2005 Supreme(SC) 1386

2005(7) Supreme 317
Supreme Court of India
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
R.C. Lahoti, CJI, G.P. Mathur & P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ.
Mohd. Siddiq Ali —Appellant
versus
High Court of A.P. through Registrar & Ors. —Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3006 of 2001
(With W.P. (C) No. 504 of 1999, C.A.No. 3007 of 2001, W.P. (C) No. 22 of 2001, W.P. (C) No. 554 of 2001 and W.P. (C) No. 555 of 2001)
Decided on 24-10-2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : H.S. Gururaja Rao, Sr. Advocate, G. Seshagiri, A. Raghunath, A.T.M. Sampath, Mrs. P.S. Shanthi, Mrs. R. Meena, Kumari, B.D. Sharma, Advocate (NP), G. Ramakrishna Prasad, Advocates.
For the Respondents : B. Sridhar, K. Ram Kumar and T.V. Ratnam, Advocates.

Headnote:(i) Andhra Pradesh State Subordinate Service Rules—Rule 22-A(2)—Selection and appointment of District Munsiff by High Court pursuant to notification dated 23.10.1996—Writ challenging selection and appointment of women candidates on ground that Rule 22-A(2) of Rules did not provide for reservation to extent of 30% in favour of women but merely laid down a rule of preference—High Court dismissed writ in limine—Appeal—Rule in question had undergone several amendments and selection made on basis of the Rule was upheld by Division Bench of High Court in the case of Mohd. Iqbar and Ors.—In view of amendment of Rules, contention of appellant had no merits.

       Held : We have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant and have examined the record. It is rather unfortunate that what is placed on record is the unamended A.P. State and Subordinate Rules and arguments have been advanced on its basis. Rule 22-A(2) of the aforesaid Rules has undergone several amendments and this position was noticed by a Division Bench of A.P. High Court (P. Venkatarama Reddi and R.M. Bapat, JJ) in Writ Petition No. 18307 of 1998 filed by Modh. Iqbal and Ors. wherein the same selection of District Munsiff was challenged. The judgment in this case was delivered on 31.8.1998 i.e. prior to the filing of the two writ petitions in the High Court and the same is reported in 1998(5) ALD 590. The amendment in the Rules were considered in para 5 of the judgment which reads as under:

       “5. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 22-A of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as APSS Rules) as amended by G.O.Ms.No. 237 dated 28.5.1996 provided for the first time reservation for women to the extent of 33-1/3% of posts in each category i.e., OCs, BCs, SCs, STs, Physically Handicapped and Ex-servicemen with effect from 8.3.1996. This was in modification of the earlier rule of preference in favour of women. It is laid down by means of a proviso that if sufficient number of women candidates are not available, the vacancies shall be filled by men. The Rule in the same form was retained when the APSS Rules were further amended by G.O.No. 436, dated 15.10.1996. A few months thereafter, Rule 22-A(2) had undergone a further change by G.O.No. 65, dated 15.2.1997. The proviso to Rule 22-A(2) was deleted. Simultaneously, there was a corresponding amendment to Rule 22 placing the women candidates on par with SCs, STs, BCs and Physically handicapped candidates for the purposes of application of the procedure for limited requirement and carry forward of vacancies. Note (2) was added to Rule 22 by which it was provided that the “principle of carry forward of vacancies in respect of women shall be with effect from 28.10.1996”. Note (3) provided for application of roster points for women candidates with effect from 1.8.1996.”

       The Bench struck down the action of the respondents in carrying forward the unfilled vacancies reserved for women candidates, while not disturbing the selections and appointments of women candidates already made on the ground that Rule 22-A(2) which the High Court purported to adopt in the recruitment notification did not contain any principle of carrying forward of vacancies relating to women candidates. A direction was accordingly issued that those vacancies should be filled in by men candidates in the order of merit and subject to the observance of roster point and the rules of reservation applicable to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and backward classes. In view of the amendment of the Rules, the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant has no merit at all and has to be rejected. (Para 6)

       (ii) Constitution of India—Article 226—Writ jurisdiction—Dismissal of writ petition on ground of laches—Sustainability.

       Held : In Civil Appeal No. 3006 of 2001, the writ petition was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that though the notification had been issued on 23.10.1996, but the writ petition wherein reservation in favour of women was challenged was filed in November, 1998 and, therefore, the writ petition was highly belated. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the writ petition should not have been dismissed on the ground of laches. In support of his submission learned counsel has placed reliance on R.S. Deodhar vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1974 SC 259, wherein it has been held that the rule which says that a Court may not inquiry into belated or stale claims is not a rule of law but a rule of practice based on sound and proper exercise of discretion and there is no inviolable rule that whenever there is delay, the Court must necessarily refuse to entertain the petition. The question is one of discretion to be followed on the facts of each case. On the strength of the aforesaid authority it is submitted that the High Court has erred in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of laches. We are unable to accept the contention raised. In the authority cited, the dispute related to inter se seniority of Mamlatdars/Tehsildars in the newly constituted State of Bombay by virtue of the provisions of the States Reorganization Act, 1956. The inter se seniority of persons holding the same rank has a great bearing at the stage of promotion to a higher post and in such a situation it was held that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition could not be dismissed on the ground of laches. In the present case the persons selected had already joined as District Munsiffs long back and the challenge has been raised to their selection after the decision had been rendered by the A.P. High Court in Writ Petition No. 18307 of 1998 (Mohd. Iqbal Ahmad & Ors. vs. High Court of A.P.) on 31.8.1998. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the High Court. (Para 7)