B.L. HANSARIA, J.- The present is an unusual case despite it being related to the usual demand of reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The peculiarity lies in the fact that the demand for reservation herein is not related to appointment, but is relatable to termination.

2. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued an order (hereinafter referred to as the GO) on 3-8-1967 by which an ad hoc rule was framed in exercise of powers conferred by Article 309 of the Constitution prohibiting termination of reserved category candidates following normal rule applicable in such cases. The GO spells out in what order retrenchment of temporary employees has to take place. The order set out is as below:

"First - Persons, other than those belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, appointed temporarily, in the order of juniority;

Second - Probationers, other than those belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, in the order of juniority;

Third - Approved probationers, other than those belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, appointed temporarily in the order of juniority;

Fourth - Persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, appointed temporarily in the order of juniority; Fifth - Probationers belonging to the Scheduled Castes, and the Scheduled Tribes, in the order of juniority;

Sixth - Approved probationers belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, in the order of juniority."

(Explanation not relevant)

3. It came to be assailed before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh to meet its Waterloo. The High Court, after taking note of various decisions of this Court dealing with different facets of reservation, held that the GO did not strike a reasonable balance between the claims of different communities and has sought to introduce by the back door an unlimited form of carry forward rule which it regarded as invalid because of what was held in T. Devadasan v. Union of India{AIR 1964 SC 179}. The Court further stated that the GO does notmerely postpone the retrenchment of temporary employees belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to temporary employees of other communities, but postpones the retrenchment of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes employees to probationers also and, what is worse, even approved probationers of other communities. Because of all these the GO was held to be violative of Article 16(1) of the Constitution and was, therefore, declared as invalid. The State of Andhra Pradesh has preferred this appeal by special leave.

4. A nine-Judge Bench of this Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India1 (commonly known as Mandal Commission case) reviewed the entire law on reservation; and as such, no effort is necessary on our part to find out the parameters within which reservation has to operate.

5. The GO being of the year 1967 and the law relating to reservation having come to be crystallised by the decision in Indra Sawhney case{1992 Supp (3) SCC 217} delivered in 1992, we stated to Shri Raghubir appearing for the appellants that if the State Government were to undertake passing of fresh GO on the subject keeping in mind the view expressed in Indra Sawhney case{1992 Supp (3) SCC 217}, we could dispose of the appeal by allowing the stay order to continue for a period of three months within which the State could pass fresh GO. For want of instructions, Shri Raghubir could not give the undertaking and so we proceeded to hear the appeal instead adjourning the same as prayed for - the appeal being of the year 1977.

6. The High Court, as already noted, struck down the GO, inter alia, because of what has been stated in Devadasan case1. In view of the judgment of the majority in Indra Sawhney case{1992 Supp (3) SCC 217} Shri Raghubir contends that the judgment of the High Court merits to be set aside. But this is not all that the High Court had said, as would appear from what we have noted above.

7. The first observation we pro