IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that recruitment quotas fixed by law cannot be altered by executive powers, ensuring adherence to established legal principles.

ORDER :

1. Heard Sri P. Surendar Rao, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Learned Special G.P. (Panchayat Raj) for the respondents 1 & 2 and Sri J. Sudheer, Learned Counsel for respondent No. 3.

2. Having heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioners, it is apparent that the issue, which this Court is called upon to adjudicate lies in a very narrow compass i.e. whether the ratio fixed by the Government between two streams of recruitment i.e. direct recruits and promotee’s can be altered in exercise of its executive powers?

3. The issue in our opinion is no more res integra and has attained finality at the hands of the Hon’ble Apex Court, where a Three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in V.B. Badami and others vs. State of Mysore and others, (1976) 2 SCC 901 has held in Paras 35 to 37 as under:

“35. The Government confirmed the direct recruits and the appellants by adjustment of vacancies within their respective quota and determined their seniority in accordance with Rule 2(b) of the Seniority Rules. Seniority is based on confirmation as full member of the service in the substantive vacancy.

36. In S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India, (1967) 2 SCR 703 : AIR 1967 SC 1427 : 65 ITR 34 it was said that when the quota was fixed for the two sources of recruitment the quota could not be altered according to exigencies of the situation. It was held there that the promotees who had been promoted in excess of the prescribed quota should be held to have been illegally promoted. In Bishan Sarup’s case (supra) it was held that when it was ascertained that not more than 1/3 of the vacancies were to go to the promotees and the rest to the direct recruits, the ratio was not made dependent on whether any direct recruit was appointed in any particular year or not. The promotees were entitled to 1/3 of the vacancies in any particular year, whether or not there was direct recruitment by competitive examination in that year.

37. Two principles are established in the decision referred to. One is that quotas which are fixed are unalterable according to exigencies of situation. Quotas which are fixed can only be altered by fresh determination of quotas under the relevant rule. The other is that one group cannot claim the quota fixed for the other group either on the ground that the quotas are not filled up or on the ground that because there has been a number in excess of quota the same should be absorbed depriving the other group of quota.”

4. From a reading of the above, it is apparent that the sanctity of the quota rule cannot be violated in any manner whatsoever, but only in the manner as is provided under the rules, more particularly, the observation in Para 36 that the quota rule cannot be violated to suit or alter according to exigencies of a situation, which is the case that is now canvassed before this Court. It is contended that as there was lack of promotional avenues for the promotees, the State has taken resort to Rule 31 and has proceeded to alter the quota, which the Hon’ble Apex Court has held to be impermissible & illegal. That apart, even a bare reading of Rule 31 of A.P. State & Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, would leave no doubt in the mind of this Court that there is no compliance with the mandate of Rule 31 itself. The said Rule 31 reads as under:

“31. Relaxation of Rules by the Governor:

Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules or in the special rules, the Governor shall have the power to relax any rules contained in these rules or special rules, in favour of any person or class of persons, in relation to their application to any member of a service or to any person to be appointed to the service, class or category or a person or a class of persons, who have served in any civil capacity in the Government of Andhra Pradesh in such manner as may appear to be just and equitable to him, where such relaxation is considered necessary in the public interest or where the application of such rule or rules is like