A. P. Public Service Commission vs K. Sudharshan Reddy

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2006 Supreme(SC) 570

2006(5) Supreme 625
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Dr. AR. Lakshmanan & Altamas Kabir, JJ.
A.P. Public Service Commission — Appellant
versus
K. Sudharshan Reddy & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4202 of 2003
With
Civil Appeal No. 4201 of 2003
Decided on 4-7-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Advocate, Vijay Kumar, Mrs. P. Radha Rani, D. Verma, D. Mahesh Babu, Advocates.
For the Respondent No. 1 : M.N. Rao, Sr. Advocate, T.N. Rao, Advocate.
For the State of A.P. : Manor Saxena, Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, T.V. George, Rahul Shukla Advocates.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW — Constitution of India — Articles 14 and 16 — Weightage marks 5% awarded to candidates who had obtained their basic qualifications through Telgu Medium in recruitment to Group II (A) Services conducted by appellant — High Court quashed the Govt. order providing for that weightage on ground that it was discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution — Judgment was upheld in appeal by Supreme Court in 1995 — Telgu Medium candidates who had already been appointed on basis of such weightage were however not disturbed — Application before Administrative Tribunal that advantage of weightage marks could not be given while preparing merit list for preparation of the seniority list — Tribunal allowed application holding that protection afforded to Telgu Medium candidates did not extend to countings of such weightage for determining seniority — Writ petitions challenging the order were dismissed by High Court — Appeal — While protecting appointment already made, Court intended to protect not only appointment of those candidates but also all their service conditions which included their right to seniority — Decision rendered in the judgment would not adversely affect their existing service conditions — Impugned judgment was liable to be set aside.
       Held : Having carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, we are unable to agree with the submissions advanced by Mr. Rao since in our view, after having held the impugned Government Order to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, it was the intention of this Court to maintain the status quo as it existed with regard to the appointments already made where certain candidates had already been given the benefit of weightage. We are inclined to agree with Mr. Ranjit Kumar that the Court intended to protect not only the appointment of such candidates but also all their service conditions, which included their right to seniority as had accrued to them at the time of their initial appointment. In our view, the said intention of this Court was quite clear from the language used. If this Court had intended that the weightage given to the concerned candidates was not to count towards their position in the merit list, it would have said so explicitly. On the other hand, while mentioning the fact of their appointment on the strength of such weightage this Court went on to say that such candidates would not be adversely affected by the judgment. In other words, the decision rendered in the judgment would not adversely affect their existing service conditions. (Para 18)
       Furthermore, the question of seniority was never in question prior to the decision of this Court in Civil Appeal No.2914/1981 decided on 25th January, 1995.(Para 19)
       Apart from the above, the other submission of Mr. Ranjit Kumar regarding the difficulty of unsettling the settled position after all these years cannot also be lightly brushed aside.(Para 20)
       For the reasons aforesaid, the appeals must succeed and are allowed. The judgment and orders of the Andhra Pradesh High Court appealed against are hereby set aside along with the judgment and order dated 23rd May, 2001 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal(Para 21)

JUDGMENT

Altamas Kabir, J. — Pursuant to an advertisement No.2/83 published by it, the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission conducted recruitment to Group-II (A) Services and upon completion of the process of selection, the selected candidates were appointed in 1985 itself. In keeping with GOMS No. 502 dated 26th June, 1976, 5% weightage marks were awarded to candidates who had obtained their basic qualifications through Telugu medium. The same was challenged before the Andhra Pradesh High Court by Non-Telugu Medium candidates in a Writ Petition, being No. 2041/1981, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge by his judgment dated 7th June, 1981. By the said judgment and order the learned Single Judge quashed the aforesaid Government Order on the ground that it was discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

2. Two Writ Appeals were filed from the order of the learned Single Judge, one by the State of Andhra Pradesh and the other by the Telugu Medium candidates. Both the Writ Appeals were heard analogously by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which by its judgment and order dated 15th September, 1981 allowed he Writ Appeals and upheld the Government Orders whereby 5 % weightage in total marks was given to Telugu Medium candidates, upon holding that the same did not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Consequently, the Writ Petition filed by the Non-Telugu Medium Candidates was dismissed. The same resulted in the filing of Civil Appeal No.2914/1981 (V.N. Sunanda Reddy & Ors. vs. State of Anhdra Pradesh & Ors.) in this Court. Subsequently, the State of Andhra Pradesh issued a more comprehensive Government Order No.603 dated 18th November, 1981 and extended 5% weightage to all Telugu Medium Students who were candidates for recruitment by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission to any service in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The statutory rules framed in terms of the said Government Order were once again challenged by Non-Telugu Medium candidates before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad. The Tribunal by its order dated 18th January, 1994, allowed the said application filed by the Non-Telugu Medium candidates upon holding. as was done in the earlier matter, that the said Government Order was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. As will be apparent, the view taken by the Tribunal was contrary to the decision of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and it resulted in a Special Leave Petition being (Civil) No. 6395/1994 filed by the Telugu Medium candidates and by the State of Andhra Pradesh by way of Special Leave Petition) No. 13446/1994. As the question involved in both the matters was the same, they were taken up together for hearing by this Court and were disposed of by a common judgment dated 25th January, 1995.

3. Although, at the time of the hearing of the appeals, it was sought to be urged on behalf of the State that the weightage had been given in the interest of the State to enable it to recruit persons who are better acquainted with Telugu language, which was the official language of the State, such a stand was rejected and it was held that the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court was not right when it accepted such view. This Court held further that the Division Bench was not justified in upsetting the views expressed by the learned Single Judge.

4. While disposing of the said appeals, this Court took note of a submission made on behalf of Telugu Medium students that in the event the weightage given to them in recruitment was found to be faulty, those Telugu Medium candidates who had already been appointed on the basis of such weightage should not be disturbed and it was also submitted that those Telugu Medium students whose appointments could not be made on account of pendency of the proceedings should be given one further chance to compete for future recruitment in the post in question a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 570

Cases Referred (3)