The Government Of Andhra Pradesh vs M. Rama Rao

Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2023 @SLP (C) NOs. 34255-34256 OF 2015

THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. …APPELLANT(S) VERSUS

M. RAMA RAO & ORS. ETC. …RESPONDENT(S)

ORDER

VIKRAM NATH, J.

Leave granted

2. Despite service of notice, none of the

respondents have put in appearance as such the

matter has been heard ex parte.

3. The Government of Andhra Pradesh has

Signature Not Verified assailed the correctness of judgments and orders Digitally signed by SONIA BHASIN Date: 2023.05.19 16:20:27 IST Reason: dated 12.06.2014 and 29.04.2014 passed by Division 2

Bench of the High Court of Judicature for the State

of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh whereby

the writ petitions were allowed and the order dated

28.11.2011 passed by the Andhra Pradesh

Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad in a batch of

applications (leading case O.A.No.283 of 2010) was

set aside upholding the validity of Government orders

which had been set aside by the Tribunal.

4. The State of Andhra Pradesh had issued

G.O.Ms. No.3 dated 10.01.2000 providing for 100%

reservation in favour of local scheduled tribal

candidates for the post of teacher in all schools

situated in Scheduled Areas. Later on, two further

memos were issued on 19.12.2009 and 01.01.2010

by the Principal Secretary to Government, Tribal

Welfare Department, Hyderabad and Commissioner

of Tribal Welfare, Hyderabad respectively whereby it

was provided that the State G.O.Ms. No.3 would

apply to promotion also giving 100% reservation to 3

the local tribals and further that G.O.Ms.No.3 dated

10.01.2000 will have retrospective effect w.e.f.

05.11.1986.

5. The High Court had held that the memos are

explanatory and consequential in nature and not in

contravention to G.O.Ms. No.3 dated 10.01.2000 and

accordingly upheld the retrospective effect also.

6. In the meantime, other matters pending before

this Court in Civil Appeal No.3609 of 2002 etc.

wherein the validity of G.O.Ms. No.3 dated

10.01.2000 was under challenge, was referred to a

Constitution Bench. The Constitution Bench

answered the reference and decided the appeal vide

judgment dated 22.04.2020 in the case of Chebrolu

Leela Prasad Rao and others vs. State of Andhra

Pradesh and others1. The operative portion of the

decision of the Constitution Bench as contained in

1 (2021) 11 SCC 401 4

paragraphs 167, 168 and 169 of the report is

reproduced hereunder: -

“167. As a sequel to the quashing of G.O.Ms. No.3 of 2000, the appointments made in excess of the permissible reservation cannot survive and should be set aside. However, on behalf of State and other respondents, it was urged that appointments may not be set aside. In the peculiar circumstances, the incumbents, who have been appointed, cannot be said to be at fault and they belong to Scheduled Tribes.

168. We cannot ignore the fact that a similar G.O. was issued by the erstwhile State Government of Andhra Pradesh in the year 1986, which was quashed by the State Administrative Tribunal, against which an appeal was preferred in this Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn in the year 1998. After withdrawal of the appeal from this Court, it was expected of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh not to resort to such illegality of providing 100% reservation once again. But instead, it issued G.O.Ms. No.3 of 2000, which was equally impermissible, even if the A.P. Regulation of Reservation and Appointment to Public Services Act, 1997 would have been amended, in that event also providing reservation beyond 50% was not permissible. It is rightly apprehended by appellants that the State may again by way of mis-adventure, resort to similar illegal exercise as was done earlier. It was least expected from the functionary like Government to act in aforesaid manner as they were bound by 5

the dictum laid down by this Court in Indra Sawhney (supra) and other decisions holding that the limit of reservation not to exceed 50%. There was no rhyme or reason with the State Government to resort to 100% reservation. It is unfortunate that illegal exercise done in 1986 was sought to be protected by yet another unconstitutional attempt by issuing G.O.Ms. No.3 of 2000 with retrospective effect of 1986, and now after that 20 years have passed. In the peculiar circumstance, we save the appointments conditionally that the reorganised States i.e. the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana not to attempt a similar exercise in the future.

If they do so and exceed the limit of reservation, there shall not be any saving of the appointments made, w.e.f. 1986 till date. We direct the respondents States not to exceed the limits of reservation in future. Ordered accordingly.

169. Resultantly, we allow the appeals, and save the appointments made so far conditionally with the aforesaid riders. The cost of appeal is quantified at Rupees Five Lakhs and to be shared equally by the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana.”

7. In view of the fact that the principal G.O.Ms.

No.3 dated 10.01.2000 has already been set aside by

this Court, all subsequent memos would

automatically lapse. Further, since the Constitution 6

Bench had saved the appointments and their

promotion to be considered in accordance with

appropriate service rules, nothing further survives in

these appeals. The same are rendered infructuous as

it would stand covered by the judgment of the

Constitution Bench in Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao

(supra). Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of in

terms of the authoritative pronouncement of the

Constitution Bench in Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao

and others vs. State of A.P. and others(supra).

Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.

…………………………………..J. (VIKRAM NATH)

……………………………………J. (AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH)

NEW DELHI MAY 19, 2023