2009 Supreme(SC) 649

2009(4) Supreme 17
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
S.B. Sinha and Cyriac Joseph, JJ.
A.P. Public Service Commission — Appellant
versus
Baloji Badhavath & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2244 of 2009
[Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 18308 of 2008]
Decided on : 08-04-2009

IMPORTANT POINT
No citizen of India can claim reservation as a matter of right.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India,1950 – Article 162 – If the terms of the notification issued on the basis of the GOM were held to be unconstitutional, GOMs could have also been declared as such. (Para 15)

        (b) Constitution of India,1950 – Articles 15, 16 and 335 – Reservation – Reservation of posts for the disadvantaged class of people as also seats in educational institutions are provided for by reason of Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India – Reservation made for the members of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes would be subject to Article 335 of the Constitution of India – No citizen of India can claim reservation as a matter of right – The provisions contained in Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India are merely enabling provisions – No writ of or in the nature of mandamus, thus, could be issued. (Para 17)

        (1968) 1 SCR 721; 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217; (1999) 7 SCC 209; (2003) 11 SCC 559; (2008) 6 SCC 1 – Relied upon.

        1985 (2) APLJ 380; Writ Petiti on No. 24247 of 2004 – Referred.

        (c) Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 – Rules 22 and 22-A – While conducting the examination in a fair and transparent manner as also following known principles of fair play, the Commission has to follow the mandate of Article 335 of the Constitution of India. (Para 21)

        (1976) 2 SCC 310 – Relied upon.

        (d) Constitution of India,1950 – Article 16 – State framing rules in pursuance of directions of the High Court – No illegality – Nobody has any fundamental right to be appointed in terms of Article 16 of the Constitution of India – The rules framed could be interfered with if violative of Article 16. (Para 22)

        (1996) 11 SCC 742; (2006) 10 SCC 261 – Relied upon.

        (e) Constitution of India,1950 – Article 335 – How and in what manner the State as also the Commission would comply with the constitutional requirements of Article 335 of the Constitution of India should ordinarily not be allowed to be questioned. (Para 25)

        (f) Constitution of India,1950 – Article 335, Proviso – Lowering of marks for the candidates belonging to the reserved candidates is not a constitutional mandate at the threshold – It is permissible only for the purpose of promotion. (Para 25)

        (g) Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure – Rule 4 – Rule 4 would apply only where shortlisting is done. (Para 28)

        (1955) 2 SCR 1; (1981) 1 SCC 246 – Distinguished.

        (h) Reservation – If category-wise statement is prepared it may be detrimental to the interest of the meritorious candidates belonging to the reserved categories – The reserved category candidates, if they are meritorious enough to compete with the open category candidates, they are recruited in that category – The candidates below them would be considered for appointment in the reserved categories. (Para 37)

        (2008) 6 SCC 1; (2006) 4 SCC 550; (1996) 2 SCR 695; (2007) 8 SCC 785 – Relied upon.

        (i) Reservation – Reservation of women, handicapped etc. is on a horizontal basis. (Para 39)

        (j) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XLI, Rule 4 – Appellate court in the event it finds merit in the appeal at the instance of one of the respondents, may set aside the entire judgment although another respondent had not appealed thereagainst. (Para 40)

        (1980) 4 SCC 62 : (1981) 1 SCR 73; (2006) 8 SCC 330 – Distinguished.

       Facts of the case :

        1. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the judgment of the High Court, the State of Andhra Pradesh issued fresh G.O.Ms. No. 570 dated 31.12.1997, providing that the candidates who had applied for Group – I services would be shortlisted based on a preliminary examination (Screening Test) in the ratio of 1:50 to the total number of vacancies available at the material time irrespective of community.

        2. When in terms of the said GOMs, a notification in Advertisement No. 21 of 2003 calling applications for Group – I Services was issued in the year 2003, another writ application came to be filed by G. Raju and seven others questioning the legality thereof.

        3. The Andhra Pradesh High Court declined to interfere.

        4. A notification bearing No. 31 of 2007 was issued for Group – I Services Direct Recruitment (General) on 27.12.2007 notifying 196 Vacancies

        5. Relaxation of age was granted for the SC/ST and BCs candidates by five years. The reserved categories of candidates were exempted from payment of fees.

        6. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said notification, 1,68,000 candidates applied. A preliminary examination was held for all the candidates. Having regard to the ratio of the number of candidates to be admitted for main examination being 1: 50, 9,800 candidates were shortlisted to take the main examination.

        7. Respondents herein appeared at the said preliminary examination without any demur whatsoever. They, however, having not been shortlisted filed an original application before the Andhra Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal. The said original application was dismissed.

        8. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith, they filed a writ petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court which by reason of the impugned judgment has been allowed.

       Finding of the Court :

        The impugned judgment can not be sustained.

       Result : Appeal allowed.