Full Judgment Text
1
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2023
@SLP (C) NOs. 34255-34256 OF 2015
THE GOVERNMENT OF
ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
M. RAMA RAO &
ORS. ETC. …RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
VIKRAM NATH, J.
Leave granted
2. Despite service of notice, none of the
respondents have put in appearance as such the
matter has been heard ex parte.
3. The Government of Andhra Pradesh has
assailed the correctness of judgments and orders
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SONIA BHASIN
Date: 2023.05.19
16:20:27 IST
Reason:
dated 12.06.2014 and 29.04.2014 passed by Division
2
Bench of the High Court of Judicature for the State
of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh whereby
the writ petitions were allowed and the order dated
28.11.2011 passed by the Andhra Pradesh
Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad in a batch of
applications (leading case O.A.No.283 of 2010) was
set aside upholding the validity of Government orders
which had been set aside by the Tribunal.
4. The State of Andhra Pradesh had issued
G.O.Ms. No.3 dated 10.01.2000 providing for 100%
reservation in favour of local scheduled tribal
candidates for the post of teacher in all schools
situated in Scheduled Areas. Later on, two further
memos were issued on 19.12.2009 and 01.01.2010
by the Principal Secretary to Government, Tribal
Welfare Department, Hyderabad and Commissioner
of Tribal Welfare, Hyderabad respectively whereby it
was provided that the State G.O.Ms. No.3 would
apply to promotion also giving 100% reservation to
3
the local tribals and further that G.O.Ms.No.3 dated
10.01.2000 will have retrospective effect w.e.f.
05.11.1986.
5. The High Court had held that the memos are
explanatory and consequential in nature and not in
contravention to G.O.Ms. No.3 dated 10.01.2000 and
accordingly upheld the retrospective effect also.
6. In the meantime, other matters pending before
this Court in Civil Appeal No.3609 of 2002 etc.
wherein the validity of G.O.Ms. No.3 dated
10.01.2000 was under challenge, was referred to a
Constitution Bench. The Constitution Bench
answered the reference and decided the appeal vide
Chebrolu
judgment dated 22.04.2020 in the case of
Leela Prasad Rao and others vs. State of Andhra
1
Pradesh and others . The operative portion of the
decision of the Constitution Bench as contained in
1
(2021) 11 SCC 401
4
paragraphs 167, 168 and 169 of the report is
reproduced hereunder: -
“167. As a sequel to the quashing of
G.O.Ms. No.3 of 2000, the appointments
made in excess of the permissible
reservation cannot survive and should be
set aside. However, on behalf of State and
other respondents, it was urged that
appointments may not be set aside. In the
peculiar circumstances, the incumbents,
who have been appointed, cannot be said
to be at fault and they belong to Scheduled
Tribes.
168. We cannot ignore the fact that a
similar G.O. was issued by the erstwhile
State Government of Andhra Pradesh in
the year 1986, which was quashed by
the State Administrative Tribunal, against
which an appeal was preferred in this
Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn
in the year 1998. After withdrawal of the
appeal from this Court, it was expected of
the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh not
to resort to such illegality of providing
100% reservation once again. But instead,
it issued G.O.Ms. No.3 of 2000, which was
equally impermissible, even if the A.P.
Regulation of Reservation and
Appointment to Public Services Act, 1997
would have been amended, in that event
also providing reservation beyond 50%
was not permissible. It is rightly
apprehended by appellants that the State
may again by way of mis-adventure, resort
to similar illegal exercise as was done
earlier. It was least expected from the
functionary like Government to act in
aforesaid manner as they were bound by
5
the dictum laid down by this Court in
Indra Sawhney (supra) and other decisions
holding that the limit of reservation not to
exceed 50%. There was no rhyme or reason
with the State Government to resort to
100% reservation. It is unfortunate that
illegal exercise done in 1986 was sought to
be protected by yet another
unconstitutional attempt by issuing
G.O.Ms. No.3 of 2000 with retrospective
effect of 1986, and now after that 20 years
have passed. In the peculiar circumstance,
we save the appointments conditionally
that the reorganised States i.e. the States
of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana not to
attempt a similar exercise in the future.
If they do so and exceed the limit
of reservation, there shall not be any
saving of the appointments made, w.e.f.
1986 till date. We direct the respondents
States not to exceed the limits of
reservation in future. Ordered
accordingly.
169. Resultantly, we allow the appeals,
and save the appointments made so far
conditionally with the aforesaid riders.
The cost of appeal is quantified at Rupees
Five Lakhs and to be shared equally by the
States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana.”
7. In view of the fact that the principal G.O.Ms.
No.3 dated 10.01.2000 has already been set aside by
this Court, all subsequent memos would
automatically lapse. Further, since the Constitution
6
Bench had saved the appointments and their
promotion to be considered in accordance with
appropriate service rules, nothing further survives in
these appeals. The same are rendered infructuous as
it would stand covered by the judgment of the
Constitution Bench in Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao
(supra). Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of in
terms of the authoritative pronouncement of the
Constitution Bench in Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao
and others vs. State of A.P. and others (supra).
Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
…………………………………..J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
……………………………………J.
(AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH)
NEW DELHI
MAY 19, 2023