The Mulki Rules, which governed employment eligibility in Telangana, were subject to multiple legal battles, court rulings, and government orders that significantly impacted public employment and fueled regional movements. The legal disputes over non-Mulki appointments and constitutional validity of the rules led to widespread protests and the eventual intervention of the Supreme Court.
Background: Petition by Kothagudem Thermal Power Station Employees
- In 1959, the Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy government established the State Electricity Corporation, which primarily appointed employees from the Andhra region, leading to grievances among Telangana locals.
- The Kothagudem Thermal Power Station in Khammam district also employed a majority of non-Mulki individuals, violating Mulki regulations.
- In April 1968, the government issued an order directing the removal of non-Mulkis within three months and their replacement with eligible local Mulkis.
- Non-Mulki employees who lost their jobs challenged this decision in the High Court, initiating a legal battle over the validity and enforcement of Mulki rules
Key High Court Judgments
Justice Kuppu Swamy’s Judgment (January 3, 1969)
- Verdict: The court ruled that Mulki Rules under the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment Act, 1957, did not apply to the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, as it was an autonomous body.
- Impact: The judgment favored non-Mulki employees, allowing them to retain their jobs.
Justice Chinnappa Reddy’s Judgment (February 3, 1969)
- Following the 1969 Telangana Movement, the government issued G.O. 36 (January 21, 1969), mandating that non-Mulki employees be relocated to their native regions by February 28, 1969.
- Andhra employees challenged G.O. 36 in the High Court, arguing that it violated their constitutional rights.
- Verdict: Justice Chinnappa Reddy ruled that Section 3 of the Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Act, 1957, which enforced Mulki rules, violated fundamental rights.
- Impact: The court dismissed G.O. 36, favoring non-Mulki employees and undermining the enforcement of Mulki rules.
Division Bench Ruling (February 20, 1969)
- Following an appeal against Justice Chinnappa Reddy’s judgment, a Division Bench of Justices P. Jagan Mohan Reddy and Avula Samba Shiva Rao overturned the single-bench ruling.
- Key Rulings:
- Mulki regulations were constitutional and could be enforced.
- Non-Mulkis should not be removed but could occupy supernumerary posts where necessary.
- Article 16(3) of the Constitution empowered Parliament to legislate residence requirements not only for a state but also for a specific region.
- Even if Section 3 of the Public Employment Act was invalidated, the older Mulki Rules (15 years residence in Telangana) would remain valid.
Supreme Court Intervention
Stay Order (February 17, 1969)
- Following appeals from Andhra employees, the Supreme Court issued a stay on the High Court’s judgment of February 3, 1969, and on G.O. 36.
- Case Filed: A.V.S. Narsimha Rao vs. Andhra Pradesh Government.
Supreme Court Full Bench Judgment (March 28, 1969)
- A five-judge bench led by Chief Justice M. Hidayatullah declared G.O. 36 invalid.
- Key Rulings:
- Mulki regulations were unconstitutional and could no longer be enforced.
- Non-Mulki employees could not be removed from their posts.
- Impact: This ruling sparked violent protests in the Telangana movement, leading to the formation of the Wanchoo Committee on April 19, 1969 to examine the issue.
High Court Full Bench Judgment (December 9, 1970)
- A petition was filed by P. Lakshman Rao and other Andhra employees, challenging the validity of Mulki rules.
- Verdict: The High Court, led by Chief Justice Kumaraiah and Justice Gopal Rao Ekbote, upheld the constitutional validity of Mulki rules.
- Key Rulings:
- Even if Section 3 of the Public Employment Act was invalid, the pre-1957 Mulki regulations remained in force.
- Andhra Pradesh Public Employment Rules, 1959, were valid and enforceable.
High Court Full Bench Judgment (February 14, 1972)
- A case was filed by V. Venkat Reddy and dismissed Andhra employees in the Department of Industry, challenging Mulki regulations.
- Verdict by a five-member bench led by Justice Obul Reddy (4:1 vote):
- Declared that Mulki rules ceased to apply after the formation of Andhra Pradesh (1956).
- Mulki regulations were deemed invalid for employment.
- Justice Konda Madhava Reddy dissented, arguing that Mulki rules should still apply.
- Impact: The ruling was challenged by the Andhra Pradesh government (led by P.V. Narasimha Rao) in the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Final Verdict on Mulki Rules (October 3, 1972)
- A five-judge bench led by Chief Justice S.M. Sikri overruled the High Court’s decision.
- Key Rulings:
- Mulki rules were constitutional and valid.
- Only individuals who resided in Telangana for 15 years were eligible for government jobs.
- Mulki regulations under Article 35(b) of the Constitution were still in force.
- Mulki rules applied to both gazetted and non-gazetted jobs.
- Case: Director of Industries & Commerce, Andhra Pradesh Government vs. V. Venkat Reddy.
- Impact: The ruling triggered the Jai Andhra movement, demanding a separate Andhra state.
Petition on the Definition of “Mulki”
High Court Judgment (February 17, 1973)
- Andhra employees filed a case to define “Mulki”.
- Verdict:
- Declared that both natives of Telangana and those settled in Telangana qualified as Mulkis.
High Court Judgment (July 11, 1973)
- Verdict:
- Mulki rules applied only to initial job appointments, not to promotions, seniority, or retirement benefits.
- All India Services were exempted from Mulki regulations
Q. Examine the effects of various judicial decisions on the enforcement of Mulki safeguards.
| Introduction | The legal journey of the Mulki rules, which were designed to protect local employment rights in the Hyderabad State, involved several pivotal court judgments that had profound implications on the socio-political fabric of the newly formed Andhra Pradesh. These rules mandated job reservations for local residents and their legality and applicability were challenged and upheld through various court decisions. |
| Body | Key Court Judgments and Their Implications:
1. High Court Judgment by Justice Kuppu Swamy (January 3, 1969): This ruling exempted the state electricity board, an autonomous entity, from the AP Public Employment Act of 1957, indicating a nuanced interpretation of the application of Mulki rules based on the autonomous status of certain organizations. 2. Overturning of G.O. No 36 by Justice Chinappa Reddy (February 3, 1969): The judgment declared that Section 3 of the Public Employment Act of 1957 contravened fundamental rights, effectively dismissing the Mulki rules and highlighting the constitutional conflict between local employment protections and broader rights guarantees. 3. High Court Division Bench Verdict (February 20, 1969): While affirming the constitutionality of the Mulki rules, the bench advised against the repatriation of non-local employees, instead suggesting the creation of additional posts, which underscored a compromise approach to address non-local worker issues without stripping them of employment. 4. Supreme Court Full Bench Judgment (March 28, 1969): Led by Chief Justice Hidayatullah, the bench deemed the Mulki regulations unconstitutional, marking a significant shift that removed protections for local employment, escalating regional tensions and contributing to the intensification of the Telangana movement. 5. Subsequent High Court and Supreme Court Judgments (1970-1972): These judgments oscillated between upholding and dismissing the Mulki rules, reflecting the ongoing legal and political struggle to balance regional rights with state integration. The Supreme Court’s final 1972 verdict reinstated the constitutional validity of the Mulki rules, emphasizing the protection of local rights even after state reformation. |
| Conclusion | The flip-flopping court decisions underscored the complexities of integrating diverse regional interests within a single state framework, contributing to prolonged regional discord and movements advocating for separate statehood, influenced by perceptions of injustice and the erosion of local protections. These legal interpretations and their ramifications played a crucial role in shaping the trajectory of regional politics in southern India. |