Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.SUDERSHAN REDDY, BILAL NAZKI, GODA RAGHURAM, M.S.LIBERHAN, V.V.S.RAO
Mallela Venkata Rao - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 11-08-00
Writ Petition - Appointment - Services - Admission – Education - Facts and questions of law raised in these petitions can be regarded as common questions of law - Petitions are being disposed of by common order - Basic factual questions argued be noted albeit with brevity. FACTS: State appointed a retired Judge of the high Court as Commission of Inquiry on to examine (A ) - Whether disproportionately large number of benefits have gone to a particular sub-caste of Scheduled Castes; and (B) If so, to indicate all such steps as are necessary and required to be taken to ensure that the above benefits are equally distributed amongst the various sub-castes of scheduled Castes - State made reservation of in appointment in services and admission in educational institutions for Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribe - Commission concluded that a large number of benefits of the reservation were disproportionately garnished by a particular sub-caste of the scheduled Castes - To ameliorate the benefit of reservation being usurped and provide an opportunity to a larger number of people in the category of Scheduled Castes, commission recommended steps to distribute the benefits equitably amongst scheduled Castes, by dividing the reservation proportionately according to the population amongst them - Commission report was examined by the cabinet Committee and opined for making ameliorative measures - Keeping in view the population of the Scheduled Castes in each group, out of the castes set out for the A. P. as Scheduled Castes in the Presidential order, categorised them broadly into communities - Reservation provided by the State to the Scheduled Castes as a whole in the matter of public employment and; admissions in educational institutions was apportioned at among the four categories categorised as A, B, C and D respectively. G. O. were issued accordingly – Held, - Questions court had framed, there is another point which court want to discuss before parting with the case - When the legislation would be put into operation at the ground the reservation would create illusory rights with regard to certain groups - Before going to show that it is creating illusory rights it would be pertinent to refer to sub-clauses (a) (b) (c) and (d) of Section 3 of the impugned Act. Sub-clauses (a) (b) (c) and (d) laid down that certain percentage of seats reserved for scheduled Castes would be reserved for abcd - Total percentage being which is reserved in favour of Scheduled castes - Reservation is notified for public employment and admission to educational institutions - When there are posts available then group a and d will get one job each, when there are seats in an educational institution then the group a and d will get one seat each - In Specialties and Super Specialities in education it is common knowledge that the seats are not even in dozens - Court do not know if there are seats how are they going to be distributed and what benefits can be extended to group a and d particularly - One of the counsels appearing had drawn our attention to the Rules also framed under the act. Rule-4 has been pointed out which lays down;"4. Reservation for women - The reservation for women to an extent of provided in public services in each roster cycle of 100 points fixed shall be adjusted by allotting two seats for Scheduled Castes-B and two seats to Scheduled Castes-C and one seat alternately for Scheduled Castes-A and one seat to Scheduled Castes-D as specified in Section 3 of the Act - "out of seats one seat alternatively shall go to the Scheduled Castes-C and scheduled Castes-A women because there is a reservation of in favour of women - This completely excludes men - Roaster point fixed for Scheduled Castes a and d" will alternately be given to women belonging to Scheduled Castes a and d therefore men get excluded - So, it becomes exclusion of a particular Scheduled Caste or group - For the reasons given hereinabove, court of the view that Section 3 of the impugned Act is ultra vires - Act cannot survive without Section 3, therefore the whole Act cannot survive - Accordingly, the writ Petitions are allowed - Impugned act is quashed – Order - In view of the majority judgment, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed and they are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs - This Court doth certify that these cases involve a substantial question of law of general importance and in the opinion of this Court the said questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court of India and that these cases are fit to be appealed to the supreme Court of India –Dismissed.
( 1 ) FACTS and questions of law raised in these petitions can be regarded as common questions of law. The petitions are being disposed of by common order.
( 2 ) THE basic factual questions argued be noted albeit with brevity. FACTS:
( 3 ) THE State of Andhra Pradesh appointed Sri Justice P. Ramachandra Raju, a retired Judge of the Andhra Pradesh high Court as Commission of Inquiry (hereinafter referred to as "raju commission") on 10-9-1996 to examine (A ). Whether disproportionately large number of benefits have gone to a particular sub-caste of Scheduled Castes; and (B) If so, to indicate all such steps as are necessary and required to be taken to ensure that the above benefits are equally distributed amongst the various sub-castes of scheduled Castes. The State made reservation of 15% in appointment in services and admission in educational institutions for Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes. The Raju Commission concluded that a large number of benefits of the reservation were disproportionately garnished by a particular sub-caste of the scheduled Castes. To ameliorate the benefit of reservation being usurped and provide an opportunity to a larger number of people in the category of Scheduled Castes, Raju commission recommended steps to distribute the benefits equitably amongst scheduled Castes, by dividing the 15% reservation proportionately according to the population amongst them. The Raju commission report was examined by the cabinet Committee and opined for making ameliorative measures. Keeping in view the population of the Scheduled Castes in each group, out of the castes set out for the A. P. as Scheduled Castes in the Presidential order, 1950 categorised them broadly into relli, Madiga, Mala and Adi Andhra group of; communities. 15% reservation provided by the State to the Scheduled Castes as a whole in the matter of public employment and; admissions in educational institutions was apportioned at 1%, 7%, 6% and 1% among the four categories categorised as A, B, C and D respectively. G. O. Ms. Nos. 68 and 69, dated 6-6-1997 and 7-6-1997 were issued accordingly.
( 4 ) THE appointment of Raju Commission of Inquiry was challenged in Writ Petition no. 2102 of 1996 in the High Court. G. O. Ms. Nos. 68 and 69 too were challenged.
( 5 ) THE Full Bench of this Court reported in B. Narayana vs. Govt. of A. P. quashed the g. O. Ms. Nos. 68 and 69. Presidential Order recognised the Scheduled Castes as the most backward class, and it is permissible for the State Government to sub-classify for purposes of Article 16 (4 ). The State government could only sub-classify being a major policy decision after consultation with the National Commission for scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (hereinafter referred to as "national commission") as envisaged by article 338 (9) of the Constitution and on a recommendation requiring the State to take any action is made to the Governor who was enjoined to place it before Legislature of the State along with memorandum of action taken, proposed to be taken and reasons for non-acceptance of any of such recommendation.
( 6 ) THE State preferred an appeal against the order of the Full Bench to the Hon ble supreme Court. It simultaneously sought consultation with the National Commission for acceptance of categorisation. On being opined by the National Commission that since the subject matter is sub judice in the hon ble Supreme Court the request cannot be considered, the State withdrew the appeal and the same was dismissed as withdrawn.
( 7 ) THE National Commission held various meetings. It received and asked for various data and information. Though the government brought to its notice the unanimous resolution of the Andhra pradesh Legislative Assembly approving the categorisation of Scheduled Castes. National Commission as well as the government of India were sensitised to the need and urgency for expeditious decision.
( 8 ) IN view of the directions of this Court dated 2-7-1998
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
