Article 371D

Article 371D of the Constitution of India establishes special provisions to ensure equitable opportunities and balanced regional development in the State of Andhra Pradesh. It was inserted by the Constitution (Thirty-second Amendment) Act, 1973, and later extended to the newly formed State of Telangana following its bifurcation in 2014.
The article was enacted in response to regional disparities and movements such as the Jai Andhra Movement (1972–73), which demanded fair treatment for people from different regions of the State in education, employment, and public services.

Background and Constitutional Context

After the formation of Andhra Pradesh in 1956 through the merger of the Andhra and Telangana regions, significant economic and developmental imbalances arose between these areas. Allegations of discrimination in public employment, education, and resource allocation led to widespread discontent.
To address these grievances, the Union Government appointed the All India Committee on Regional Imbalances (1972), whose recommendations formed the basis for the Thirty-second Amendment Act, 1973, inserting Article 371D and the related Article 371E (establishment of a Central University).

Objectives of Article 371D

The key objectives of Article 371D are:

• To promote equitable opportunities and facilities for people from different parts of the State in matters of education and public employment.
• To ensure regional balance and prevent dominance or neglect of any area.
• To provide a constitutional mechanism through Presidential Orders and Administrative Tribunals for implementing these objectives.
• To establish a fair system for recruitment and admissions based on local representation.

Key Provisions of Article 371D

1. Power of the President to Issue OrdersUnder Article 371D(1), the President of India is empowered to make special provisions by public notification for:

• Ensuring equitable opportunities and facilities in public employment and education.
• Defining local areas for different parts of the State.
• Providing preference for residents of such local areas in recruitment and admission processes.
• Organising local cadres of civil posts and allotting personnel to such cadres.

These Presidential Orders are binding and override any inconsistent law or constitutional provision.
2. Organisation of Local Cadres and AreasThe State Government, as directed by the President, may organise civil service posts into local cadres.

• Recruitment and promotion to these posts are regulated to ensure regional representation.
• Local areas are demarcated for educational institutions, and residence-based preferences are granted for admissions.

The system of local cadres and zonal preferences aims to provide fair opportunities for people in each region, preventing concentration of government employment or educational benefits in one area.
The primary Presidential Order under this provision is the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975.
3. Administrative Tribunal for Service MattersUnder Article 371D(3), the President may establish an Administrative Tribunal for the State of Andhra Pradesh (and later for Telangana).

• The Tribunal exercises jurisdiction over service matters that would otherwise fall within the purview of the High Court under Article 226 or 227.
• It can:
  • Hear complaints and disputes related to service conditions, recruitment, or promotions.
  • Make binding orders and even punish for contempt.
• The Tribunal’s decisions are final, subject only to the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article 136.
• The High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction over such matters is explicitly excluded.

This mechanism was designed to provide an independent and efficient redressal system for service-related grievances.
4. Legislative Oversight and TransparencyUnder Article 371D(5), any special orders issued by the State Government for implementing these provisions must be laid before both Houses of the State Legislature. This ensures accountability and transparency in the application of the regional preference system.
5. Supremacy of Article 371DArticle 371D(10) provides that the provisions of this article, along with any Presidential Orders issued under it, have overriding authority over other constitutional or legal provisions.This ensures that the equitable arrangements under Article 371D cannot be invalidated or superseded by other State or Central laws.

Mechanism of Implementation

Presidential Orders: The most significant implementation instrument is the Presidential Order of 1975, which:

• Divided Andhra Pradesh into six zones for employment and educational purposes.
• Established rules for local recruitment, reserving 70% of vacancies for residents of the zone.
• Applied similar residence-based preferences for admission to universities and technical institutions.

Local Cadres and Zonal System:

• Posts in public services were grouped into local cadres corresponding to geographical zones.
• The system applied to both direct recruitment and promotion within the same cadre.
• Non-local candidates could be appointed only to a limited proportion of vacancies.

Establishment of Administrative Tribunal

Following Article 371D, the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (APAT) was established in 1976 to adjudicate service matters.

• Its powers were equivalent to those of a High Court in service matters.
• It could adjudicate disputes relating to:
  • Service conditions of State employees;
  • Recruitment and promotion disputes; and
  • Alleged violations of local cadre rules.

After the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh in 2014, the Tribunal was reconstituted to serve both Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, with separate benches for each State.

Judicial Interpretation

Several landmark judgments have clarified the scope and constitutional limits of Article 371D:

• A.V.S. Narasimha Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1970): Upheld the constitutional validity of residence-based reservations in education and employment, forming the basis for Article 371D’s provisions.
• T. Muralidhar Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1980): The Supreme Court upheld the legality of the Presidential Order (1975) and the organisation of local cadres under it.
• Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India (1984): The Court recognised that residence-based preferences for admissions are permissible to ensure regional equity, referencing Article 371D.
• P. Sambamurthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1987): The Supreme Court struck down a clause allowing the State Government to modify or annul orders of the Administrative Tribunal, declaring it unconstitutional for violating judicial independence and the basic structure of the Constitution. However, the validity of the Tribunal itself and the exclusion of High Court jurisdiction were upheld.
• State of Andhra Pradesh v. V. Sarma Rao (2000): Reaffirmed that Presidential Orders issued under Article 371D have supremacy and cannot be overridden by ordinary State legislation.

Application After State Bifurcation (2014)

When Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated to create Telangana in 2014, the provisions of Article 371D were made applicable to both States.

• The Presidential Orders and local cadre systems were adapted to the new administrative and territorial boundaries.
• Separate zonal arrangements were created for the two States, ensuring continued regional equity in employment and education.

Significance of Article 371D

The constitutional and administrative significance of Article 371D can be summarised as follows:

• Equitable Regional Development: Ensures fair distribution of educational and employment opportunities across different regions.
• Social Stability: Addresses regional disparities that historically led to political agitation and unrest.
• Administrative Efficiency: Creates a structured and legally enforceable framework for recruitment and admissions.
• Judicial Innovation: Establishes specialised tribunals for swift and expert resolution of service-related disputes.
• Federal Adaptability: Demonstrates the Constitution’s flexibility in addressing State-specific challenges while maintaining unity.

Limitations and Criticisms

Despite its objectives, Article 371D has faced certain challenges:

• The local cadre system sometimes led to administrative rigidity and reduced inter-regional mobility.
• Critics argue that merit-based recruitment and efficiency in public services were compromised in favour of regional quotas.
• The overlapping jurisdiction between the State and the Union created complexities in implementation.
• Post-bifurcation, administrative and legal difficulties emerged in reorganising cadres and resources between Andhra Pradesh and Telangana.