Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 4868 of 2007
PETITIONER:
Marripati Nagaraja & Ors
RESPONDENT:
The Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/10/2007
BENCH:
S.B. Sinha & Harjit Singh Bedi
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.7222 of 2004)
[With CA Nos.4869-4873/07 arising out of SLP (C) Nos.15032-15036 of
2004]
S.B. Sinha, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, on the advice of the
State of Andhra Pradesh, issued a notification on or about 1.10.1992 inviting
applications for recruitment to various posts including 34 posts in the
category of Assistant Director of Agriculture in the Andhra Pradesh
Agricultural Service. Although in the said notification stipulations were
made in respect of grant of reservation for women to the extent of 30%, no
such stipulation was made in respect of the vacancies in the category of
Assistant Director of Agriculture. This appeal involves the question of
reservation of women in the said category.
3. Appellants herein had been working as Agricultural Officer in Andhra
Pradesh Agricultural Service. They, in terms of the said notification, applied
for the said posts. A screening test was to be held therefor. About 510
candidates appeared for the screening test on 27.12.1992.
4. Several original applications were filed before the Andhra Pradesh
Administrative Tribunals claiming different reliefs and on different grounds.
Appellant herein filed an original application which was registered as OA
No.6451 of 1992 questioning the carry forward of vacancies from the year
1976; the omission to make zonal reservation; prescription of minimum and
maximum age limits by way of eligibility criteria as a result whereof,
allegedly, some of the agricultural officers were deprived of their right to
apply for the posts. Indisputably, interim orders were passed in January
1993 by the Tribunal which remained in force till the disposal of the said
original applications.
5. The State of Andhra Pradesh issued GOMs No.928 G.A.D. on or
about 6.10.1995 providing for reservations of women candidates to the
extent of 30% in the matter of direct recruitment with retrospective effect
from 2.1.1984. By reason of another Notification issued on 28.5.1996, the
percentage of reservation for women was increased to 331/3%. Original
Applications filed by the petitioners as also those of other employees were
dismissed by the Tribunal on 23.11.1998.
6. An application filed by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service
Commission to short-list the candidates was allowed by the Tribunal by an
order dated 14.11.2000 by holding a fresh screening test for the 510
candidates who had appeared therein on 27.12.1992 and to finalise the
result. A Notification for conducting a fresh screening test was issued on
12.12.2000 pursuant whereto a second screening test was conducted on
7.1.2001. Appellant, although appeared, did not pass the said test.
7. Inter alia, on the premise that a very limited time had been granted to
them for appearing in the second screening test as also on the ground that no
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
reservation for women could be provided for in terms of the said
Notification dated 28.5.1996, an original application marked as OA No. 83
of 2001 was filed by the appellants before the Tribunal on 8.1.2001. No
order of stay was passed therein.
8. The Public Service Commission interviewed the candidates on
8.1.2001 and 9.1.2001 who had been found suitable therefor.
An interim order was passed by the Tribunal only on 9.1.2001.
However, by order dated 1.8.2003, the original applications were dismissed
by the Tribunal holding that the selections made by the Commission did not
call for any interference except to the extent that the selections have to be
revised restricting the reservation in favour of women to the extent of 30%
and wherever vacancies which were reserved to be filled by women
candidates could not be filled for want of women candidates, they should be
filled up by men in terms of the rules existing at the time of notification.
9. Writ petition filed by the appellants questioning the same was
dismissed. A writ application was also filed by the Andhra Pradesh Public
Service Commission challenging the decision of the Tribunal restricting
reservation for women to 30% instead of 331/3%. By reason of the
impugned judgment both the writ petitions have been dismissed.
10. Not only the original applicants but the Andhra Pradesh Public
Service Commission also are, thus, before us.
11. Mr. Mohan Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant,
would submit that keeping in view the fact that for the purpose of giving an
opportunity to the appellants herein for appearance in the second test, only a
few days\022 time had been granted by the Commission, the same must be held
to be wholly arbitrary. It was furthermore contended that by reason of any
notification issued subsequent to the date of advertisement, a provision for
reservation of women could not have been made.
12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Andhra Pradesh Public
Service Commission, on the other hand, submitted that as on the date of
publication of the notification, selection process was not over, the Tribunal
and consequently the High Court committed an error in opining that
reservation for women should have been kept confined to 30% only.
The Notification being GOMs No.928 dated 6.10.1995 reads thus :
\023In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso
to Article 309 read with clause (4) of Article 16
and Article 335 of the Constitution of India, the
Governor of Andhra Pradesh hereby makes the
following amendment to the Andhra Pradesh State
and Subordinate Service Rules.
2. The amendments hereby made shall be
deemed to have come into force in so far as it
relates to the reservation to the extent of 30% of
posts:-
(a) with effect from the 2nd January, 1984 to
each category of O.C., S.C., S.T., and to the
unclassified B.Cs; and
(b) with effect from the 17th October, 1990 to
the categories of B.Cs as classified into
groups the physically handicapped and Ex-
servicemen quota.
AMENDMENT
In the Andhra Pradesh State and
Sunbordinate Services Rules, for Sub-rule (2) of
Rule 22-A, the following shall be substituted
namely:-
\023(2) In the matter of direct recruitment to
posts for which women and men are
equally suited, there shall be
reservation to women to an extent of
30% of the posts in each category of
O.C., B.C-A, B.C.B., B.C.C., B.C.D.,
S.C., S.T. and physically handicapped
and Ex-Servicemen quota.
Provided that if sufficient
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
number of women candidates are not
available the vacancies shall be filled
in by men.\024
EXPLANATION: \023It is hereby clarified that all
sections made in accordance with sub-rule (2)
prior to its amendment shall be and shall be
deemed always to have been made in accordance
with this rule; and shall not entitle any person to
enforce 30% reservation merely on the ground that
this amendment is made with retrospective effect.\024
(BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE
GOVERNOR OF ANDHRA PRADESH)\024
It is now a well settled principle of law that the rules which would be
applicable for selecting the candidates would be the one which were
prevailing at the time of the notification. It is also equally well settled that
the State may, subject to constitutional limitations, amend the rule with
retrospective effect. Rule 22-A which was applicable as on the date of the
said notification reads as under :
\023Rule 22-A. Notwithstanding anything contained
in these Rules or Special or Ad hoc Rules,\027
(1) In the matter of direct recruitment to posts
for which women are better suited than men,
preference shall be given to women : (G.O.Ms.
No.472, G.A., Dt.11.10.85)
Provided that such absolute preference to
women shall not result in total exclusion of men in
any category of posts.
(2) In the matter of direct recruitment to posts
for which women and men are equally suited,
other things being equal, preference shall be given
to women and they shall be selected to an extent of
at least 30% of the posts in each category of O.C.,
B.C., S.C. and S.T. quota.
(3) In the matter of direct recruitment to posts
which are reserved exclusively for being filled by
women they shall be filled by women only (Vide
G.O.Ms. 691, G.A. (Ser-D), Dt.22.11.1984, w.e.f.
2.1.1984)\024
11. The women candidates, in terms thereof, were, therefore, only entitled
to preference. By reason of the said notification merely, the percentage has
been increased from 30% to 331/3%. It has been given a retrospective effect;
as the existing sub-rule (2) of Rule 22-A was substituted. By reason of the
said Notification, no existing right of any person has been taken away. In
fact, as the selection process was not over, the question of applicability of
the said notification would have fallen for consideration only when a final
selection list was to be made and not prior thereto.
12. The State, in exercise of its power conferred upon it under the proviso
appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, is entitled to make rules
with retrospective effect and retro-active operation. Ordinarily, in absence
of any rule and that too a rule which was expressly given a retrospective
effect, the rules prevailing as on the date of the notification are to be applied.
But if some rule has been given a retrospective effect which is within the
domain of the State, unless the same is set aside as being unconstitutional,
the consequences flowing therefrom shall ensure. In such an event, the
applicable rule would not be the rule which was existing but the one which
had been validly brought on the statute book from an anterior date. The
Tribunal and the High Court, therefore, in our opinion, committed an error in
opining otherwise, particularly when the constitutionality of the said rule
was not in question.
13. In N.T. Devin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service Commission [(1990)
3 SCC 157], this Court categorically held :
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
\02311. There is yet another aspect of the question.
Where advertisement is issued inviting
applications for direct recruitment to a category of
posts, and the advertisement expressly states that
selection shall be made in accordance with the
existing rules or government orders, and if it
further indicates the extent of reservations in
favour of various categories, the selection of
candidates in such a case must be made in
accordance with the then existing rules and
government orders. Candidates who apply, and
undergo written or viva voce test acquire vested
right for being considered for selection in
accordance with the terms and conditions
contained in the advertisement, unless the
advertisement itself indicates a contrary intention.
Generally, a candidate has right to be considered in
accordance with the terms and conditions set out in
the advertisement as his right crystallises on the
date of publication of advertisement, however he
has no absolute right in the matter. If the
recruitment Rules are amended retrospectively
during the pendency of selection, in that event
selection must be held in accordance with the
amended Rules. Whether the Rules have
retrospective effect or not, primarily depends upon
the language of the Rules and its construction to
ascertain the legislative intent. The legislative
intent is ascertained either by express provision or
by necessary implication; if the amended Rules are
not retrospective in nature the selection must be
regulated in accordance with the rules and orders
which were in force on the date of advertisement.
Determination of this question largely depends on
the facts of each case having regard to the terms
and conditions set out in the advertisement and the
relevant rules and orders. Lest there be any
confusion, we would like to make it clear that a
candidate on making application for a post
pursuant to an advertisement does not acquire any
vested right of selection, but if he is eligible and is
otherwise qualified in accordance with the relevant
rules and the terms contained in the advertisement,
he does acquire a vested right of being considered
for selection is accordance with the rules as they
existed on the date of advertisement. He cannot be
deprived of that limited right on the amendment of
rules during the pendency of selection unless the
amended rules are retrospective in nature.\024
(Emphasis supplied)
14. In this case, the qualification of a candidate is not in question.
Nobody has been deprived of his right of being considered. Only a
preferential right had been given to the women. In that view of the matter,
the High Court, in our opinion, was not correct in taking the said view.
15. The other contention of Mr. Rao that the candidates had given only
seven days\022 time for making preparation to appear in the second screening
test, cannot, in our considered view, give rise to a ground for setting aside
the entire selection process. The Tribunal did not make any discrimination.
One screening test had already been held. The number of candidates
appeared in the first screening test was 510. The Commission obtained the
permission of the Tribunal for holding the second screening test. It issued a
notification on 12.12.2000 stating that such a test would be conducted on
7.1.2001. All the candidates were given the same time for preparation.
Only because the appellants herein were employees at the relevant time, the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5
same by itself could not confer on them any special privilege to ask for an
extended time. They had no legal right in relation thereto. Appellants had
appeared at the examination without any demur. They did not question the
validity of the said question of fixing of the said date before the appropriate
authority. They are, therefore, estopped and precluded from questioning the
selection process.
15. For the reasons aforementioned, the appeals of the Andhra Pradesh
Public Service Commission are allowed and that of Marripati Nagaraja is
dismissed with costs. Counsel\022s fee quantified at Rs.25,000/- (Rupees
twenty five thousand only).
16. The Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission is hereby directed to
finalise the selection process in the light of the judgment of this Court as
expeditiously as possible and not later than three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment.