Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Under the said rules, part n was specifically framed in respect of the employees including the teachers in Panchayat Samithis and Zilla parishads and Part I specifically deals with the teachers and teaching staff working in Government schools. Therefore, when once the Government the already framed the rules for the teachers working in panchayat Raj Institutions, the question that arise for consideration is as to whether the Government can issue G. O. Ms. No. 538 by virtue of power conferred under sections 78 and 99 of A. P. Education Act and by virtue of the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India in respect of the same service. ( 83 ) IN A. B. Krishna v. State of karnataka, AIR 1998 SC 1050 , it was observed by the Supreme Court that: "9. It is no doubt true that the rule-making authority under Article 309 of the Constitution and Section 39 of the Act is the same, namely, the Government (to be precise, the Governor, under Article 309 and the Government under section 39), but the two jurisdictions are different. As has been seen above, power under Article 309 cannot be exercised by the Governor, if the Legislature has already made a law and the field is occupied. In that situation, rules can be made under the law so made by the Legislature and not under Article 309. It has also to be noticed that rules made in exercise of the rule- making power given under an Act constitute delegated or subordinate legislation, but the rules under Article 309 cannot be treated to fall in that category and, therefore, on the principle of "occupied field", the rules under article 309 cannot supersede the rules made by the Legislature. 10. So far as the question of implied supersession of the rules made under Section 39 of the Act by the General Recruitment Rules, as amended in 1977, is concerned, it may be pointed out that the basic principle, as set out in Maxwell's Interpretation of Statutes (11th Edn. p. 168) is that:"a general later law does not abrogate an earlier special one by mere implication. p. 168) is that:"a general later law does not abrogate an earlier special one by mere implication. Generalia specialibus non derogant, or, in other words, 'where there are general words in a later Act capable of reasonable and sensible application without extending them to subjects specially dealt with by earlier legislation, you are not to hold that earlier and special legislation indirectly repealed, altered, or derogated from merely by force of such general words, without any indication of a particular intention to do so'. In such cases, it is presumed to have only general cases in view, and not particular cases which have been already otherwise provided by the special Act. "11. This principle was reiterated in Vera cruz case (Seward v. Vera Cruz (1884) 10 ac 59) as under:"where there are general words in a later act capable of reasonable and sensible application without extending them to subjects specially dealt with by earlier legislation. . . . that earlier and special legislation is not to be held indirectly repealed, altered or derogated from merely by force of such general words, without any indication of a particular intention to do so. "12. Vera Cruz case (supra) was followed in eileen Louise Nicolle v. John Winter Nicolle (1992) (1) AC 284) as under:"it is no doubt a sound principle of all jurisprudence that a prior particular law is not easily to be held to be abrogated by a posterior law, expressed in general terms and by the apparent generality of its language applicable to and covering a number of cases of which the particular law is but one. " ( 84 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that when once the service rules were framed by virtue of the provisions contained in 1959 Act, no further rules could be framed by virtue of proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. He thus submits that the rules having been framed in G. O. Ms. No. 278, no further rules could be made by virtue of proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of india. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid case further observed that:"there is also no question of implied supersession of the Rules made under section 39 of the Act by the General recruitment Rules. No. 278, no further rules could be made by virtue of proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of india. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid case further observed that:"there is also no question of implied supersession of the Rules made under section 39 of the Act by the General recruitment Rules. Consequently prescription of the qualifying examination as a condition precedent for promotion to the post of leading Firemen cannot be said to be superseded by the amendment in the General recruitment Rules prescribing seniority as mode for promotion and it would not have the effect of displacing or altering the Rules made under Section 39 of the Fire Force act, 1964 as the Act of the Legislature would have precedence over any Rule made by the executive under the Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. " ( 85 ) THE learned Counsel also relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala shukla, AIR 2002 SC 2322 , wherein the supreme Court while referring to the provisions of Police Act vis-a-vis the rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, observed that the criteria for recruitment by Promotion Rules, 1994, cannot be said to have overriding effect and the rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution do not impliedly repeal the administrative orders framed under section 2 of Police Act on principle of occupied Field. In the said case, a dispute arose as to whether the Administrative orders issued by the Government from time to time under Section 2 of Police Act would override the Recruitment by Promotion rules, 1994 issued under proviso to article 309 of the Constitution of India. The supreme Court held that on principle of 'occupied field' and 'generalia specialibus non derogant' Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India cannot be supersede the Government Order dated 5. 11. 1995 framed under Special Statute namely Police Act. The supreme Court held that on principle of 'occupied field' and 'generalia specialibus non derogant' Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India cannot be supersede the Government Order dated 5. 11. 1995 framed under Special Statute namely Police Act. The Supreme Court observed thus:"perusal of the provisions of the Act, in particular that of Section 46, makes it abundantly clear that the Statute (the Police act) ought to be treated as a complete Code by itself - There is thus a special statute concerning the Police Force and within its fold include the appointment, dismissal, placement and all other steps required to reorganise the Police and make it more efficient instrument for the prevention and detection of crime. Administrative instructions have admittedly been in use since the beginning of the formation of a separate cadre of Police in Uttar Pradesh. The inter- ministerial correspondence from Special secretary, Home, U. P. Administration and addressed to Deputy Inspector General of police (Personnel), U. P. Police Pead Quarters and the understanding apropos the government Order stands clear enough to indicate that while General Rules framed in the year 1994 are for general Government servants, the Police force are to be guided by the provisions of the Police Act and no exception can be taken thereto. It is thus difficult to comprehend that the General Rule framed under Article 309 should or would also govern the existing special rules concerning the Police Rules. Admittedly, the guidelines as contained in the Government order dated 5-11-1965 have been under and in terms of the provisions of the Police Act. There is special conferment of power for framing of Rules under Police Act which would prevail over any other Rule. Since no other rule stands formulated and Govt order of 1965 being taken as existing rule pertaining to selection for promotion of Police Officers from Sub-Inspector to Inspector in the State of U. P. in 1997 for vacancies for the period between 1992 and 1996, its applicability cannot be doubted. Unless the General Rule specifically repeals the effectiveness of the special rules, question of the latter rule becoming ineffective or inoperative would not arise. In order to be effective, an express mention is required rather an imaginary repeal. Unless the General Rule specifically repeals the effectiveness of the special rules, question of the latter rule becoming ineffective or inoperative would not arise. In order to be effective, an express mention is required rather an imaginary repeal. Police force admittedly has a special significance in the administration of the State and the intent of the framers of our constitution to empower the State government to make rules therefor has its due significance rather than being governed under a general omnibus rule framed under the provisions under Article 309. When there is a specific provision unless there is a specific repeal of the existing law, question of an implied repeal would not arise. In any event, the General Rules are only prospective in nature and as such could not have affected the selection process, which commenced in the year 1993. " the Supreme Court also referred to the decision of Krishna's case (supra) and discussed the implied supersession of the rules framed under Section 39 of the Police act with reference to the interpretation of rules set out in Maxwell Interpretation of statutes. " ( 86 ) IN effect the submission is when the rules were framed under Panchayat Raj act, the saia rules operate as occupied field. Therefore, Rules framed under proviso to article 309 cannot be said to override the earlier rules unless they are specifically repealed. We are unable to disagree with this submission in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above. Accordingly, we hold that it is incompetent for the Government to issue the rules in g. O. Ms. No. 538. The Tribunal recorded finding that rules in G. O. Ms. No. 278, dated 2. 6. 1983 treating the teachers in Government schools as one unit and teachers working in panchayat Raj bodies as separate unit did not conform to the scheme of localisation in g. O. Ms. No. 529 dated 14. 5. 1976 is unwarranted. In the O. As. the chanllenge was not to G. O. Ms. No. 278 but to G. O. Ms. Nos. 538 and 505 only. Hence, the said finding is set aside. ( 87 ) ANOTHER important question that calls for consideration is whether the impugned G. Os. are in violation of the presidential Order. 5. 1976 is unwarranted. In the O. As. the chanllenge was not to G. O. Ms. No. 278 but to G. O. Ms. Nos. 538 and 505 only. Hence, the said finding is set aside. ( 87 ) ANOTHER important question that calls for consideration is whether the impugned G. Os. are in violation of the presidential Order. ( 88 ) BRIEFLY referred to the events leading to issuance of the Presidential Order were to create equitable opportunities and facilities for people belonging to different parts of the State of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, the Constitution (Thirty-second amendment) Act, 1973 through Section 3 thereof brought into the Constitution Article 371-D with effect from July 1, 1974. This is a special provision in respect of the State of andhra Pradesh empowering the President, 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 to make an order, in particular (a) require the State Government to organise any class or classes of posts in a civil service of, or any class or classes of civil posts under the State into different local cadres for different parts of the State and allot in accordance with such principles and procedure as may be specified in the order the persons holding such posts to the local cadres so organised; (b) specify any part or parts of the State which shall be regarded as the local area- (i) for direct recruitment to posts in any local cadre (whether organised in pursuance of an order under this article or constituted otherwise) under the State Government. . . . . . . . . (Other clauses are not relevant for the purpose of this case. Hence omitted.) 4. In exercise of the power under clause (1) and clause (2) of Article 371 -D the President issued 'the order 'in G. S. R. No. 524-E dated october 18, 1975 which was notified through g. O. Ms. No. 674 dated October 20, 1975. . . . (Other clauses are not relevant for the purpose of this case. Hence omitted.) 4. In exercise of the power under clause (1) and clause (2) of Article 371 -D the President issued 'the order 'in G. S. R. No. 524-E dated october 18, 1975 which was notified through g. O. Ms. No. 674 dated October 20, 1975. Para 2 (1) (c) interpretation clause defines 'local area' in relation to local cadre thus:"local area', in relation to any local cadre, means the local area specified in paragraph 6 for direct recruitment to posts in such local cadre, and includes, in respect of posts belonging to the category, of Civil Assistant surgeons, the local area specified in sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 8 of this Order. "para 2 (1) (e) defines 'load cadre': " 'local cadre' means any local cadre of posts under the State Government organised in pursuance of Paragraph 3, or constituted otherwise, for any part of the State. " para 2 (1) (m) defines 'zone': " 'zone' means a zone specified in the Second schedule comprising the territories mentioned therein. . " paras 3 and 5 of the Presidential Order reads thus:"3. Organisation of local Cadres: (1) The state Government shall, within a period of eighteen months from the commencement of this Order, organize classes of posts in the civil services of, and classes of civil posts under, the State into different local cadres for different parts of the State to the extent, and in the manner, hereinafter provided: provided that, notwithstanding the expiration of the said period, the President may by order, require the State Government, whenever he considers it expedient so to do, to organize any classes of posts in the civil services of, and classes of civil posts, under, the State into different local cadres for different parts of the State". (2) The posts belonging to the category of junior Assistant, and to each of the other categories equivalent to, or lower than that of a Junior Assistant in each Department in each. District shall be organized into a separate cadre. (2) The posts belonging to the category of junior Assistant, and to each of the other categories equivalent to, or lower than that of a Junior Assistant in each Department in each. District shall be organized into a separate cadre. Explanation :for the purposes of this sub- paragraph, sub-paragraph (1) of Paragraph 6, and sub-paragraph (1) of Paragraph 8, a category shall be deemed to be equivalent to or lower than that of a Junior Assistant if the minimum of the scale of pay, of a post belonging to a category or where the post carries a fixed pay, such fixed pay equal to or lower than the minimum of the scale of pay of a Junior Assistant. (3) The posts belonging to each non- gazetted category, other than those referred to in sub-paragraph (2), in each Department in each zone shall be organized into a separate cadre. (4) The posts belonging to each specified gazetted category in each Department in each zone shall be organized into a separate cadre. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-paragraphs (3) and (4), the State government may, where it considers it expedient so to do and with the approval of the Central Government, organize the posts belonging to any of the categories referred to therein, in any Department, or any establishment thereof, in two or more continuous zones into a single cadre. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-paragraphs (2), (3), (4) and (5), the central Government may notify the departments in which and the categories of posts for which a separate cadre has to be organized for the City of Hyderabad and on such notification, the posts belonging to each such category in each such department in the said City (other than those concerned with the administration of areas falling outside the said City) shall be organized into a separate cadre and the posts so organized shall be excluded from the other cadres, organized in pursuance of this paragraph, or constituted otherwise and comprising of posts belonging to that category in that Department. (7) In organizing a separate cadre in respect of any category of posts in any Department for any part of the State, nothing in this order shall be deemed to prevent the State government from organizing or continuing more than one cadre in respect of such category in such Department for such part of the State. (7) In organizing a separate cadre in respect of any category of posts in any Department for any part of the State, nothing in this order shall be deemed to prevent the State government from organizing or continuing more than one cadre in respect of such category in such Department for such part of the State. (8) Where the Central Government is satisfied that it is not practicable or expedient to organize local cadres under this paragraph in respect of any non-gazetted category of posts in any Department, it may, by notification, make a declaration to that effect and on such declaration the provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to such category of posts. 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 a local cadre comprising posts in any Office or establishment exercising territorial jurisdiction over a part of the State 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; and (d) the transfer of a person from one local cadre to another local cadre on a reciprocal basis, subject to the condition that the 'person so transferred shall be assigned seniority in the latter cadre with reference to the date of his transfer to that cadre. " ( 89 ) THE Government issued G. O. Ms. No. 529 Education Department, dated 14. 5. 1976 organising local cadres in the department of School Education. " ( 89 ) THE Government issued G. O. Ms. No. 529 Education Department, dated 14. 5. 1976 organising local cadres in the department of School Education. The preamble of G. O. reads thus: in terms of para 3 of Andhra Pradesh Public employment (Organization of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975 (G. S. R. 524 (E), dated 18. 10. 1975) republished with G. O. Ms. No. 674 G. A. (SPFA) Department, dated 20. 10. 1975 the State governments are required to organize classes of Civil Posts under the State into different local cadres for different posts of the State to the extent and in the manner provided in the said Order. The categories of posts covered by the scheme are required to be organized into different local cadres for different parts of the State as follows: (A) LDCs and other Categories of Posts equivalent to or lower than that of LDC. Posts belonging to each such category in each Department in each District to be organized into a separate local cadre which may be briefly referred to as District Cadre. (B) Non-Gazetted Categories other than those referred to against item (A) posts belonging to each such category in each department in each zone should be organized into separate local cadre which may briefly referred to as Zonal Cadre (C) Specified Gazetted Categories -do-2. The Department of School Education has a Directorate at Hyderabad with Institutions and Subordinate Offices in all the Districts of the State and as the Presidential Order on organization of local cadres does not apply to the Offices of Heads of Departments, the Directorate of School Education stands excluded from the purview of the Presidential order. Under the Presidential Order, the following posts in the Department of school Education mentioned in III Schedule to the said Order are declared as Specified gazetted Categories and in respect of them only local cadres have to be organized: 1. Gazetted Inspectors of Schools, Headmasters and Headmistresses including Co-ordinators, Primary Extension Services. 2. Lecturers Training Colleges (i. e. , government Colleges of Education and government Comprehensive Colleges of education), including Co-ordinators, extension Services Departments attached to Government Colleges of Education and comprehensive College of Education and principals of Teachers training Institutes. 3. Gazetted Inspectors of Schools, Headmasters and Headmistresses including Co-ordinators, Primary Extension Services. 2. Lecturers Training Colleges (i. e. , government Colleges of Education and government Comprehensive Colleges of education), including Co-ordinators, extension Services Departments attached to Government Colleges of Education and comprehensive College of Education and principals of Teachers training Institutes. 3. Deputy Secretaries (Edn) Zilla Parishads" thus, according to scheme of localisation, all cadres were annexed to the said G. O. with appendix as referred to above. Therefore, pursuant to the order of the president, the local cadres were organised by the State Government in the Education department in the aforesaid G. O. Ms. No. 529 and it is beyond pale of controversy that the said Order cannot be disturbed and any Orders made in contravention of constitution of local cadres in accordance with the Presidential Order will be invalid and illegal. ( 90 ) BUT, as regards the services of the teachers working in the Panchayatraj institutions, admittedly, no local cadres have been organized and they continued to be governed by separate set of Rules namely g. O. Ms. No. 936, I. R. dated 17. 7. 1962 and g. O. Ms. No. 33 P. R. dated 15. 1. 1996 and finally fresh rules were brought into effect in Part-II of G. O. Ms. No. 278, Education department dated 20. 6. 1983. ( 91 ) AS referred to in the above presidential Order, local cadre had to be in conformity with the Order issued by the President and in fact the local cadres have been framed in respect of various categories in Education Department. As far as posts of L. D. Cs. now designated as Junior Assistants and the posts below l. D. C. are made District cadre posts and some of the posts which are above the cadre of L. D. C. namely School Assistant and deputy Inspector of Schools Grade-I among other non-gazetted categories were organized into zonal cadres. As far as the specified gazetted cadres are concerned, they were categorized into zonal cadres and these cadres are:" (1) Gazetted Inspector of Schools, Headmasters and Headmistresses and Co-ordinators, primary Extension Services, (2) Lecturers in training Colleges (i. e. , government Colleges of Education, and government Comprehensive Colleges of education) and Co-ordinators Extension services Departments attached to government Colleges of Education and comprehensive Colleges of Education and principals of T. T. Is. and (3) Deputy Secretaries (Education) Zilla parishads. Therefore, the question that calls for consideration is whether the posts which were organized into local cadres in pursuance of the Presidential Order can be clubbed with other categories of posts and that too the posts for which no local cadres have been organized. " ( 92 ) THE learned Additional Advocate general would, however, submit that the employees working in the Zilla Parishads and Mandal Parishads, when once they are provincialised in service and when they were treated as civil servants under the State holding civil post, they shall be deemed to have been integrated into the local cadres already organized in respect of the Education Department. He further submits that since the service conditions of the teachers in Government and also in zilla Parishads and Mandal Parishads are identical in all aspects and when once the service of the teachers are provincialised they form part of local cadre already organized in Government Education department. Therefore, no separate cadre need be organized for teachers in Zilla parishads and Mandal Parishads Schools. This contention though appears to be appealing at the first blush, cannot be accepted if deep scrutiny is made. As already mentioned, the local area and local cadres have been defined under Presidential Order and when once the local cadres have been organized, it will not be open for the State government to meddle with the local cadres or local areas, except with the approval of the President of India. ( 93 ) IN S. Prakasha Rao v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, AIR 1990 SC 997 , the State Government has formed local cadres in respect of various posts including senior Assistants in Commercial Tax department. The local area in respect of posts of Senior Assistants was declared as zonal posts, Zone-1 comprised of Warangal, khammam, Karimnagar and Adilabad districts, which was called as Warangal zone. But, however, the Government bifurcated the said Warangal zone and created Warangal and Adilabad zones. Some of the Senior Assistants approached the tribunal contending that for promotion from senior Assistants to Asst. Commercial Tax officer, zonal seniority of Warangal area comprised of four Districts referred to above is the crieteria and carving out Adilabad division consisting of Adilabad and karimnagar Districts cannot be treated as zone and divisional seniority prepared by the Department is bad in law. Commercial Tax officer, zonal seniority of Warangal area comprised of four Districts referred to above is the crieteria and carving out Adilabad division consisting of Adilabad and karimnagar Districts cannot be treated as zone and divisional seniority prepared by the Department is bad in law. The Tribunal held that the zonal seniority is the crieteria. It was further held that though for administrative convenience, the division consisting of Revenue District of Adilabad and Karimnagar Districts may be treated as one division and Warangal and Khammam as Warangal division may be carved out, but for the purpose of promotion general seniority in all four Districts has to be maintained. Against the said Order, the government of Andhra Pradesh by exercising the power under clause 5 of Article 371-D annulled the same which gave rise for filing writ Petition No. 998 of 1986 before the supreme Court under Article 32 of the constitution of India. The Supreme Court declared the Clause 5 of Article 371-D of the Constitution as ultra virus violating the basic structures. The State Government thereafter filed S. L. P. against the Order passed by the Tribunal in R. P. No. 1615 of 1984 filed by the Senior Assistants referred to above which was dismissed by the Supreme Court. Subsequently, the government issued G. O. Ms. No. 1648, dated 20. 11. 1982 purported to be under para 5 (2) (c) of the Presidential Order. When it was challenged, the Tribunal held that since no allotment of cadre in terms of para 4 of the Order issued, G. O. was quashed, against which the matter was carried to the Supreme Court. The Supreme court after referring to various provisions of the Presidential Order and consequential orders issued by the State Government has observed in Paras 7 and 8 thus:"7. It would appear from the record that the government intended to reorganise, for the purpose of efficient administration of the commercial Taxes Department and create separate divisions within the zones and issued through G. O. Ms. No. 1900, dated december 22, 1981 carving out Adilabad and Karimnagar as Adilabad division and warangal and Khammam as Warangal division with the administrative control of the concerned Dy. Commissioner of commercial Taxes at Adilabad and Warangal. As a follow up action options have been called for from the employees and they have been allotted in G. O. Ms. No. 1900, dated december 22, 1981 carving out Adilabad and Karimnagar as Adilabad division and warangal and Khammam as Warangal division with the administrative control of the concerned Dy. Commissioner of commercial Taxes at Adilabad and Warangal. As a follow up action options have been called for from the employees and they have been allotted in G. O. Ms. No. 1648, dated november 22, 1982 to the respective divisions. It is not disputed that the allotment and transfer were not made in terms of Para 4 of the Order. As stated earlier this action had given rise to the above representation petitions and the orders passed by the Tribunal and the result; ensued thereunder:8. Dr. L. M. Singhvi, the learned Senior counsel for the appellants, contends that paragraph 3 (7) of the order empowers the state Government to create a zone within the warangal zone for the purpose of recruitment, seniority and promotion. The State government has inherent power in that regard. There is no express prohibition in that regard in the order. The phrase' or constituted otherwise engrafted in the definition of local cadre in Paragraph 2 (e) read with Paragraph 3 (7), gives ample power to the State Government to organise any local cadre within the zone for the commercial Taxes Department. The action thus taken by the State Government is clearly within its power. The contra finding recorded by the Tribunal is illegal. He placed strong reliance on a decision of a single (@page- sc 1002) member Tribunal made in r. P. No. 101 of 1982 and batch dated april 1, 1982. He further contended that in maintaining harmony in Centre-State relationship, the State Government shall continue to have its inherent power to organise its local cadre to meet the exigencies of its administrative needs. The prior approval or concurrence of the Central Government is redundant. We find no force in these contentions. It is already seen that in exercise of the power under paragraph 3 (1) of the order the State Government shall, within a period of twelve months from the date of the commencement of the Order, organise class or classes of posts in the civil services of, and class or classes of civil posts, under the State into different local cadres for different parts of the State in the manner therein provided. It is already seen that through G. O. Ms. It is already seen that through G. O. Ms. No. 581, the State Government in fact had organised the Commercial Taxes Departments by constituting different local cadres and warangal zone comprised of the four revenue districts, namely, Adilabad, Karimnagar, khammam and Warangal was declared as local area for local cadres of the Department. Having done so, the question emerged whether the State Government has further power to reorganise the local cadre within the zone. In our considered view, we have no hesitation to hold that once the State government has organised the class or classes of posts in the civil services of and class or classes of civil posts, under the state as local cadres, it ceases to have any power to bifurcate or reorganise a zone within a zone, cadre or cadres therein. In exercise of the power under proviso to paragraph 3 (1), it is for the President notwithstanding the expiry of the period of twelve months prescribed in sub- paragraph (1) of Paragraph 3, by an order require the State Government whenever he considers it expedient so to do to have the power under Paragraph 3 (1) exercised. Thereby, it is clear that the State Government shall have to place necessary material before the President; the President shall consider that it is expedient to organise any class or classes of posts in the civil services of and class or classes of civil posts, under the state into a further local cadre within the local cadre in the zone already prescribed and to pass an order in that regard requiring the State Government to so organise it. It is made clear that for the purpose of efficient administration or convenience, the State government may create division/divisions within the local area or local cadre. But for the purpose of recruitment, seniority, promotion, discharge, etc. , the local cadre once organised under Para 3 (1) shall be final and continue to be operative until action is taken under proviso to sub-paragraph (1) of Paragraph 3 of the Order. When we enquired the learned Counsel for the state, Shri Madhava Reddy candidly conceded that no order of the President, as provided under the proviso, was made. Therefore, the action taken by the State government in issuing G. O. Ms. When we enquired the learned Counsel for the state, Shri Madhava Reddy candidly conceded that no order of the President, as provided under the proviso, was made. Therefore, the action taken by the State government in issuing G. O. Ms. No. 1648 dated November 20, 1982 is clearly illegal and invalid contravening the proviso to sub-paragraph (1) of Paragraph 3, undoubtedly it contravened Para 4 of the Order. "referring to the expressions constituted otherwise occurring in Paragraph 2 (e) of the presidential Order, the Supreme Court observed as follows: "9. It is seen that the order was made pursuant to the power given to the President under article 371-D, which is a special provision made under the Constitution (Thirty Second amendment) Act, 1973 peculiar to the State of Andhra Pradesh due to historical background. Therefore, the State Government have no inherent power in creating a zone or organising local cadre within the zones except in accordance with the provisions made in the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organization of Local Cadres and Regulation for Direct Recruitment) Order. It is true that the clause "or constituted otherwise" defined in Paragraph 2 (e) is of wide import, but is only reliable to the power given by the President to the State Government to organise local cadre. Paragraph 3 (1) is the source of that power, but the exercise thereof is hedged with a limitation of twelve months from the date of the commencement of the Order. Therefore, the power to organise class or classes of post of civil services of, and class or classes of civil posts, under the state into different local cadres should be exercised by the State Government in accordance with Para 3 (1) before the expiry of the twelve months from October 20, 1975. If the exercise of the power is not circumscribed within limitation, certainly under General Clauses Act the power could be exercised from time to time in organising local cadres to meet the administrative exigencies. The prescription of limitation is a fetter put on the exercise of power by the state Government. Obviously, realising this reality and the need to organize local cadres, subsequent thereto the amendment was made and was published in G. O. Ms. No. 34 G. A. , dated January 24, 1981 introducing proviso to Paragraph 3 (1 ). The prescription of limitation is a fetter put on the exercise of power by the state Government. Obviously, realising this reality and the need to organize local cadres, subsequent thereto the amendment was made and was published in G. O. Ms. No. 34 G. A. , dated January 24, 1981 introducing proviso to Paragraph 3 (1 ). Thereunder, notwithstanding in the expiry of the said period, the President alone has been given power to organise local cadres in respect of class or classes of posts in civil services of and class or classes of civil posts, under the State. That too subject to the conditions precedent laid therein. Thus, it is the President and the President alone has been given power under proviso by an order to require the State Government to organise the local cadres in relation to any class or classes of posts in the civil services of and class or classes of civil posts under the State into different local cadres. It could be considered in yet another perspective. Para 2 (e) indicates that President himself may create a local cadre instead of requiring the State Government to organise local cadre. For instance, Para 3 (6) empowered the President to create local cadre for the City of Hyderabad. Similarly, under proviso to Para 3 (1) the President may require the State Government to create a local cadre within a zone. So the phrase 'or constituted otherwise' cannot be understood de hors the scheme of the Presidential order. No doubt in common parlance, the word 'otherwise' is of 'wide' amplitude. This court in Kochuni v. States of Madras and kerala, AIR 1960 SC 1080 , Subba Rao, J; as he then was, speaking per majority in paragraph 50 while construing the word 'otherwise' held that it must be confined to things analogous to right or contract such as lost grant, immemorial user etc. The word 'otherwise' in the context only means whatever may be the origin of the receipt of maintenance. The ratio thereunder cannot be extended in the contextual circumstances obtainable on the facts in this case. The word 'otherwise' in the context only means whatever may be the origin of the receipt of maintenance. The ratio thereunder cannot be extended in the contextual circumstances obtainable on the facts in this case. Similarly, in Lilavati Bai v. The State of Bombay, 1957 scr 721 at p. 735 = ( AIR 1957 SC 521 to 528), Sinha J. ; as he then was, speaking for the Constitution Bench interpreting explanation (a) to Section 6 of Bombay land Requisition Act, 1948, as amended in 1950 and repelling the application of ejusdem generis doctrine laid the law thus:"the Legislature has been cautious and thorough going enough to bar all avenues of escape by using the words 'or otherwise'. These words are not words of limitation but of extension so as to cover all possible ways in which a vacancy may occur. Generally speaking a tenancy is terminated by acts of parties or by operation of law or by eviction by the landlord or by assignment or transfer of the tenant's interest. But the legislature, when it used the words 'or otherwise', apparently intended to cover other cases which may not come within the meaning of the preceding clauses, for example a case where the tenant's occupation has ceased as a result of trespass by a third party. The Legislature, in our opinion, intended to cover all possible cases of vacancy occurring due to any reasonwhatsoever. "thus, contextual interpretation to the words 'or otherwise was given by this Court. Therefore, the phrase constituted otherwise' is to be understood in that context and purpose which Article 371 -D and the presidential Order seek to achieve. If the interpretation given by the appellants is given acceptance it amounts to giving blanket power to the State Government to create local cadres at its will tending to defeat the object of Article 371-D and the Presidential order. Accordingly, we have no hesitation to reject the interpretation of wider connotation. The ratio in these decisions does not render any assistance to the appellants. The Supreme Court also clarified that power given to the State Government under paragraph 3 is only to organize separate cadre in respect of any category of posts in any Department when more than one cadre in respect of such category exists in each department. The ratio in these decisions does not render any assistance to the appellants. The Supreme Court also clarified that power given to the State Government under paragraph 3 is only to organize separate cadre in respect of any category of posts in any Department when more than one cadre in respect of such category exists in each department. So the Government may organize more than one cadre in respect of one category of posts under Para 3 (7) of the Order. The Supreme Court observed in paras 10 and 11 thus:"10-11. Similarly, the power given to the state Government in sub-paragraph (7) of paragraph 3 of the Order is only to organise a separate cadre in respect of any category of posts in any department when more than one cadre in respect of such category exists in each department; so the State Government may organise one cadre, when more than one cadre in respect of different categories of posts exist in a zone under Para 3 (1) of the order. It is clear when we see the language in Para 3 (7), which says that: "nothing in this order shall be deemed to prevent the state from organising". Take for instance while creating local cadre conterminous with the administrative control of the dy. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, local cadre for Senior Assistants may be created. It is also made manifest by Instructions nos. 7 and 9 (e) of the instructions contained in G. O. Ms. No. 728, G. A. D. , dated November 1, 1975. But as stated earlier, it is only for the purpose of administrative convenience, not for the purpose of recruitment seniority or promotion etc. . as the case may be. Thus, we have no hesitation to hold that the creation of a division and maintaining separate seniority of Junior Assistants and Senior assistants for Adilabad and Warangal divisions are illegal, contrary to order issued in G. O. Ms. No. 581 and the Andhra Pradesh employment (Organisation of Local Cadre and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) order, 1975. The single member of the tribunal R. P. No. 101/82 dated April 1, 1982 did not consider the effect of the order in proper perspective and is illegal. No. 581 and the Andhra Pradesh employment (Organisation of Local Cadre and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) order, 1975. The single member of the tribunal R. P. No. 101/82 dated April 1, 1982 did not consider the effect of the order in proper perspective and is illegal. " (emphasis added) therefore, the learned Additional Advocate- general relying on the said expression contended that when once the provincialisation has taken place, the local cadre is deemed to have been constituted by virtue of the expression or otherwise is not sustainable and the said contention has to be negatived. ( 94 ) IN a similar identical situation, the supreme Court had to decide another case reported in V. Jagannaana Rao v. State of a. P. , (2001) 10 SCC 401 , held thus:" (3) Organisation of local cadre - (1) The state Government shall, within a period of twelve months from the commencement of this order, organize classes of posts in the civil services of, and classes of civil posts under the State into different local cadres for different parts of the State to the extent, and in the manner, hereinafter provided. (2) The posts belonging to the category of lower Division Clerk, and to each of the other categories equivalent to, or lower than that of a Lower Division Clerk, in each department in each District shall be organized into a separate cadre. Explanation :for the purposes of this sub-paragraph, sub-paragraph (1) of Paragraph 6, and sub- paragraph (1) of Paragraph 8, a category shall be deemed to be equivalent to or lower than that of Lower Division Clerk, if the minimum of the scale of pay of a post belonging to that category or, where the post carries a fixed pay, such fixed pay, is equal to or lower than the minimum of the scale of pay of a Lower Division Clerk. (3) The posts belonging to each non-gazetted category, other than those referred to in sub-paragraph (2), in each department in each zone shall be organised into a separate cadre. (4) The posts belonging to each specified gazetted category in each department in each zone shall be organised into a separate cadre. (3) The posts belonging to each non-gazetted category, other than those referred to in sub-paragraph (2), in each department in each zone shall be organised into a separate cadre. (4) The posts belonging to each specified gazetted category in each department in each zone shall be organised into a separate cadre. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-paragraphs (3) and (4), the State government may, where it considers it expedient so to do and with approval of the central Government, organize the posts belonging to any of the categories referred to therein, in any department, or any establishment thereof, in two or more continuous zones into a single cadre. (6 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7) in organizing a separate cadre in respect of any category of posts in any department for any part of the State, nothing in this order shall be deemed to prevent the State government from organizing or continuing more than one cadre in respect of such category in such department for such part of the State. (8) Where the Central Government is satisfied that, it is not practicable or expedient to organize local cadres under this paragraph in respect of any non-gazetted category of posts in any department, it may, by notification, make a declaration, to that effect and on such declaration, the provisions of this paragraph shad not apply to such category of posts. 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Local cadres and transfer of persons: (1) Each part of the State, for which a local cadre has been organised 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 post. (2) Nothing in this order shall prevent the state Government from making provisions 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 a local cadre comprising posts in any office or establishment exercising territorial jurisdiction over a part of the State to any other local cadre comprising posts in such part, or vice-versa; and (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. "while tracing the object of Article 371-D of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court observed thus:"11. The object of enacting Article 371-D appears to be two-fold: (1) To promote equal development of the backward areas of the State of Andhra pradesh, so far as to secure balanced development of the State as a whole. (2) To provide equitable opportunities to different areas of the State in the matter of education, employment and career prospects in public service. (12) This was observed to be so in Chief justice of Andhra Pradesh v. L. V. A. Dikshitulu ( AIR 1979 SC 193 ). 13. It is to be noted that Para 5 (1) of the presidential Order is in terms of Para 3 (3) thereof. Para 3 (3) postulates that each department in each zone shall be organised into a separate cadre. Para 5 (1) speaks of 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 the category of posts and each part of the State for which local cadre has been organised in respect of any category of posts in required to have a separate unit for the aforesaid purposes. Para 5 (2) is in the nature of an enabling provision which authorizes the State Government to make provisions for transfer in certain specified circumstances. The present dispute relates to Para 5 (2) (c ). It speaks of a "transfer". Attempt of the appellants is to give enlarged meaning to the expression to include promotional aspects. Para 5 (2) is in the nature of an enabling provision which authorizes the State Government to make provisions for transfer in certain specified circumstances. The present dispute relates to Para 5 (2) (c ). It speaks of a "transfer". Attempt of the appellants is to give enlarged meaning to the expression to include promotional aspects. It has been contended in that context that though para 5 (1) treats promotion and transfer separately, yet that distinction would not be applicable to cases covered by Para 5 (2 ). The contention is clearly untenable. "interpreting the words transfer in Para 5 (2) (c) of the Presidential Order, the Supreme court held that it does not take in the promotion, the Supreme Court observed in para 18 as follows:"18. We find that Para 5 (2) of the Presidential order speaks of transfer and not of promotion. It would be hazardous to accept the contention of the appellants that promotion is included in the expression 'transfer' and no assistance can be availed from the distinction made in Para 5 (1) of the Order. No provisions or word in a statute has to be read in isolation. In fact, the statute has to be read as a whole. A statute is an edict of the legislature. It cannot be said that without any purpose the distinction was made in Para 5 (1) between transfer and promotion and such distinction was not intended to be operative in Para 5 (2 ). The intention of the Legislature is primarily to be gathered from the language used, which means that attention should be paid as to what has been said as also to what has not been said. See Mohd. Ali Khan v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, New Delhi, air 1997 SC 1165 and Institute of Chartered accountants of India v. M/s. Price Water house, AIR 1998 SC 74 . As a consequence a construction which requires for its support addition or substitution of words or which resorts for rejection of words as meaningless has to be avoided. As stated by the Privy council in Robert Wigram Crawford v. Richard Spooner, 1846 (6) Moore PC 1. "we cannot aid the Legislature's defective phrasing of an Act, we cannot add or mend and, by construction make deficiencies which are left there". As stated by the Privy council in Robert Wigram Crawford v. Richard Spooner, 1846 (6) Moore PC 1. "we cannot aid the Legislature's defective phrasing of an Act, we cannot add or mend and, by construction make deficiencies which are left there". The aforesaid decision was referred to by this Court in State of Gujarat and others v. Dilipbhai Nathjibhai Patel and another, JT 1998 (2) SC 253. It is contrary to all rules of construction to read words into an Act unless it is absolutely necessary to do so. (See Stock v. Frank Jones (Tiptan) Ltd. , 1978 (1) All. ER 948 (HL ). Similarly, it is wrong and dangerous to proceed by substituting some other words for words of the statute. (See Pinner v. Everett, 1969 (3) all. ER 257. In other words, there should be no attempt to substitute or paraphrase of general application. Attention should be confined to what is necessary for deciding a particular case. Much trouble is made by substituting other phrases assumed to be egnivaent, which then are reasoned from as if they were in the Act. In Union of India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal, AIR 1992 SC 96 , it was observed that the Court cannot refrain the Legislature for the very good reason that it has no power to legislate. It is incumbent on the Court to avoid the construction if reasonably permissible on the language which would render a part of the statute devoid of any meaning or application. In the interpretation of statutes, the Courts always presume that the Legislature inserted every part thereof for a purpose and the legislative intention is that every part of the statute should have an effect. " ( 95 ) FROM the aforesaid decisions, thus it is clear that when once the local cadre has been organized in respect of categories of posts declared by the President of india and in pursuance of which the state Government has issued notification organizing local cadres for local areas, the sanctity of such local cadre has to be maintained except in cases where the amendment was effected with the approval of the President of India. ( 96 ) ADMITTEDLY, in the instant case, various posts have been categorized into district cadre and zonal cadres and the specified gazetted cadres have also been declared as zonal posts as far as the education Department is concerned and therefore, these local cadres cannot be merged with other local cadres nor can it be allowed to be diluted; the reasons are obvious that it frustrates the very intentment of organizing the local cadres. ( 97 ) THE contention that when once the provincialisation takes place, it automatically forms part of local cadres is absolutely untenable for the reasons stated above. No such interference can be allowed to be drawn, as the Presidential Order is very clear in this regard. When no local cadre has been organized, the question of integrating the same with that of the already organized local cadres does not arise. The contention that the posts of teachers after provincialisation get added to the already existing strength of local cadres organized under the Education Department has to be necessarily rejected. Such an action is invalid and without jurisdiction. The Supreme Court while referring to overriding powers under para (10) of Article 371-D of the Constitution of India observed:"at the outset, it may be noticed that Article 371-D (10) of the Constitution unequivocally indicates that the said Article and any order made by the President thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything in any other provision of the Constitution or in any other law for the time being in force. Necessarily, therefore, if it is construed and held that the presidential Order prohibits consideration of the employees from the feeder category from other units then such a rule made by the governor under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution will have to be struck down. Then again in exercise of powers under paragraph 5 (2) of the Presidential Order if the State Government makes any provision, which is outside the purview of the authority of the Government under Para 5 (2) of the order itself, then said provision also has to be struck down. Then again in exercise of powers under paragraph 5 (2) of the Presidential Order if the State Government makes any provision, which is outside the purview of the authority of the Government under Para 5 (2) of the order itself, then said provision also has to be struck down. Having construed the rules framed by the Governor under proviso to article 309 of the Constitution from the aforesaid stand point, the conclusion is irresistible that the said rule to the extent indicated by the Tribunal is constitutionally invalid and its conclusion is unassailable, In the case on hand, the impugned provisions do not appear to have been framed in exercise of powers under Paragraph 5 (2) of the presidential Order and as such the same being a rule made under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, the Presidential Order would prevail, as provided under Article 371- d (10) of the Constitution. Even if it is construed to be an order made under paragraph 5 (2) of the Presidential Order, then also the same would be invalid being beyond the permissible limits provided under said paragraph, he this view of the matter, the tribunal rightly held the provision to the extent it provides for consideration of employees of the Factories and Boilers units to be invalid, for the purpose of promotion to 2003 (6) FR-F-36 the higher post in the Labour unit and as such we see no justification for our interference with the said conclusion of the tribunal and the earlier judgment of this court in Sadanandam 's case (supra) must be held to have not been correctly decided. As a consequence, so would be the case with satyanarayana Rao's case, 2000 (4) SCC 262 . " ( 98 ) IT is also to be noted in this regard that the recruitment process, the promotional avenues right from the secondary Grade Teachers upto the posts of headmaster in respect of teaching staff in the Government schools and the schools under the control of Zilla Parishads and panchayat Samithies Schools are quite different and distinct and they are governed by separate set of statutory rules. While the posts of teaching cadre under Panchayat raj set up of are confined to District level, the posts of Senior Assistants Gr-I, Head masters in Government Schools are Zonal posts under the Presidential Order. While the posts of teaching cadre under Panchayat raj set up of are confined to District level, the posts of Senior Assistants Gr-I, Head masters in Government Schools are Zonal posts under the Presidential Order. Therefore, the posts which were confined only to the district level in Zilla Parishads and Mandal parishads Schools continue to be under the control of respective institutions and which are not organized into local cadres and hence they cannot be brought into the fold of the posts for which local cadres have been organized in Education Department. Explaining the purport of 'local cadre' the supreme Court in Prakash Rao's case (supra) observed thus:"local cadre is a cadre comprising the posts belonging to a category in a Department and located within a specified part of the State. The concept of the local cadre is thus related to the concept of the unit of appointment under the service rules; the part of the State for which a local cadre is organised in respect of any category will serve as a unit of appointment etc. , for that category. The scheme of organisation of local cadres under the Presidential Order applies generally to all non-gazetted categories, other than those specifically exempted under Government of India notification G. S. R. No. 529 (E), dated 18th october, 1975 issued under Paragraph 3 (8) of the Order, as also to be specified gazetted categories, i. e. , the gazetted categories, listed in the Third Schedule to the Order and those that may be notified in pursuance of paragraph 2 (i) (j) of the Order by the Central government. " ( 99 ) UNDER those circumstances, we are of the considered view that G. O. Ms. No. 538 is not sustainable in law and the same is liable to be set aside. So also the G. O. Ms. No. 505, so far as it seeks to embrace the posts in Education Department for which the local cadre has been organized in G. O. Ms. No. 529, dated 14. 5. 1976 viz. , in respect of the Deputy Inspector of Schools, headmaster and Educational Officers, the posts of Gazetted Headmasters, and Head mistresses, and also Gazetted Head Masters, headmistresses Grade-H, in Government high Schools is declared as illegal and invalid. . . No. 529, dated 14. 5. 1976 viz. , in respect of the Deputy Inspector of Schools, headmaster and Educational Officers, the posts of Gazetted Headmasters, and Head mistresses, and also Gazetted Head Masters, headmistresses Grade-H, in Government high Schools is declared as illegal and invalid. . . But, however as observed by the Supreme court in V. Jagannadha Rao's case (supra), that it is open for the appropriate authority of the Government to consider the desirability of creating channels of promotion for every service within permissible limits. If the Government feels that the promotional avenues for the teachers in the Zilla Parishads and Mandal Parishads Schools are not adequately provided, it is open for the government to create such avenues within the parameters of the powers vested with the Government. It also does not preclude the Government from taking action to organize local cadres in respect of the teachers working in Panchayat Raj institutions in the State in accordance with tiie provisions of Presidential Order. ( 100 ) IN the result, G. O. Ms. No. 538, education Department dated 26-11-1998 is quashed restoring the rules framed by the government in G. O. Ms. No. 278 dated 20-6-1983. As far as the G. O. Ms. No. 505, education Department, dated 11-11-1998 is concerned, it is declared as invalid to the extent of the posts covered by G. O. Ms. No. 529, dated 14-5-1976. ( 101 ) THE writ petitions are accordingly ordered. ( 102 ) NO costs. G. BIKSHAPATHY, J. ( 1 ) ASSAILING the validity of G. O. Ms. No. 505 Education department dated 11. 11. 1998 and G. O. Ms. No. 538 Education Department dated 26. 11. 1998, several O. As. were filed by the teachers working in Government Schools and also the Mandal Educational Officers association. The challenge is made to the alleged integration of the services of the teaching staff working in the Government schools with that of the schools under the control of the Zilla Parishads and Panchayat samithies. ( 2 ) FEW facts are necessary to appreciate the matter in a more detailed manner. In the erstwhile Andhra State, all the schools in the State were established by the government under the control of the education Department. ( 2 ) FEW facts are necessary to appreciate the matter in a more detailed manner. In the erstwhile Andhra State, all the schools in the State were established by the government under the control of the education Department. However, consequent on the formation of Zilla Parishads and panchayat Samithies, the schools which were hitherto maintained by the District Boards in the Andhra area were taken over by the zilla Parishads along with the staff in 1959. As far as Telangana Area is concerned, prior to the formation of Zilla Parishads and panchayat Samithies schools were established and managed by the Education Department. However, after formation of the Zilla parishads and Panchayat Samithies schools which were under the control of the government were transferred to Zilla parishads and Panchayat Samithies along with the staff. The teachers working in the government schools were governed by the andhra Pradesh Educational Subordinate service Rules under G. O. Ms. No. 728, dated 10. 1. 1962. The post of Head Master which was later included in the Educational services were governed by the rules under g. O. Ms. No. 259. So also in respect of the teachers working in the Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samithies schools were governed by the Service Rules under G. O. Ms. No. 936, dated 17. 7. 1962 and G. O. Ms. No. 33, dated 25. 1. 1966. Therefore, the services in the Government schools and Zilla parishads and Panchayat Samithies schools were being regulated by different Service rules. ( 3 ) WHILE so, in the year 1975, the president of India in exercise of the powers conferred under Clauses 1 and 2 of Article 371-D of the Constitution of India issued the Order in Andhra Pradesh Public employment (Organisation of Local Cadres regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975 (Hereinafter called the "presidential order" for brevity ). Under para 3 of the said order, teaching staff and others in Education department were organised into local cadre under G. O. Ms. No. 529, dated 14. 4. 1976. However, no local cadre was organised in respect of the teachers working in the zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samithies schools. On the representation of the service Associations representing the teachers in the aforesaid Zilla Parishads and panchayat Samithies schools, the government issued Orders in G. O. Ms. No. 168, dated 20. 3. 1981 provincialising the service of employees in Panchayat Raj including the teachers. On the representation of the service Associations representing the teachers in the aforesaid Zilla Parishads and panchayat Samithies schools, the government issued Orders in G. O. Ms. No. 168, dated 20. 3. 1981 provincialising the service of employees in Panchayat Raj including the teachers. Accordingly, ordinance No. 20 of 1981 was issued which subsequently became Act No. 34 of 1981. Under the said enactment, the officers and servants appointed under the A. P. Panchayat samithies and Zilla Parishads were treated as civil servants and holders of civil posts under the State. Consequently, appropriate amendments were brought to A. P. Panchayat samithies and Zilla Parishads Act empowering the Government to create posts of such officers and employees to carry out the purpose of the Act, which was hitherto within the Province of Zilla Parishads and panchayat Samithies. Further, salary and allowances of the employees is being paid by the Government from the consolidated fund of the State. The employees continued to hold the civil posts subject to rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution of india. Accordingly, the Government issued g. O. Ms. No. 155, dated 1. 3. 1983 making applicability of A. P. State and Subordinate service Rules to the employees specified under Sections 26 and 51 of Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samithies Act. In G. O. Ms. No. 156, dated 1. 3. 1983, the Andhra Pradesh civil Services (Conduct) Rules were made applicable to the said employees. It is relevant to note that the teachers in Government schools were already covered by A. P. Educational Subordinate Service, issued by the Education Department in G. O. Ms. No. 78, dated 10. 1. 1962. Consequent on the provincialisation of the Service of the employees under the Zilla Parishads and panchayat Samithies and keeping in view the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh education Act, the Government issued Rules under proviso to Article 309 of the constitution of India governing the service conditions of the teachers working in the panchayat Samithies and Zilla Parishads in g. O. Ms. No. 278, dated 2-6-1983 by way of amendment to the Andhra Pradesh educational Subordinate Service issued in g. O. Ms. No. 78. No. 278, dated 2-6-1983 by way of amendment to the Andhra Pradesh educational Subordinate Service issued in g. O. Ms. No. 78. Therefore, by virtue of the said rules, the conditions of service for teachers working in the Government schools and teachers working in Panchayat samithies and Zilla Parishads came to be governed by one G. O. in the consolidated rules contained in G. O. Ms. No. 278, dated 10-1-1968. However, these two services were kept separately as watertight units for the purpose of appointment, transfer and promotion. Consequent on the 73 amendment of the Constitution in 1992, giving more powers to the local Government agencies, the State brought into effect a comprehensive Legislation Andhra Pradesh panchayat Raj Act, 1994 replacing the andhra Pradesh Mandal Parishads and Zilla parishads Act, 1986 which repealed A. P. Panchayat Samithies and Zilla Parishads Act, 1959. But, however, the amended Act has no effect on the service conditions of the employees. ( 4 ) WHILE so, the Government issued g. O. Ms. No. 40 in supersession of the Rules made in G. O. Ms. No. 278 integrating the service of the teachers working in the government schools as well as the schools in Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samithies into common service, the said Rules were challenged in O. A. No. 3343 of 1992 and batch. But, however, during the course of arguments, it was represented by the learned Additional Advocate-General that there were some discrepancies in the G. O. and Government intends to review the said g. O. and issued separate notification. On the basis of this submission, the O. As. were disposed of. Subsequently, the Government issued revised rules in G. O. Ms. No. 538 education Department dated 20. 11. 1998 governing the service conditions of the teachers included in the A. P. Educational subordinate Service by virtue of the powers under Sections 78 and 99 of A. P. Education act, 1992 and proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India in supersession of g. O. Ms. No. 40, dated 1. 2. 1992. The government have also issued G. O. Ms. No. 505, dated 16. 11. 1998 framing the service conditions of the Gazetted Officers of the andhra Pradesh Education Service in supersession of G. O. Ms. No. 259, dated 9. 2. 1962. No. 40, dated 1. 2. 1992. The government have also issued G. O. Ms. No. 505, dated 16. 11. 1998 framing the service conditions of the Gazetted Officers of the andhra Pradesh Education Service in supersession of G. O. Ms. No. 259, dated 9. 2. 1962. It may be stated that all the posts of Head Masters in the Government School and Zilla Parishads were made Gazetted through G. O. Ms. No. 308, dated 19. 9. 1992 and G. O. Ms. No. 316, dated 19. 9. 1992. These posts have been now included in the andhra Pradesh Educational Service Rules issued in G. O. Ms. No. 505 Education department dated 16. 11. 1998. The aforesaid rules were issued in supersession of sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 78 read with section 99 of Andhra Pradesh Education act. These rules in G. O. Ms. Nos. 538 and 505 came to be challenged in a batch of o. As. before the Tribunal by the Teachers working in Government Schools and their associations. Mandal Educational Officers association also filed O. A. assailing the g. Os. ( 5 ) ELABORATE arguments were made before the Tribunal by the applicants as well as the learned Additional Advocate-General with reference to the Presidential order and also the Education Act and the Panchayat Raj Act. Finally, the Tribunal by an Order dated 14. 5. 2000 upheld the validity of the Rules with certain modifications. The Tribunal passed the following Order:"in the result, we hold that the impugned rules cannot be held to be void on the ground that for issue of the rules the authority which issue the rules invoked statutory powers which could not be exercised for issue of the rules. We also hold that the impugned rules are not illegal or unconstitutional or violative of the presidential Order or Article 243 (G) of the constitution of India and Section 8 of the a. P. Education Act, 1982. However, the rules relating to giving retrospective effect to the rules issued in G. O. Ms. No. 505, dated 18. 11. 1998 from 30. 12. 1996 is arbitrary and hence, it is set aside. However, the rules relating to giving retrospective effect to the rules issued in G. O. Ms. No. 505, dated 18. 11. 1998 from 30. 12. 1996 is arbitrary and hence, it is set aside. In view of our upholding the rules any promotion to the higher categories should be on the basis of combined seniority of teachers working in Government schools and Teachers working in schools under the management of P. R. bodies as provided for in the impugned rules. The applicants who have been appointed as meos/dis/po NFEs when these posts were in the subordinate service are not entitled to be continued in those posts and be given the scale of pay of Rs. 3110-6380 after the posts have been made Gazetted and are included in A. P. Education Service. As by striking down the retrospective effect given to the rules issued in G. O. Ms. No. 505 Education dated 18. 11. 1998, it would not make any difference as regards the relief asked by the applicants. All these O. As. are liable to be dismissed and they are accordingly dismissed. No costs. " ( 6 ) AGAINST the said Order of the tribunal, the present batch of writ petitions have been filed by the applicants. However, g. O. Ms. No. 505 was also challenged by lecturers in D. I. E. T. in O. A. No. 5025 of 1999 and O. A. No. 6271 of 2001 and the tribunal on 7. 12. 2001 struck down Note (1) and 6 of Rule 3 of G. O. Ms. No. 505 dated 16. 11. 1998. But, we are not concerned with this Order. ( 7 ) MR. 5. Ramachander Rao, Senior counsel, Mr. Nooty Ram Mohan Rao, Mr. M. Surender Rao, Mr. J. R. Manohar Rao and Mr. P. V. Krishnaiah have appeared for the petitioners/applicants while the State was represented by the learned Additional advocate General. Mr. M. Jagapathi Rao, and Mr. A. Satya Prasad, Advocates appeared for some of the unofficial respondents. 5. Ramachander Rao, Senior counsel, Mr. Nooty Ram Mohan Rao, Mr. M. Surender Rao, Mr. J. R. Manohar Rao and Mr. P. V. Krishnaiah have appeared for the petitioners/applicants while the State was represented by the learned Additional advocate General. Mr. M. Jagapathi Rao, and Mr. A. Satya Prasad, Advocates appeared for some of the unofficial respondents. ( 8 ) IT is the principal contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the teachers working in the Government schools and teachers working in the schools under zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samithis (for brevity Panchayat Raj Institutions) form distinct category of service with their respective Service Rules framed under the relevant enactments namely Education act and Panchayat Raj Act and therefore, when two services are distinct and different, they cannot be integrated. Therefore, the very integration is illegal and contrary to law. It is also contended that under the presidential Order, local cadre has to be notified within the stipulated time. As far as the local cadre for teachers working in the Government schools is concerned, the same has been notified, but as far as the teachers working in the Panchayat Raj institutions, no local cadres were organised. Further, if any local cadre is required to be notified beyond the stipulated time, the president of India has to notify/express his intention to organise local cadre. As far as the local cadre of the teachers working in the Panchayat Raj Institution, no notification has been issued and therefore, a local cadre service cannot be integrated with the non-local cadre service. It is further stated that even though services of the teachers working in the Panchayat Raj institutions have been provincialised in 1981, it would not have any effect on the service conditions of employees as by that process, they became civil servants and their pay and allowances came to be borne by the State Government and the power to create posts which was with the panchayat Raj institutions became vested with the Government. But, these features would not in any way be construed as constituting local cadre for the teachers working in the Panchayat Raj institutions even assuming that they are civil servants. But, these features would not in any way be construed as constituting local cadre for the teachers working in the Panchayat Raj institutions even assuming that they are civil servants. It is also submitted that when once separate service Rules are framed in respect of the teachers working in the Panchayat raj institutions by virtue of the provisions contained in Panchayat Raj Act, no separate Rules can be made by virtue of the proviso to Rule 309 of the Constitution of india. ( 9 ) THE learned Counsel would also submit that prior to the integration, the government teachers were entitled for promotion in the Government schools from s. G. B. T. or equivalent post or School assistant or equivalent post and thereafter as Head Master/mandal Educational officer and further promotion to Deputy educational Officer. By virtue of the integration of the service of S. G. B. T. teachers working in the Government Schools and panchayat Raj institutions are integrated and promoted as School Assistants and they are further promoted to the post of Head Master/ mandal Educational Officer and from combined seniority list of Head Masters and Mandal Educational Officers, they are now promoted as Deputy Educational officers. Thus, prospects of the Government teachers have become very bleak. Prior to the integration, they were exclusively entitled for promotion to the post of deputy Educational Officers which is now integrated and the Head Masters of panchayat Raj institutions are also being considered with the result, the Government teachers would never get any chance of promotion to the post of Deputy Educational officer. ( 10 ) IT is also submitted by the Counsel representing the Mandal Educational Officers association that the Government teachers are being promoted to the post of School assistant, Head Master and Mandal educational Officer and the post of Head master and Mandal Educational Officer became Gazetted post and they continue to hold the said Gazetted post after promotion. By virtue of the integration of the service, they are sought to be reverted to their original post. Thus, the integration has caused serious prejudice to the service interest of the petitioners holding the post of Mandal educational Officers. ( 11 ) ON the other hand, the learned additional Advocate-General submits that the contentions of the Counsels are purely imaginary. By virtue of the integration of the service, they are sought to be reverted to their original post. Thus, the integration has caused serious prejudice to the service interest of the petitioners holding the post of Mandal educational Officers. ( 11 ) ON the other hand, the learned additional Advocate-General submits that the contentions of the Counsels are purely imaginary. The teachers population in government Schools is very negligible than compared to the strength of the teachers in panchayat Raj institutions and that the association of Panchayat Raj institutions have been representing time and again for provincialisation of service and integration, so as to have better promotional prospective. The Government after considering the same issued G. Os, and consequently amended the rules. Thereafter integrated services by framing rules. Therefore, when substantial number of persons is benefited, microscopic individuals cannot be said to suffer any prejudice. Further, by virtue of the provisions contained in Andhra Pradesh education Act and Mandal Praja Parishad act, it is open for the Government to integrate the services and such a notification cannot be said to be illegal or contrary to law. Submitting his contentions on the presidential Order, the learned Additional advocate-General submits that consequent on the provincialisation of services of teachers in 1981, they became Government servants and therefore, G. O. constituting the local cadre of Government teachers would automatically get attracted as these persons are forming part of teachers in the Government institutions and hence the cadre strength would only be increased to the extent of teachers working in the panchayat Raj institutions and there is no necessity for again constituting a separate cadre. It is only an addition to the existing cadre and thus the learned Additional advocate-General submits that there is no illegality or irregularity nor there is any violation of the Presidential Order. He further submits that post below the Head master level is District level post and therefore, it is always open for the government to integrate the services at district level and thus he submits that the order passed by the Tribunal is quite legal and valid and they are unassailable. Mr. Jagapathi Rao advanced the arguments supporting the learned Additional Advocate-General. ( 12 ) BEFORE we go into intricate legal issues, it is necessary for us to trace the historical background of evolution of the panchayat Raj institutions in the State. Mr. Jagapathi Rao advanced the arguments supporting the learned Additional Advocate-General. ( 12 ) BEFORE we go into intricate legal issues, it is necessary for us to trace the historical background of evolution of the panchayat Raj institutions in the State. It cannot be denied that these institutions of village administration were existing during the Vedic period and also feudal periods. According to the history, the Village panchayat existed during Aryan Civilisation and also Moghal periods. It is also beyond controversy that the Village Panchayats enjoyed fair amount of autonomy in their function. Even during the British regime also, the foreign rulers realised the importance of existence of panchayats and they were allowed to function without any legal interference. ( 13 ) BEFORE the formation of Andhra pradesh State, some parts of the State were under Madras Presidency and Telangana area was under Hyderabad State. As far as the local administration of Andhra area was concerned, the first comprehensive enactment was Madras Local Boards act, 1920 under which Village Panchayats and District Boards were established. In order to make the system more effective and efficient, the Madras Village Panchayats act was enacted in 1950 taking out the scope of Madras Local Boards Act, 1920. Thus, the District Board continued to function under Madras Local Boards act, 1920 and later under Madras Village panchayats Act. As far as Telangana area is concerned, the Gram Panchayats were constituted under Hyderabad Gram panchayat Act, 1956, subsequently after formation of Andhra Pradesh, Andhra pradesh Gram Panchayat Act, 1964 has been enacted repealing Madras Village Panchayat act, 1950 and Hyderabad Gram Panchayat act, 1956. However, in 1959 Andhra Pradesh panchayat Samithies and Zilla Parishads Act was enacted and Panchayat Samithi and zilla Parishads were constituted. It was repealed by A. P. Mandal Praja Parishad and zilla Praja Parishad and Zilla Pranalika abhivrudhi Mandals Act, 1986. Consequent on 73rd constitutional amendment, the said Act was repealed and replaced by a. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. ( 14 ) A. P. Education Act, 1982 came into effect from 18. 7. 1982. All the Educational institutions run by Government, Private institutions and the Institutions under the management and control of local authorities 2003 (6) FRF-34 viz. , Municipalities and Zilla Parishads/ panchayat Samithis were brought under the purview of the said Act. ( 14 ) A. P. Education Act, 1982 came into effect from 18. 7. 1982. All the Educational institutions run by Government, Private institutions and the Institutions under the management and control of local authorities 2003 (6) FRF-34 viz. , Municipalities and Zilla Parishads/ panchayat Samithis were brought under the purview of the said Act. By virtue of the said definition, the Act covers the educational Institutions established/which are being run and maintained by Panchayat raj Institutions apart from other various categories coming under the purview of the A. P. Education Act. Under Section 8 of the Act, every Municipal Corporation or municipal Council is empowered to make a provision for education up to the end of the secondary education stage in the area within its jurisdiction. Under sub-section (2) of Section 8, every Zilla Parishad is entitled to establish, maintain or expand secondary, vocational and industrial schools in the area within its jurisdiction and also undertake the management of such schools taken over by the Government and entrusted to it. Similar provision is also made in respect of Mandala Praja Parishad. Section 8 of the Act reads thus: "establishment, Maintenance etc. , of Schools by Local Authorities:1. Every Municipal Corporation or Municipal council shall make a provision for education up to the end of the secondary education stage in the area within its jurisdiction for all children in the prescribed age group ordinarily resident therein and shall undertake the management of pre primary, primary and secondary education schools taken over by the Government and entrusted to it. 2. Every Zilla Parishad shall establish, maintain or expand secondary, vocational and industrial schools in the area within its jurisdiction and shall undertake the management of such schools taken over by the Government and entrusted to it and shall also be responsible to implement the objectives of secondary education. 3. Every Mandala Praja Parishad shall be responsible to establish and maintain pre-primary and primary schools in the area within its jurisdiction and shall undertake the management of such Government and taken over aided pre-primary and primary Schools as deemed necessary. 4. Every Municipal Corporation, Municipal council, Zilla Parishad or Mandala Praja parishad shall undertake to make provision for, and improvement of, accommodation for schools with people s participation. 4. Every Municipal Corporation, Municipal council, Zilla Parishad or Mandala Praja parishad shall undertake to make provision for, and improvement of, accommodation for schools with people s participation. " ( 15 ) UNDER Section 19, the Educational institutions were classified as follows: a. State Institutions, that is to say, Educational institutions established or maintained and administered by the Government. b. Local authority institutions, that is to say educational Institutions established or maintained and administered by a local authority and c. Private institutions, that is to say, educational Institutions established or maintained and administered by (any body of persons) registered in the manner prescribed. " ( 16 ) UNDER Section 23, the duties of manager of local authority institutions have been specified. It inter alia states that it shall be the Responsibility of the manager of a local authority institution to comply with all the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder. It is also the statutory obligation on the part of the manager to ensure that all monies collected by or granted or allotted to the local authority by or under this Act are expanded for educational purposes. Section 23 reads thus: "duties of Manager of local authority institution:1. It shall be the responsibility of the manager of a local authority institution to comply with all the provisions of this Act and the rules or orders made hereunder. 2. Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, it shall be the duty of the manager of the local authority institution a. to ensure that all monies collected by or granted or allotted to the local authority by or under this Act are expanded for educational purposes, and b. to submit every year before such date and to such authority as may be prescribed an annual report relating to the administration of the local authority institution and an annual budget estimate relating thereto. " ( 17 ) CHAPTER VII relates to Educational funds of local authorities. " ( 17 ) CHAPTER VII relates to Educational funds of local authorities. Under Section 35, there shall be constituted for each local authority an education fund, to which shall be credited an annual contribution from the general funds of such local authority not being less than a minimum fixed by the Government and all the sums granted to such local authority by the government for the purpose of providing educational facilities within its jurisdiction and other amounts as stipulated in sub-clauses (c) to (f ). ( 18 ) THE Government in accordance with Section 40 of the Act releases the budget for the Education fund. The government under Section 42 within the limits of its economic and capacity releases the grant-in-aid to local authority institutions and private institutions in the State, recognized for this purpose. ( 19 ) TAKEOVER of the management of educational Institutions in public interest is stipulated in Section 60 whereunder it is open for the Government in public interest to takeover the management of Educational institutions by giving proper notice. ( 20 ) WITH regard to takeover control and management of schools belonging to local authority, Chapter XII covers the field. Under section 75, the Government may, by notification, and with the prior consent of a local authority, takeover the control and management of any or all primary schools or secondary schools established or maintained and administered by said local authority and that every teacher or other person employed in any of the said schools taken over by the Government, shall be deemed to be an employee of the government and shall hold the office on the same terms and conditions until the terms are duly altered by the Government. However, the employee is given option to be exercised either to be retrenched from service or to be absorbed in the Government service. ( 21 ) SIMILAR provision exists under section 76 enabling the Government to transfer the schools under the control of government to Zilla Parishads and Panchayat samithis and that every teacher or other person employed shall be deemed to be an employee of Zilla Parishad, and shall hold the office on the same terms and conditions until his remuneration, terms and conditions of service are duly altered by the Zilla Parishad. Further, an option is given to such employees to be retrenched from service on receipt of such retrenchment benefits or to be absorbed in Zilla Parishad. ( 22 ) UNDER Section 78, the Government is empowered to issue notification constituting any officer or class of officers or any teacher or class of teachers appointed or deemed to be appointed under this Act into an educational service for the state. ( 23 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the Government shall have powers to make rules to regulate the classification, methods of recruitment, conditions of service, pay and allowances and discipline and conduct of the members of the educational service. The Government may also vest with the jurisdiction in relation to such service in the Government or in such authority or authorities, as may be prescribed. ( 24 ) THEREFORE, from a reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that the educational institutions under the management and control of the Mandal Praja parishads and Zilla Praja Parishads are treated on different par though they are expected to follow the provisions of the act, but yet, their management and control lies in the hands of Mandal Praja Parishads and Zilla Praja Parishads as the case may be. The Government is obliged to release the grant-in-aid to the institutions under the local authorities in accordance with the provisions referred to above. Even when the Government takes over the institutions run by the local authorities or mandal Praja Parishads or Zilla Praja parishads, the teachers and other employees subject to their option become the employees of the Government and vice versa also viz. , in case of Government institutions when taken over by the local authority, the employees of such institutions become the employees of the Zilla Parishads subject to their option. ( 25 ) THEREFORE, a clear cut distinction is being maintained there. The teachers and other employees employed in the Educational institutions maintained and controlled by the Z. P. Ps and M. P. Ps are in a separate slot. ( 26 ) THE question that calls for consideration is whether they were appointed under the provisions of Education Act or deemed to have been appointed under the education Act. ( 27 ) FOR this purpose, it is necessary to refer to the provisions contained in the other enactments viz. ( 26 ) THE question that calls for consideration is whether they were appointed under the provisions of Education Act or deemed to have been appointed under the education Act. ( 27 ) FOR this purpose, it is necessary to refer to the provisions contained in the other enactments viz. , A. P. Panchayat samithis and Zilla Parishads Act, 1959 repealed by A. P. M. P. P, Z. P. P. and Zilla pranalika Abhivrudhi Mandals Act, 1986 and A. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. ( 28 ) THE employees working in the panchayat Raj Institutions viz. , Panchayats, m. P. Ps and Z. P. Ps were appointed by the respective institutions and power is vested to them to create posts and to pay their salary, but however, the Government issued g. O. Ms. No. 168, Panchayat Raj department, dated 29. 3. 1981 wherein the government had ordered that the services of panchayat Raj employees in the State mentioned in the annexure therein be provincialised with immediate effect. In the said annexure, S. No. 18 relates to teachers working in the schools under the control of Panchayat Samithis and Zilla parishads. ( 29 ) CONSEQUENT on the said provincialisation, the Government issued an ordinance to amend 1959 Act treating the employees covered by the provincialisation as civil servants holding civil post under the government and the Rules framed under proviso to Article 309 would apply to them. Consequent on the amendment, further the said Act was repealed by 1986 act (Act No. 31 of 1986 ). Under Section 22 of the said Act, the powers and control of Mandal Parishads have been defined, which read thus:"1. Subject to the provisions of this Act, the administration of the Mandal shall vest in the Mandala Praja Parishad. Every mandala Praja Parishad shall endeavour to instill among the people within its jurisdiction spirit of self help and initiative and harness their enthusiasm for raising the standard of living. Subject to the provisions of this Act, the administration of the Mandal shall vest in the Mandala Praja Parishad. Every mandala Praja Parishad shall endeavour to instill among the people within its jurisdiction spirit of self help and initiative and harness their enthusiasm for raising the standard of living. It shall exercise all the powers conferred on, and perform all the functions entrusted to it by or under this Act, and such other powers and functions as may be conferred on and entrusted to it by the government for carrying out the purposes of this Act, but it shall not exercise the powers or perform the functions expressly assigned by or under this Act, or any other law to its president or to the Mandal Development officer or to the Zilla Praja Parishad or any other authority. It may with the previous approval of the Government and subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed, borrow monies for carrying out the purposes of this Act. It shall also exercise and perform such of the powers and functions of the District Board including the powers to levy any tax or fees as may be transferred to it under this Act. 2. In particular, the Mandala Praja Parishad shall exercise the powers and perform the functions specified in the Schedule. 3. Notwithstanding anything in the A. P. Gram Panchayats Act, 1964, the Mandala praja Parishad may with the prior approval of the Zilla Praja Parishad levey contributions from the funds of the Gram Panchayats in the Mandal. 4. Every Mandala Praja Parishad may levy with the prior sanction of the Government a duty in the form of a surcharge on any tax imposed by a Gram Panchayat or on land cess or local cess levied within its jurisdiction in such manner and subject to such maximum as may be prescribed. " ( 30 ) UNDER Section 30 of the Act, the government is empowered to create posts of officers and other employees as found necessary for carrying out the purpose of the act. However, the appointment to such posts shall be subject to the provisions of a. P. Public Employment (Regulation of age of Superannuation Act, 1984 and such rules as may be made under the proviso to article 309 of the Constitution of India. However, the appointment to such posts shall be subject to the provisions of a. P. Public Employment (Regulation of age of Superannuation Act, 1984 and such rules as may be made under the proviso to article 309 of the Constitution of India. ( 31 ) IT is further stipulated in sub-section (3) that the Government shall pay out of the consolidated fund of the State, the salaries, allowances, etc. , of the officers and other employees of Mandala Praja Parishad. Every holder of the post appointed immediately before the commencement of the Act, the said provision would apply and the post to which the provision will apply. Section 30 is extracted below: "officers and other Employees of Mandal praja Parishad:1. The Government may at any time create such posts of officers as they may consider necessary for carrying out the purposes of this Act. 2. All appointments to the posts created under sub-section (1) and transfer of the holders of such posts shall be made subject to the provisions of the A. P. Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) act, 1984 and such rules as may be made under the proviso to Article 309 of the constitution. 3. The Government shall pay, out of the consolidated funds of the State, the salaries, allowances, leave allowances, pension and contributions, if any, towards the provident fund or pension-cum-provident fund of the officers and other employees of a mandala Praja Parishad who hold any of the posts referred to in sub-section (1 ). 4. The classification and methods of recruitment, conditions of service, pay and allowances and discipline and conduct of the officers and other employees referred to in sub-section (3) shall be regulated in accordance with the provisions of the A. P. Public Employment (Regulation of Age of superannuation) Act, 1984 and such rules as may be made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. 5 (A)EVERY holder of the post in a Mandala praja Parishad specified in clause (b), who is appointed immediately before the commencement of this Act shall, notwithstanding anything in this Act, continues to hold such post, subject to the provisions of the AP. 5 (A)EVERY holder of the post in a Mandala praja Parishad specified in clause (b), who is appointed immediately before the commencement of this Act shall, notwithstanding anything in this Act, continues to hold such post, subject to the provisions of the AP. Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) act, 1984 and such rules as may be made under the proviso to Article 309 of the constitution; and until such provision in that behalf is so made, the law for the time being in force regulating the recruitment and conditions of service applicable to such holder immediately before such commencement, shall continue to apply to such holder. (b) The posts specified for the purpose of this sub-section are the following, viz. , 1. Managers, 2. Superintendents, 3. Senior assistants and Senior Accountants (formerly called as U. D. Cs.) 4. Loan Inspectors, 5. Junior Assistants (formerly called as L. D. Cs.) 6. Junior Accountants, 7. Seed Store Clerks, 8. Typists, 9. Steno typists, 10. Record assistants, 11. Laboratory Attenders, 12. Library Attenders, 13. Librarians, 14. Daffedars, 15. Attenders, 16. Drivers, 17. Medical Officers in Local Fund dispensaries and the staff attached to them, 18. Teachers working in the schools under the control of Mandala Praja Parishad. 6. The Government may, from time to time by order give such directions to any Mandala praja Parishad or any officer, authority, or person thereof as may appear to them to be necessary for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of this section and the mandal Development Officer, authority or person shall comply with all such directions. " ( 32 ) SIMILAR provision was made in respect of Zilla Parishads in Section 56 and with regard to the other officers and employees of the Zilla Parishads, Section 60 is the relevant provision, which reads thus: officers and other Employees of the parishad:1. The Government may at any time, create such posts of officers and other employees of a Z. P. and they may consider necessary for carrying out the purposes of this Act. 2. All appointments to the posts created under sub-section (1) and transfer of the holders of such posts shall be made, subject to the provisions of the A. P. Public employment (Regulation of Age of superannuation) Act, 1984 and such rules as may be made under the proviso to article 309 of the Constitution. 3. 2. All appointments to the posts created under sub-section (1) and transfer of the holders of such posts shall be made, subject to the provisions of the A. P. Public employment (Regulation of Age of superannuation) Act, 1984 and such rules as may be made under the proviso to article 309 of the Constitution. 3. The Government shall pay, out of the consolidated fund of the State, the salaries, allowances, leave allowances, pension and contributions, if any towards the provident fund or pension cum provident fund of the officers and other employees of a parishad, who hold any of, the posts referred to in sub-section (1 ). 4. The classification and methods recruitment, conditions of service, pay and allowances and discipline and conduct of the officer and other employees referred to in sub-section (1) shall be regulated in accordance with the provisions of the A. P. Public employment (Regulation of Age of superannuation) Act, 1984 and such rules as may be made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. 5. (a) Every holder of the posts in a Parishad specified in clause (b) who is appointed immediately before the commencement of this Act shall, notwithstanding anything in this Act, continue to hold such posts, subject to the provisions of the A. P. Public employment (Regulation of Age of superannuation) Act, 1984 and such rules as may be made under the proviso to article 309 of the Constitution, and until provision in that behalf is so made the law for the time being in force regulating the recruitment and conditions of service applicable to such holder immediately before such commencement, shall continue to apply to such holder (b) The. posts specified for the purposes of this sub-section are the following viz. , 1. Managers, 2. Superintendents, 3. Senior assistants and Senior Accountants (formerly called as U. D. Cs.) 4. Loans Inspectors, 5. Junior Assistants (formerly called as L. D. Cs.) 6. Junior Accountants, 7. Seed Store Clerks, 8. Typists, 9. Steno typists, 10. Record assistants, 11. Laboratory Attenders, 12. Library Attenders, 13. Librarians, 14. Daffedars, 15. Attenders, 16. Drivers, 17. Medical Officers in local Fund Dispensaries and the staff attached to them, 18. Teachers working in the schools under the control of parishad. 6. Junior Accountants, 7. Seed Store Clerks, 8. Typists, 9. Steno typists, 10. Record assistants, 11. Laboratory Attenders, 12. Library Attenders, 13. Librarians, 14. Daffedars, 15. Attenders, 16. Drivers, 17. Medical Officers in local Fund Dispensaries and the staff attached to them, 18. Teachers working in the schools under the control of parishad. 6. The Government may from time to time by order give such directions to any Parishad or any officer, authority or person thereof, as may appear to them to be necessary for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of this section; and the Parishad, officer, authority or person shall comply with all such directions. " ( 33 ) BY virtue of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that the Government is empowered to create posts and also pay the salaries and other benefits to the staff out of the consolidated fund of the State. The government was also empowered to frame rules with regard to the method of recruitment and condition of services by virtue of the proviso to Article, 309 of the constitution of India. ( 34 ) UNDER Schedule n, the powers and functions of the Mandala Praja Parishad with reference to the subjects, is stipulated and item 5 relates to education, which relates to maintenance and expansion of elementary and basic schools. ( 35 ) THUS, the establishment and maintenance of the elementary schools and the secondary schools, is the responsibility of the Mandala Praja Parishad and Zilla parishad, as the case may be. ( 36 ) IN the meanwhile, the Parliament has amended the Constitution in 73rd constitution Amendment Act, which is the outcome of Article 243 of the Constitution of India. It is also to be noted in this regard that under Article 40 of the constitution of India, the State shall take steps to organize the village panchayats and endow them of such powers and authority, as may be necessary to enable them to function as units of self Government. The reasons which prompted the Parliament to amend and add Part-IX and IX-A are traced supra. The reasons which prompted the Parliament to amend and add Part-IX and IX-A are traced supra. ( 37 ) THE functioning of the Panchayat raj Institutions was not up to the desired level and in order to make Article 40 of the Constitution more affective, it was considered that there is an imperacive need to enshrine in the Constitution certain basic and essential features of Panchayat Raj institutions to impart certainty, continuity and strength to them. Therefore, a new part was added by way of Constitution 73 Amendment Act providing inter alia devolution by State Legislature all powers and responsibilities upon the panchayats subsisting for preparation of plans for economic development and social justice and for implementation of developmental schemes and sound financing of the panchayats by securing authorization from state Legislatures for grant-in-aid to panchayats from the consolidated fund of the State. Under Article 243g of the constitution, the powers, authority and responsibilities of the panchayat are stipulated. It reads thus:"subject to the provisions of the Constitution, the Legislature of a State may, by law, endow the panchayats with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as institutions of self Government and such law may contain provisions for the devolution of powers and responsibilities upon pancnayats at the appropriate level, subject to such conditions as may be specified therein, with respect to a. the preparation of plans for economic development and social justice 2. the implementation of schemes for economic development and social justice as may be entrusted to them including those in relation to the matters listed in the eleventh schedule. " ( 38 ) UNDER Part IX, Articles 243 and 243 (o) relating to Panchayat Raj institutions was inserted in Constitution 73 Amendment act, 1992. Similarly under Part IX-A, articles 243p to 243z were inserted by constitution 74 Amendment Act. But, however, we are concerned with Part IX relating to Panchayats. ( 39 ) IN eleventh schedule, Item 17 relates to education including primary and secondary schools. Therefore, by virtue of article 243 G read with item 17, it is incumbent upon the panchayats which include intermediate and District levels, to undertake responsibilities for the implementation of the schemes more especially in relation to matters listed in eleventh schedule i. e. , one such item of education including primary and secondary schools. Therefore, by virtue of article 243 G read with item 17, it is incumbent upon the panchayats which include intermediate and District levels, to undertake responsibilities for the implementation of the schemes more especially in relation to matters listed in eleventh schedule i. e. , one such item of education including primary and secondary schools. In consonance with the said provisions, the State has brought into effect the A. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. The constitution amendment has given certain broad guidelines in regard to the Constitution composition and powers and functions of three-tier Panchayat Raj set up at the village level. It contemplates a Gram Panchayat and at intermediate level, Mandal and at district level Zilla Panchayat. ( 40 ) UNDER Section 46 of the A. P. Panchayat Raj Act 1994, subject to the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder, a Gram Panchayat is empowered to make such provisions in respect of development of the village. No rules are made thereunder. The Gram Panchayat may also make such provisions, to carry out the requirement of the village in respect of the following items among other things:- promotion and development of pre- primary education, elementary education, social and health education, cottage industries and trade. ( 41 ) SECTION 161 contains the powers and functions of the Mandal Parishad, which are extracted below:"subject to the provisions of the Act, the administration of the Mandal shall vest in the Mandal Parishad. Every Mandal parishad shall endeavour to instill among the people with its jurisdiction spirit of self help and initiative and harness their enthusiasm for raising the standard of living, it shall exercise all the powers conferred, and perform all the functions entrusted to it by or under this Act, and such other powers and functions as may be conferred on, and entrusted to it by the government for carrying out the purposes of this Act, but it shall not exercise the powers or perform the functions expressly assigned by or under this Act, or any other law to its President or to the Mandal parishad Development Officer or to the Zilla parishad or any other authority, it shall do extension and review functions at the Mandal level effectively. It may, with the previous approval of the Government and subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed borrow moneys for carrying out the purposes of this Act. It may, with the previous approval of the Government and subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed borrow moneys for carrying out the purposes of this Act. It shall also exercise and perform such of the powers and functions of the District Board including the powers to levy any tax or fees as may be transferred to it under this Act. 2. Every Mandal Parishad shall exercise such powers and perform such functions as may be entrusted to it by rules made in this behalf in regard to the subjects enumerated in Schedule-I. In particular, the mandal Parishad shall exercise the powers and perform the functions specified in schedule-II. 3. Notwithstanding anything in this Act, the mandal Parishad may with the prior approval of the Zilla Parishad levy contributions from the funds of the Gram Panchayats in the mandal. 4. Every Mandal Parishad may levy with the prior sanction of the Government a duty in the form of a surcharge on any tax imposed by a Gram Panchayat or on land cess or local cess levied within its jurisdiction in such manner and subject to such maximum as may be prescribed. " ( 42 ) SO also the powers and functions of Zilla Parishad, are contained in section 192. As per the said provision, the zilla Parishad shall exercise such powers and perform such functions as may be entrusted to it by rules made in this behalf with regard to the subjects enumerated in the Schedule-I. It shall also have the power to, among others, to establish, maintain and expand secondary, vocational and industrial schools. Under Schedule-I, item 17 relates to education including primary and secondary schools. ( 43 ) THEREFORE, by virtue of these provisions, even under Schedule-II relating to Mandal Parishad, item 5 relates to education. Thus, it is noticed that in order to make the Panchayat Raj institutions an effective and efficient local self Government, various powers have been conferred. Imparting of education and maintenance of schools both elementary and secondary, is one such function among them. ( 44 ) IT is contended on behalf of the government that the services of the teachers in the educational institutions maintained by the Panchayat Raj institutions are provincialised and all the employees including the teachers are civil servants, and, therefore they became the Government servants consequent on the provincialisation. ( 44 ) IT is contended on behalf of the government that the services of the teachers in the educational institutions maintained by the Panchayat Raj institutions are provincialised and all the employees including the teachers are civil servants, and, therefore they became the Government servants consequent on the provincialisation. According, the Government is entitled to frame the service conditions of the employees. There is no dispute about this proposition that the Government is empowered to frame the service conditions, recruitment rules etc. In fact Section 36 of panchayat Raj Act is the provision, under which the Government is entitled to frame rules ( 48 ) THE Government issued G. O. Ms. No. 78 (General Administration) Department, dated 10. 1. 1962 making the special rules for A. P. Educational Subordinate Service rules by virtue of the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The said subordinate services consist of various classes of categories and grades of officers of education Department. Thus, they were confined to the employees in the Education department Consequent on the provincialisation of the services of the employees including teachers in Panchayat Raj Department in g. O. Ms. No. 168, Panchayat Raj (Establishment-III) Department, dated 20. 3. 1981, the Government issued G. O. Ms. No. 278, Education (B), dated 20. 6. 1983. As per the preamble of the said G. O. , the government have provincialised the services of the teachers working in the panchayat Samithis and Zilla Parishads. The Government have examined the issue of rules under the proviso to 309 of the Constitution of India gov erning the conditions of service of teachers and decide to adopt the A. P. Educational Subordinate service Rules and to keep them as separate unit for the purpose of appointment etc. , under the above rules. ( 49 ) PART-I deals with the conditions of service of categories of persons in the education Department covered by G. O. Ms. No. 78 and Part -II deals with the conditions of service of categories of teachers in Panchayat Samithis and Zilla parishads. , under the above rules. ( 49 ) PART-I deals with the conditions of service of categories of persons in the education Department covered by G. O. Ms. No. 78 and Part -II deals with the conditions of service of categories of teachers in Panchayat Samithis and Zilla parishads. ( 50 ) THEREFORE, by virtue of exercising power conferred under the proviso to article 309 of the Constitution of India read with sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 26 and sub-sections (3) and (4) of Sections 51 and 69 of A. P. Panchayat Samithis and Zilla parishads Act, 1959, rules were framed amending the A. P. Educational Subordinate service Rules with effect from 20. 3. 1981. Part I is the A. P. Educational Subordinate service Rules in respect of teachers in government Education Department as contained in G. O. Ms. No. 78, dated 1. 10. 1962. Part E is an addition, which contains the rules relating to teachers in panchayat Raj Institutions. ( 51 ) THUS, the teachers in Education department and Panchayat Raj institutions were being treated separately for the purpose of appointment, promotion etc. ,even under the rules in G. O. Ms. No. 278. While so, the government issued G. O. Ms. No. 40, education (Services II) Department, dated 7. 2. 1992 framing special rules in supersession of rules issued in G. O. Ms. No. 78 and 278, called Special rules for the A. P. School educational Subordinate Service. The said rules were applied to Government as well as Panchayat Raj institutions. The said rules were challenged in O. A. No. 3343 of 1992 and Batch. However, during the course of arguments, the learned Additional-Advocate General conceded that G. O. Ms. No. 40, dated 7. 2. 1992 in the present form is defective on several aspects and implementation of the same as it stands, is not at all possible. It is stated before the tribunal that it will not be implemented without rectification of the defects, deficiencies and lacunae. ( 52 ) UNDER these circumstances, O. As. were disposed of with the following directions:1. The Government shall identify and take all necessary corrective measures in the rules framed under G. O. Ms. No. 40, dated 7. 2. 1992. 2. This exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and in any event before the end of February, 1998. 3. ( 52 ) UNDER these circumstances, O. As. were disposed of with the following directions:1. The Government shall identify and take all necessary corrective measures in the rules framed under G. O. Ms. No. 40, dated 7. 2. 1992. 2. This exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and in any event before the end of February, 1998. 3. Any benefit conferred on any one, basing on the provisions of G. O. Ms. No. 40, dated 7. 2. 1992 as of today, shall be treated as ad hoc only and it shall not confer any rights for further benefits. 4. Hereafter, the Rules framed under G. O. Ms. No. 40, dated 7. 2. 1992 shall not be noted upon in any manner by the government till the end of February, 1998 or till the rules are framed afresh, and5. All the parties can work out their remedies in accordance with the law after the government completes the exercise of correcting the defects in the Rules framed under G. O. Ms. No. 40, dated 7. 2. 1992. " ( 53 ) THEREAFTER, the Government issued g. O. Ms. No. 505, Education (Services-I), 16. 11. 1998 constituting A. P. Educational service Rules and another G. O. Ms. No. 538, education (Services-II), dated 20. 11. 1998, constituting Special Rule for the A. P. School educational Subordinate Service. ( 54 ) THE rules framed in A. P. School education Services were made applicable to teachers working in Government and panchayat Raj institutions. The said G. O. came to be challenged by the Government teachers' and also Mandal Education officers' Association. ( 55 ) THE Tribunal dismissed the applications filed by the petitioners with certain modifications by an order dated 4. 5. 2000 extracted supra. Against the said order, the present writ petitions are filed. ( 56 ) IT is the contention of the petitioners that the Tribunal having accepted that the government has no power to frame the rules under Section 78 of the Education act, erroneously held that the rules can be issued under proviso to Article 309 of the constitution of India. It is also submitted that when once rules were already framed under relevant statutory provisions, there is no necessity for framing another set of rules. It is also submitted that when once rules were already framed under relevant statutory provisions, there is no necessity for framing another set of rules. But, the another contention is sought to be made that the distinction between the schools run by the Government and the schools run and maintained by the Panchayat raj institutions, is always maintained at all levels, so as to keep the status of the pancha/at Raj institutions as local self-Governments. By virtue of the impugned notifications, the Government sought to integrate the service rules of the teachers both in Government and Panchayat Raj institutions, which would go against the spirit of Article 243 of the Constitution of India. In guise of causing devolution of powers on the local self-Governments, the Government cannot take away the existing powers to manage and maintain the educational institutions at their level. ( 57 ) IT is also contention that the impugned G. Os. are in violation, of provisions of Presidential Order, and, therefore, they are invalid and ineffective. ( 58 ) THE learned Additional Advocate general, however, submits that when the employees of Panchayat Raj institutions are declared as civil servants having provincialised, they automatically become the Government servants. Therefore, the government is entitled to frame the rules in respect of their service conditions. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal is quite legal and valid and the same cannot be assailed. ( 59 ) THE aforesaid enumeration of events right from inception of Panchayat raj institutions, would clearly indicate that the educational institutions upto secondary school level under the Panchayat raj institutions viz. , Panchayats, Mandal parishads and Zilla Parishads are being run and maintained by them exclusively. Prior to provincialisation, the Government used to pay grant-in-aid to those institutions, but after the provincialisation, the expenditure is met from the consolidated fund of the State. In this process, the employees including teachers became the civil servants. But, can it be said that they come within the control of the Panchayat raj institutions? ( 60 ) REFERRING to the judgment in mathuradas v. S. D. Munshaw, AIR 1981 sc 53 . It is also sought to be contended by the learned Additional Advocate-General that when once provincialisation has taken place, they fall under the Government service and the Government can integrate the services in any manner, it likes. ( 60 ) REFERRING to the judgment in mathuradas v. S. D. Munshaw, AIR 1981 sc 53 . It is also sought to be contended by the learned Additional Advocate-General that when once provincialisation has taken place, they fall under the Government service and the Government can integrate the services in any manner, it likes. The Supreme Court in that case observed:"the true test for determination of the question whether a person is holding a civil post or is a member of the civil service is the existence of a relationship of master and servant between the State and the person holding a post under it and that the existence of such relationship is dependent upon the right of the State to select and appoint the holder of the post, its right to suspend and dismiss him, its right to control the manner and method of his doing the work and the payment by it of his wage and remuneration. It further held that the relationship of master and servant may be established by the presence of all or some of the factors referred to above in conjunction with other circumstances. " ( 61 ) THE Supreme Court observed that the Panchayat services constituted Under the Panchayat Act is Civil services of the state. But there is no dispute about the proposition. In the instant case, the services of the teachers were provincialised by statutory rules and they were also treated as civil servants under the State. But the question is as to whether the Government can frame rules applicable to both the service teachers in Government institutions and in the Panchayat Raj institutions. Hence this decision is of any assistance to the state. ( 62 ) THE Government having realized that the services of the employees and teachers have been provincialised, and to maintain their power and function on par with the local self Government, separate rules, accordingly issued G. O. Ms. No. 278, education (B), dated 20. 6. 1983 containing two independent parts viz. , Rules regulating the service conditions of the teachers in government schools and the rules regulating the service conditions of teachers in panchayat Raj institutions. The reasons are obvious that the control and management are in different bodies. No. 278, education (B), dated 20. 6. 1983 containing two independent parts viz. , Rules regulating the service conditions of the teachers in government schools and the rules regulating the service conditions of teachers in panchayat Raj institutions. The reasons are obvious that the control and management are in different bodies. While the control of the Government schools lies with the government, the control of the schools under the Panchayat Raj institutions lies with the Mandal Praja Parishads and Zilla parishads. ( 63 ) IN fact, the representatives of the teachers' organizations, consequent on the provicialisation of services of Panchayat raj employees, requested the Government to bring amendments to service rules, so that the services of Government teachers and Panchayat Raj teachers are regulated and promotions will be affected in a single unit in a smooth way of its domain. On this demand, a sub-committee was constituted and it has made certain recommendations. On the said representations, discussions took place between the Principal Secretary to government, Education Department, secretary, Panchayat Raj Department and the representatives of State Teachers association, regard to fixation of seniority between Government and Panchayat Raj teachers. The Government directed that the promotional avenues now open to the government Teachers shall be thrown open to the Panchayat Raj Teachers by amending the relevant Special/ad hoc rules with retrospective effect from the date of provincialisation i. e. , 20. 3. 1981 and the promotions shall be made on the basis of separate seniority lists maintained for Panchayat Raj teaching staff and government teaching staff including headmasters in accordance with the ratio to be fixed on the basis of numerical strength of the teachers/headmasters. Accordingly, the Government issued G. O. Ms. No. 436, education (Services III-I), Department, dated 4. 10. 1985. The following is the relevant extract:"subsequently, the representatives of the teacher Organisations requested to bring amendments to the relevant rules so that the services of the Government teachers and panchayat Raj teachers are regulated and promotions effected in a single unit in a smooth way. Hence, a Sub-Committee was constituted in the G. O. third read above to consider the issues in detail and to make recommendations. The Sub-Committee made certain recommendations. These recommendations were discussed by the principal Secretary to Government, Education department, Secretary, Panchayat Raj department with the representatives of the fapto and State Teachers Union in a meeting called for the purpose. Hence, a Sub-Committee was constituted in the G. O. third read above to consider the issues in detail and to make recommendations. The Sub-Committee made certain recommendations. These recommendations were discussed by the principal Secretary to Government, Education department, Secretary, Panchayat Raj department with the representatives of the fapto and State Teachers Union in a meeting called for the purpose. Orders regarding various issues have been issued separately. In regard to fixation of seniority between Government and Panchayat Raj teachers, the Government direct that the promotional avenues now open to the government Teachers shall be thrown open to the Panchayat Raj Teachers by amending the relevant Special, Ad hioc Rules with retrospective effect from the date of provincialisation i. e. , 20. 3. 1981 and promotions shall be made on the basis of separate seniority lists maintained for panchayat Raj teaching staff and Government teaching staff including Headmasters in accordance with the ratio to be fixed on the basis of numerical strength of the Teachers/ headmasters. " ( 64 ) THE result of the aforesaid G. O. was the issuance of G. O. Ms. No. 40, education (Services-II), Department, dated 7. 2. 1992. But, however, that was rescinded and the impugned G. Os. were issued. ( 65 ) AS far as G. O. Ms. No. 505, education (Services-I) Department, dated 16. 11. 1998 is concerned, it only relates to the gazetted cadre right from the post of Directors to the Lecturers. As far as class IV of Category I is concerned, the posts of Gazetted Headmasters/headmistress grade n of Government High School/zilla parishad High School, Mandal Education officer, Deputy Inspector of Schools and project 'officer (NFE) are included. These posts ofheadmasters/headmistresses came to be included in the said category as they were declared as gazetted posts. However, the question as to whether the inclusion of these posts in the aforesaid g. O. is justified will be considered at a subsequent stage. ( 66 ) BUT, the principal hurdle is created with regard to G. O. Ms. No. 538, education (Services-II) Department, dated 20. 11. 1998. As can be seen from the applicability of the said G. O. , it was made applicable to teachers working in government as well as Panchayat Raj institutions. It is not an amalgamation of services of teachers working in both the institutions. But, however, the rules were framed as if they amalgamated both the services. 11. 1998. As can be seen from the applicability of the said G. O. , it was made applicable to teachers working in government as well as Panchayat Raj institutions. It is not an amalgamation of services of teachers working in both the institutions. But, however, the rules were framed as if they amalgamated both the services. By this process, the rules containing in Parts I and n in G. O. Ms. No. 278 were sought to be amalgamated and clubbed. ( 67 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in State of punjab v. Joginder Singh, AIR 1963 sc 913 . In the said case, by an Executive order dated 27-9-1957, the schools run by municipal 3oard and District Board in the Ambala and Jullundur divisions were taken over by the Education Department of the Punjab Government with effect from 1-10-1957 and on account of which, the teachers employed in these schools became state employees. This order also stated generally that the junior teachers employed in Local Body Schools which were being "provincialised" would be given "the same grades of pay and other allowances as were given to their counter parts in Government employment. The teachers in the State employment were governed by the Punjab educational Service Class HI School Cadre rules, 1955. The rules inter alia prescribed qualification for appointment, conditions of service, recruitment authority, seniority inter se etc. The cadre of junior teachers were split into three categories (a) Headmasters, (b) Teachers in middle scales and (c) lower scales. 15% of the posts of Junior teachers were present in middle scale and balance of 85% in the last scale. Consequent on the takeover of the District Board schools and Provincialisation, these teachers also were given the same benefit as that of their counter parts of Government schools. The Government of Punjab was considering whether to amalgamate the provincialised teachers with Government teachers and if so, the affect and process of amalgamation. However, on 27. 1. 1960, a decision was taken to keep the cadres viz. , provincialised teachers and Government teachers to be kept separate and distinct and the principles were formulated according to which promotion into two cadres from the lower to middle grade, were to be determined. The said decision was challenged by one of the provincialised teachers, Joginder singh. 1. 1960, a decision was taken to keep the cadres viz. , provincialised teachers and Government teachers to be kept separate and distinct and the principles were formulated according to which promotion into two cadres from the lower to middle grade, were to be determined. The said decision was challenged by one of the provincialised teachers, Joginder singh. During the pendency of the writ, the government promulgated rules on 13. 2. 1961 called "the Pubjab Educational Service (Provincialised Cadre) Class III Rules giving them retrospective effect from 1. 10. 1957. Therefore, by amending the prayer, the rules came to be challenged. The effect of the rules was:" (1) the provincialised teachers were treated as falling under a cadre separate and distinct from the teachers in the State cadre and (2) though the proportion of the lower grade teachers who would be promoted to higher grade was the same in both the cadres, it operated differently as regard the members in the two cadres. This was due to the fact that the Government decided that the provincialised teachers were to be a diminishing class to become extinct in course of time, whereas a number equivalent to that which the provincial cadre lost by promotion, death or retirement was to be added to the State cadre. Under this scheme, a member of a State Cadre stood a better chance of promotion than did a teacher belonging to the provincialised cadre. It was contended that the Executive order dated 27. 9. 1957 completely integrated the two cadres and that the Punjab Educational service (Provincialised Cadre), Class III rules, 1961, brought about a division in the united or unified service by creating the two new cadres with differences between the members of the service based on no intelligible differentia which was violative of Article 14 and as the same adversely affected the chances of promotion of the provincialised cadre vis-a-vis the State cadre, they infringed Article 16 (1) of the constitution of India. "it was held by Majority:"by the order dated 27-9-1957 which came into effect from 1-10-1957 teachers in the erstwhile Board schools became employees of Government and were given the same scales and grades of pay as were applicable to their counter parts in the State cadre, but except this equality of grade and pay there was nothing more that was contemplated or provided for by that order. There was no integration of two cadres either expressly or by necessary implication. It would follow that it was not the Punjab Educational service (Provincialised Cadre) Class III rules that created the two distinct cadres but that they existed independently of the rules. "the Supreme Court further held that:"the two services started as independent services. The qualifications prescribed for entry into each were different, the method of recruitment and the machinery for the same were also different and the general qualifications possessed by and large by the members of each class being different, they started as two distinct classes. If they were distinct services, there was no question of inter-se seniority between members of the two services, nor of any comparison between the two in the matter of promotion for founding an argument based upon Article 14 or Article 16 (1 ). They started dissimilarly and they continued dissimilarly and any dissimilarity in their treatment would not be a denial of equal opportunity. "it was further observed that:"it cannot be contended that the State cannot constitute two Services consisting of employees doing the same work but with different scales of pay or subject to different conditions of service. Constitution of such services is not violative of article 14. The proposition that Article 14 requires that equal work must receive equal pay or that if there is equality in pay and work there have to be equal conditions of service is untenable. " ( 68 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners would contend that the government teachers and Panchayat Raj teachers always constituted separate and distinct cadres. Though the pay scales and service conditions were similar, they were appointed by different authorities and they were under the control of Panchayat raj bodies and even in G. O. Ms. No. 278, the service rules were separately ' made. Therefore, integrating the different and distinct services was illegal and violative of articles 14 and 16 of the. Constitution of india. ( 69 ) IN a second round of litigation in r. L. Wadhwa v. State of Haryana, AIR 1972 SC 1982 , when the Punjab Educational service (Provincialised Cadre) Class III Rules 1961, were challenged, the Supreme Court held as follows:"prior to October 1, 1957 the two categories of teachers, those serving in the Local Bodies schools and those in Government schools were distinct. At no time after October 1, 1957 any decision for integrating the two categories of teachers was taken although after October 1, 1957 new teachers were appointed and posted in both the provincialised as well as Government schools who carried out the same duties and were given the same scales of pay as the provincialised teachers. But such new teachers had to be deemed to have been appointed in the State cadre by reason of the two principles decided upon by Government (I) the diminishing character of the provincialised cadre, and (ii) that cadre having been frozen from even before October 1, 1957. The government schools teachers and those appointed after October 1, 1957 were governed by Punjab Educational Class III rules (1955) while the provincialised teachers continued to be presumably governed by the district Board's Rules until new rules were framed in 1961, for them by Government. The two cadres thus being separate government was not bound to bring about an integrated cadre especially in view of its decision of making the provincialised cadre a diminishing one and bringing about ultimately through that principle one cadre only in the field in a phased manner. If through historical reasons the teachers had remained in two separate categories, the classification of the provincialised teachers into a separate cadre in the 1961 Rules could not be said to infringe Article 14 or article 16. It was also not incumbent on the government to frame the 1961 Rules uniformly applicable to both the categories of teachers, firstly, because a rule framing authority need not legislate for all the categories and can select for which category to legislate, and secondly, because it had already come to a decision of gradually diminishing the provincialised cadre so that ultimately only the State cadre would remain in the service. It could not also be disputed that Government had the power to make rules with retrospective effect (from 1 October, 1957) and therefore, could provide therein that appointments made between October 1, 1957 and February 13, 1961 shall be treated as appointments in the state cadre. That had to be done for the simple reason that the provincialised cadre was already frozen even before October 1, 1957 and Government had decided not to make fresh appointments in that cadre since that cadre was to be a diminishing one. That had to be done for the simple reason that the provincialised cadre was already frozen even before October 1, 1957 and Government had decided not to make fresh appointments in that cadre since that cadre was to be a diminishing one. The two services thus being separate both before and after provincialisation and there being no complaint about dissimilar or arbitrary treatment among members of the provincialised cadre, no infringement of either of the two Articles 14 and 16 was involve. The Supreme Court relied on AIR 1955 SC 166 , AIR 1961 SC 21 , AIR 1972 SC 845 and further held that majority decision in state of Punjab v. Joginder Singh, AIR 1963 sc 913 needed no reconsideration. " ( 70 ) FROM the aforesaid decisions, it is clear that when the rules are framed in respect of service conditions of the employees by virtue of rule making power under the relevant enactment, no rules can be framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Admittedly, separate set of rules are made applicable to the teachers in the Education Department and also teachers in the Panchayat Raj institutions. The source of appointment was different. Recruitment procedure was duly prescribed and the appointment authority is duly stipulated and even after the provincialisation also, their services were treated duly under G. O. Ms. No. 278. Even though the services are provincialised and the pay scales and other benefits as enjoyed by the Government teachers, is equally made applicable to the teachers in Panchayat raj institutions, yet, they continue to stand on a different footing, as already stated, the protection of autonomy of Panchayat raj institutions, which aimed at achieving the status of local self-Government. Therefore, by provincialisation of services, it would not create any difference. As far as their status is concerned, they cannot be treated as absorbed teachers in Government service. ( 71 ) IN the Education Act as already extracted above, if a institution under the control of Government, is to be transferred to the Panchayat Raj institutions or vice versa, the procedure as prescribed in the Act has to be allowed. It is not the case of the Government that the schools under the control of the Panchayat Raj institutions were taken over by the government and that the teachers working in the Panchayat Raj are absorbed in the government schools. It is not the case of the Government that the schools under the control of the Panchayat Raj institutions were taken over by the government and that the teachers working in the Panchayat Raj are absorbed in the government schools. In such a situation, carving out any rules making applicable to both the type of employees viz. , Government teachers and Panchayat Teachers, is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of india. Since the field in respect of service conditions of Teachers, was already occupied by the rules framed in G. O. Ms. No. 278, the government has no power to again frame the rules under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and also under the provisions of A. P. Education Act. In fact, the Tribunal itself found fault with the framing of rules under the provisions of the Education Act. Thus, on this ground also, G. O. Ms. No. 538 is not sustainable in law and accordingly, it is liable to be set aside. ( 72 ) WE also notice another flaw in the order passed by the Government. Though the learned Additional Advocate-General contends that it is integration of the services of the teachers working in Government schools and also Panchayat Raj institutions, but the G. O. does not spell out any integration obviously for the reasons referred to above. It is only specifically says that these rules apply to the teachers in Panchayat raj institutions and the Government schools. Therefore, they are applied independently to the teachers working in Panchayat schools and teachers working in Government schools. Under these circumstances and in the absence of specific notification issued by the Government under the proper statute, the integration cannot be inferred. Therefore, on this ground also, G. O. is not sustainable and accordingly, liable to be set aside. ( 73 ) THE learned Additional Advocate-General relies upon the judgment reported in T. N. Teachers Association v. Association of the Heads of the Government, JT 1998 (3) SC 590. It was a case where the erstwhile district Board schools were treated as government schools. Consequently, the teaching and non-staff in District Board schools were integrated with Government staff, but, however the above staff of District board was governed by separate service rules called, T. N. Educational Subordinate service with A and B Wings. It was a case where the erstwhile district Board schools were treated as government schools. Consequently, the teaching and non-staff in District Board schools were integrated with Government staff, but, however the above staff of District board was governed by separate service rules called, T. N. Educational Subordinate service with A and B Wings. The teachers in Regular Government schools were treated as A-wing and the teachers in erstwhile District Board were treated as b-wing. They were absorbed with effect from 1. 4. 1970. By G. O. Ms. No. 1968, the staff of A and B wings were integrated. Such an integration was upheld by the supreme Court on 23. 10. 1979. But, before that rules were framed, Rule 2a amended by G. O. Ms. No. 98, dated 21. 1. 1981, on challenge it was quashed by the High Court and approved by the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, various G. Os. were issued amending T. N. School Educational subordinate Services Rules to give effect to judgment of the High Court. Separate seniority list for A and B Wings were directed to be prepared. However, the rule regulating the seniority between A wing and b wing was amended by G. O. Ms. No. 98, dated 21. 1. 1981 under which the combined seniority of A and B wing was directed to be prepared as on 1. 11. 1978 instead of 31. 3. 1970. This rule had adversely affected b wing teachers and they challenged the same. The learned Single Judge dismissed the W. P. However, the Division Bench set aside the G. O. in appeal and the S. L. P. was also dismissed. The Supreme Court held as follows:"the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants to support the change brought about in the date of integration from 1-4-1970 to 2-11-1978 and the reasons given therefor are either overruled already in the two rounds of litigation or they are too technical. The submission that the mandamus issued by the madras High Court was a futile one as the rule struck down by it was not there on the statutory book when the judgment was rendered, cannot be taken note of as the government, accepting the decision of the madras High Court as upheld by this Court, had issued the G. Os. impugned in these cases. impugned in these cases. Further, the Madras High Court, apart from holding the G. O. 98 as illegal and void, also settled other contentious issues like the date of integration between the parties. The High Court further commanded the State to re-draw the seniority list as originally contemplated by G. O. 1968. That being the position, it is too late in the day to contend that the judgment of the Madras - High Court, as upheld by this Court, has to be totally ignored. Mr. P. P. Rao, the learned senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, was right in placing reliance on a judgment of this Court in M. M. Pathak's case ( AIR 1969 SC 504 ) (supra) and in making the submisssion that the right to combine seniority list as well as the promotional opportunities provided in G. O. 1968 became crystallised in the said writ of mandamus issued by the Madras High Court as upheld by this Court and the same could not be taken away by resorting to the rule-making 2003 (6) FR-F-35 power of the State Government. At the risk of repetition, we point out that the government after the judgment of this Court upholding G. O. 1968, expressed that there was no better possible alternative to the problem than the integration order affirmed by this Court. After all this, the Government again purporting to give effect to the writ of mandamus issued by the Madras High court as upheld by this Court, issued g. Os. impugned in these cases, which had the effect of disintegrating an integrated cadre contrary to the principles contained in g. O. 1968. Therefore, the Tribunal was compelled to quash the G. Os. impugned before it. The technical objections taken by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in the absence of challenge to G. O. Ms. Nos. 37 dated 7-1-1982 and 603 dated 15-4-1987 the respondents 'b' Wing teachers cannot get the fruits of the Tribunal's direction, is also not tenable. As rightly pointed out by the learned senior Counsel, Mr. P. P. Rao, that g. O. 37 dated 7-1-1982 had no impact at all on the principles of integration contained in G. O. 1968 and it did not even touch the quotas prescribed for promotion from gazetted Headmasters post to that of DEO for 'a' and 'b' Wings. As rightly pointed out by the learned senior Counsel, Mr. P. P. Rao, that g. O. 37 dated 7-1-1982 had no impact at all on the principles of integration contained in G. O. 1968 and it did not even touch the quotas prescribed for promotion from gazetted Headmasters post to that of DEO for 'a' and 'b' Wings. In the circumstances, the learned Counsel was right in his submission that G. O. 37 must be read down to sustain its validity to mean that the combined seniority list should be drawn up with reference to 31-3-1970, i. e. , the date on which 'b' Wing teachers were absorbed in government service and made up-to-date as on 1-11-1978 by deleting the names of persons promoted, resigned or dead in the meanwhile, for operating the same for purposes of filling up vacancies. Similarly, g. O. 603 dated 15-4-1987 has no effect on the integration process initiated under g. O. Ms. No. 1968 and, therefore, there was no need to challenge the same by 'b' Wing teachers. " ( 74 ) BUT, this decision does not apply to the facts of the case inasmuch as the government absorbed the erstwhile teachers in District Board schools in Government service. The G. O. Ms. No. 1968 therein integrating the services was never challenged. ( 75 ) THE teachers in Panchayat Raj were never absorbed at any point of time. The mere provincialisation of services cannot be equated with merger and absorption of teachers in Government schools. It only recognizes the status of such provincialised employee as that of a civil servant holding civil post under the State. Therefore, no assistance can be taken from the said judgment. ( 76 ) THE learned Additional-Advocate ' General also relied upon a judgment reported in S. P. Shivprasad Pipal v. Union of India and others, (1998) 4 SCC 598 , wherein the supreme Court observed that:"the decision to merge cadres is essentially a matter of policy. The power to regulate recruitment and conditions of service is wide and includes the power to constitute a new cadre by merging the existing cadres. The power to regulate recruitment and conditions of service is wide and includes the power to constitute a new cadre by merging the existing cadres. The principles governing equation of posts for merger of cadres are: (1) where there were regularly constituted similar cadres in the different integrating units the cadres will ordinarily be integrated on that basis but (2) where there were no such similar cadres, the following factors will be taken into consideration in determining the equation of posts : (A) Nature and duties of a post; (B) Powers exercised by the officers holding a post the extent of territorial or other charge held or responsibilities discharged; (C) The minimum qualifications, if any, prescribed for recruitment to the post and; (D) The salary of the post. It is not open to the Court to consider whether the equation of posts made by the Central government is right or wrong. This was a matter exclusively within the province of the central Government. Perhaps the only question the Court can enquire into is whether the four principles cited above had been properly taken into account. Even though the merger may adversely affect promotion prospects of some employees or some may be benefited, but this cannot be a ground for setting aside the merger, which is essentially a policy decision. " ( 77 ) THE said decision also is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. The merger of service was affected by the Government by merging three categories (a) Central Industrial Relations Machinery, (b) Labour officers (Central Pool), (c) Labour welfare Commissioners. The above formed part of Central Labour service. While integrating the services, it is open for the authorities to integrate the services by merging the cadres within the service. ( 78 ) BUT, in the instant case, the issue is different. The cadres are different. The teachers in Government schools are a different cadre and likewise, Panchayat Raj institutions are different. Therefore, the question of merger of these two cadres would not arise. Therefore, on facts, the above decision is not applicable. It is to be noted right from the inception of Panchayat Raj setup these institutions are treated on a different line. The schools were always under the control and management of Panchayat raj institutions subject, however, to the supervision of the Government. Therefore, on facts, the above decision is not applicable. It is to be noted right from the inception of Panchayat Raj setup these institutions are treated on a different line. The schools were always under the control and management of Panchayat raj institutions subject, however, to the supervision of the Government. The Supreme court in Mathuradas v. S. D. Munshaw case (supra) while dealing with the issue whether the Panchayat Service was a civil Service of the State referred to the evolution of local self Government bodies including the Zilla Parishads, Taluka development Boards etc. It observed at para 13 thus:"it is well-known that in India experiment in administration of local self Government had been going on for well over a century in almost all British Indian provinces and many princely States that were in existence, before the commencement of the Constitution. There were laws having local operation under which different kinds of local self- govemment bodies were constituted to enable persons living in different local areas to participate in the administration of such local areas insofar as functions that were delegated to them by law. All those laws continued to be in force even after the commencement of the Constitution. Some of them have since been repealed and replaced by new laws. Municipal Corporations, city municipalities, town municipalities, municipal boroughs, district Boards, Zilla Parishads, Taluka development Boards, Town Panchayats, village Panchayats, sanitary boards and town area committees were some of the different kinds of local bodies which were constituted under the said laws and the management of their affairs was entrusted subject to the control of the State Government to elected bodies. @page-SC60 Each one of them was treated as a body corporate. Insofar as the staffing pattern of these bodies was concerned, there were at least three classes of persons working under them. Officers holding high administrative posts such as Commissioners of Corporations, deputy Commissioners of Corporations, municipal Health Officers, Municipal educational Officers, District Development officers and Chief Executive Officers of district Boards were usually drawn from the ranks of the provincial or the State Services and they were deputed to the various bodies to discharge functions which were either statutory or non-statutory. Officers holding high administrative posts such as Commissioners of Corporations, deputy Commissioners of Corporations, municipal Health Officers, Municipal educational Officers, District Development officers and Chief Executive Officers of district Boards were usually drawn from the ranks of the provincial or the State Services and they were deputed to the various bodies to discharge functions which were either statutory or non-statutory. Even though they drew their salary and allowances from the local bodies to which they were deputed, they still retained their identity as officers of the State Civil Service and their services were liable to be withdrawn by the State government at any time it pleased. There was a second class of officers like Chief executive Officers of Town Municipalities who were officers belonging to the provincial or State local self-Government Service and who were liable to be transferred from one local body to another. There was a third class of officers and servants of the local bodies who were appointed by them and who were for all intents and purposes the employees of the local bodies by which they were appointed. They could not be transferred from one local body to another. The foregoing shows that in the case of persons borne on the State Civil Service or the Provincial local self-Government Service, the fact that they were for the time being working under a local body and were in receipt of salary and allowances from them did not militate against their status as members of the Service from which they were drawn. That was so because even when they were functioning under local bodies, they were engaged in discharging duties and functions which legitimately belonged to the state Government but which had been transferred to the local bodies with the intention of decentralizing administrative functions and of fostering democratic ideals amongst the people. "the Supreme Court further observed in para 22 as extracted below:"merely because the panchayats are declared to be body corporate, it cannot be said that any of the persons working under them cannot be considertd as members of a civil service under a State. The panchayats constituted under the Panchayats Act derive their authority from the statute and are under the control of the State Government. They form part of the local self-Government organisation which the State Government is under an obligation to foster under article 40 of the Constitution. The panchayats constituted under the Panchayats Act derive their authority from the statute and are under the control of the State Government. They form part of the local self-Government organisation which the State Government is under an obligation to foster under article 40 of the Constitution. Entry 5 of list II of the Seventh Schedule to the constitution specifically refers to local authorities established for the purpose of local self-Govemment or village administration as part of local Government. The local authorities are included in the definition of the expression 'state' in Article 12 of the constitution. The panchayats exercise many governmental functions which the State government can perform. They are entrusted with the power to levy taxes and to exercise large number of powers which are loosely called as "police powers" regulating several aspects of human life. Articles 276 and 277 of the Constitution also take note of the powers of local authorities to levy certain taxes. In addition to the express powers granted to the panchayats, the State government is also authorised under the panchayats Act to delegate many of its functions to them and to transfer many of its officers and servants to function under their supervision and control as members of the panchayat Service. It is manifest from the foregoing that it cannot be said that persons working as members of the panchayat Service are not persons engaged in governmental functions and, therefore, it is not possible to treat them as members of the State Civil Service. We, however, make it clear that it is quite possible that under the statute it may be open to the panchayats to employ servants for the purpose of administration of the panchayats who may not be members of the Panchayat Service. We are concerned in these cases only with the members of the Panchayat Service constituted under Section 203 (1) with regard to whose appointment and conditions of service the Government alone has been entrusted with the power to make rules under Section 203 (3 ). We are of the view that the Panchayat Service constituted under Section 203 of the Panchayats Act has all the characteristics of a Civil Service of the State. We are of the view that the Panchayat Service constituted under Section 203 of the Panchayats Act has all the characteristics of a Civil Service of the State. This also appears to have been the view of the State Government when it constituted the Second Pay Commission (Desai Commission) as can be seen from the government Resolution constituting the said commission requiring it to examine the general conditions of service applicable to government employees other than officers of the all India services but including employees in the Panchayat Ser ice (Vide resolution No. PDS 1672/1526/p dated november 20, 1972 passed by the government of Gujarat) and there is no justification for taking a view different from the one taken by the High Court of Gujarat in Shukla 's case (1967-8 Guj LR 833) (supra) as early as 1967. Several orders and rules issued by the Government of Gujarat under the Panchayats Act since, its commencement also support the aforesaid view. " ( 79 ) THUS, it is clear that the independent identity of the Panchayat Raj bodies as local self Governments has to be recognized. Every attempt has to be made to enliven the cherished goal under the Constitution under Article 40, but the democratic polity of the Panchayat Raj institutions cannot be emasculated by dissipating and divesting their power of control and management over the educational institutions upto Secondary level. The Tribunal failed to concentrate on this aspect and erred in holding that it is competent for the Government to frame the rules under proviso to Article 309 of the constitution of India, if not under the provision of Education Act. ( 80 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, we have to necessarily hold that G. O. Ms. No. 538, education, dated: 20. 11. 1998, making applicable the rules to the teacher in government schools and the A. P. Panchayat raj institutions, is illegal and arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of India. The said G. O. also clashes with the constitutional provision under Chapter X read with Article 40 of constitution of India. ( 81 ) YET on another ground also, the impugned G. O. Ms. No. 538, Education department dated 20. 11. 1998 cannot be sustained. The said G. O. also clashes with the constitutional provision under Chapter X read with Article 40 of constitution of India. ( 81 ) YET on another ground also, the impugned G. O. Ms. No. 538, Education department dated 20. 11. 1998 cannot be sustained. ( 82 ) THE Government have been issuing orders regulating the service conditions of teachers from time to time by virtue of the provisions contained in Sections 51 and 69 of A. P. Panchayat Samithis and Zilla parishads Act, 1959 finally repealed by A. P.