applies to a judicial forum or a quasi-judicial authority and would have no application to the rule-making authority which is within the domain of the State Government by virtue of Article 245 of the Constitution of India.”

Reliance was placed on several judgments including Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India. Therein, the Court had categorically stated that if the doctrine of 'functus officio' were to be applied to States' rule making power, the executive power would be virtually crippled and the State would find itself paralyzed, unable to change or reverse any policy or policy-based decision.

In the present case, the appellants and one similarly placed candidate were transferred from the Corporation and came to be appointed as Assistant Executive Engineers (AEEs) on a temporary basis against the regularly sanctioned posts.

The appellants continued to serve as the AEEs Department for almost 13 years. Subsequently, their demand was considered by the State; however, it denied seniority. Challenging this, the appellants filed several representations before the State. As a result, the State partially modified its previous memorandum. Thus, the respondents challenged the same before the High Court in a writ petition. Since the same was allowed and the revised memorandum was quashed, the appellants approached the Apex Court.

At the outset, the Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta did not agree with the High Court's reasoning that the State Government became functus officio after issuing the initial memorandum. Thus, it could not have issued the revised memorandum. The view so taken by the Division Bench is untenable and ultra vires the Constitution of India., the Court added and observed:

“Further, it is a well-settled principle of law that while administrative actions and statutory rules that impact citizens' rights are subject to judicial review, the notion that the State must provide a prior hearing to affected individuals during the exercise of its rule-making power is fundamentally flawed.”

The Court also found the High Court's reasoning that the respondents should have been heard before the issuance of the revised memorandum as unsustainable and contrary to the legal principles. Such an interpretation by the Division Bench has far-reaching and potentially disastrous implications., the Court said and observed:

“If the State Government is compelled to afford an opportunity of hearing to every individual or entity likely to be affected by its administrative decision-making, it would effectively paralyze governance by imposing an undue procedural roadblock. This would place the State in a position where its rule-making authority would be severely constricted, defeating the very purpose of efficient policy implementation and undermining its ability to discharge its administrative duties.”

In view of this, the Court set aside the impugned judgment and allowed the appeal.

Appearances:

Petitioners: Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, Sr. Adv. Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Mr. S. Uday Bhanu, Adv. Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, Sr. Adv. Mr. Byrapaneni Suyodhan, Adv. Ms. Tatini Basu, AOR Mr. Guru Krishnakumar, Sr. Adv. Ms. Rao Vishwaja, Adv. Mr. P Vamshi Rao, Adv. Mr. P. Mohith Rao, AOR Ms. J Akshitha, Adv. Mr. Eugene S Philomene, Adv. Mr. Ashwin K,, Adv.

Respondents: Dr. K. Lakshmi Narsimha, Adv. Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Adv. Ms. Bina Madhavan, Adv. Mr. Tushar Singh, Adv., M/S. Lawyer S Knit & Co, AOR Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Sr. Adv. Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Mr. S.uday Bhanu, Adv

Case Name: P. Rammohan Rao vs K. Srinivas., SLP(Civil) No(s). 4036-4038 of 2024

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 208

Click here to read/ download the judgment