P LAKSHMANA RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these Writ Petitions, two questions of some importance are raised. The first questions whether as a result of the Supreme Court decision in A. V. S. N. Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Air 1970 SC 422, striking down Section 3 and Rule 3 made thereunder as unconstitutional, Section 2 of the Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Act, 1957, hereinafter called "the Public Employment Act" survives and consequently the Mulki rules which were repealed by virtue of Section 2 continue to be repealed. Secondly if Section 2 of the Public Employment Act is found not to be surviving after Section 3 has been found to be void, whether Mulki rules ceased to be effective after the formation of the Andhra Pradesh State on 1-11-1956 or thereafter.

(2.) In order to appreciate the implications of these contentions, it is useful to survey the historical background of the Public Employment Act. The Telengana area formerly was a part of the State of Hyderabad. The Hyderabad State comprised to three linguistic areas, Telegana, Marathwada and Karnatak. In 1919 the Nizam issued a Fireman promulgating what has come to be known as Mulki rules. These rules were contained in Appendix N to the Hyderabad Civil Service Regulations. In fact the terms Mulki and Mulki rules were used in Rule 39 of the said regulation. Appendix N provided who should be considered Mulki for purpose of appointment to any service in the former State of Hyderabad. rule 39 provided:

(3.) Appendix N in all contains six rules. It is unnecessary to read them all fully here. It is perhaps enough for out purpose to read Rule 1 which defines the term Mulki.