Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Telangana) 45026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao, J
Government of Andhra Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
State Level Police Recruitment Board – Respondent
Writ Petitions
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Government Pleader for Services – I, Ms.G.Uma Rani
For the Respondents:
The tribunal cannot alter government policy on creamy layer criteria for reservations, and applications filed beyond the statutory limitation period are not maintainable.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 - Section 5(6) - Criteria for determining creamy layer among Backward Classes - The applicants challenged their non-selection for police constable posts, claiming arbitrary treatment regarding creamy layer status. The tribunal's orders were quashed due to errors in applying the creamy layer criteria and the applicants' failure to produce necessary certificates. (Paras 1, 2, 8, 10, 15)
(B) Delay and Laches - The tribunal erred in entertaining applications filed beyond the one-year limitation period prescribed by the Act without a valid condonation request. (Paras 20, 21)
(C) Judicial Review of Policy - The tribunal cannot reformulate government policy on creamy layer criteria, as this falls within the executive's prerogative. (Paras 25, 26, 29)
Facts of the case:
The applicants, non-selected BC candidates, claimed the Board's failure to recognize their creamy layer status was arbitrary. They alleged improper reliance on outdated income criteria and sought relief based on earlier tribunal orders. The tribunal allowed their applications, which were contested by the Government.
Findings of Court:
The tribunal's decisions were quashed as they failed to adhere to the binding creamy layer criteria and overlooked the applicants' delay in filing their claims.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the creamy layer criteria, the tribunal's jurisdiction to alter government policy, and the applicants' delay in filing their applications.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the tribunal lacked authority to change the creamy layer criteria set by the government and failed to consider the applicants' delay, which barred their claims under the Act.
Result: Writ petitions allowed, quashing the tribunal's orders.
COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao)
This batch of writ petitions with identical background facts, throws up similar question. There are three impugned orders passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (APAT or the tribunal). These followed an earlier order dated 20.12.2011 of the Hon’ble Vice Chairman (HVC) of the APAT, constituting as a Bench under Section 5(6) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 (the Act), in O.A.Nos.10947 of 2009 and batch. The first respondent (hereafter, the applicants) in each of the cases was successful before the APAT. All of them entered caveat. After proper notice to their Counsel, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission at length. This common order shall dispose of all the petitions.
Background
The State Level Police Recruitment Board (hereafter, the Board) issued a recruitment notification, dated 15.11.2008, inviting applications from eligible male and female candidates for limited recruitment to the posts of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constables (SCTPC) (Civil & Armed Reserve). These adhoc posts are governed by the Andhra Pradesh Police (Stipendiary Cadet Trainee) Rules, 1999 (for brevity, the Special Rules). A large number of candidates applied. After publication of the final results of the written test on 21.02.2009 the selectees were placed under training.
Non-selectee Backward Classes (BCs) candidates approached the tribunal in O.A.No.10947 of 2007 and batch. They prayed for a declaration that the action of the Board in not selecting them to the posts by treating them as belonging to BCs by considering the certificate issued by the Tahsildar as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to appoint them to the notified posts.
It was alleged that they belong to BC, they did not stand excluded by the creamy layer policy; they produced the valid certificate issued by the competent authority; and in an arbitrary manner the Board considered their case as OC candidate for non- production of a BC non-creamy layer certificate. The Government and the Board opposed contending that as per the relevant Government Order Rs.4.00 lakhs income limit is a criteria for determining the creamy layer among BCs; the applicants failed to produce the relevant certificate that they did not belong to creamy layer and that the necessary amendment was also made to Rule 22 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules , 1996 (General Rules). The learned Vice Chairman sitting single considered as many as five points and allowed the Original Applications on 28.02.2011. While doing so G.O.Ms.No.3, dated 04.04.2006 was set aside and a further direction was given to fix the creamy layer as per the Government of India (GoI) Memo, dated 25.10.2008, i.e., Rs.4.5 lakhs and consider the case of the applicants therein as per their merit under various BC categories. There is no dispute that the Board implemented this order by giving appointment orders to as many as 59 BC candidates. Be it noted, within a month thereafter, the learned Chairman of the tribunal also allowed similar case, being O.A.No.3625 of 2010, following the order of the HVC.
The applicants in these matters filed another batch of applications seeking similar relief. They claimed the same relief as in O.A.No.3625 of 2010. The learned Judicial Member sitting single followed the order of HVC and allowed the Original Applications by three separate orders passed in December 2011 and January 2012, aggrieved by which, the Government, the Board and the Cyberabad Commissioner of Police filed these writ petitions.
Submissions
The Government Pleader for Services – I made four main submissions as follows.
i) The applicants’ applications are barred by delay and laches, and therefore, the tribunal could not have exercised equities in their favour by following the earlier orders of the tribunal and giving the same benefit, especially when the Board already issued fresh recruitment notification on 31.10.2011. He rel
