Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Against High Court's Order on Reservation Policy — Upholds Constitution Bench's Ruling. Citing the Constitution Bench's ruling, the Supreme Court found G.O.Ms. No.3 of 2000 unconstitutional for providing 100% reservation, exceeding the permissible limit.

  • 5
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from the Government of Andhra Pradesh's challenge to the High Court's orders that upheld the validity of G.O.Ms. No.3 dated 10.01.2000, which provided for 100% reservation for local scheduled tribal candidates in teacher appointments. The High Court had set aside the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal's order that invalidated this G.O. The Supreme Court noted that the Constitution Bench had previously quashed G.O.Ms. No.3 and ruled that appointments made under it could not be sustained. The court emphasized that the state had previously issued a similar G.O. in 1986, which was also quashed, and reiterated that the limit of reservation should not exceed 50% as per established legal precedents. The court conditionally saved the appointments made under the unconstitutional G.O. but warned the states against exceeding reservation limits in the future. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals as infructuous, aligning with the Constitution Bench's authoritative pronouncement. The pending applications were also disposed of accordingly.

Headnote

A) Administrative Law - Reservation Policy - Validity of G.O.Ms. No.3 - Constitution Bench's Ruling - The Supreme Court upheld the Constitution Bench's decision quashing G.O.Ms. No.3 of 2000, which provided for 100% reservation for local scheduled tribal candidates, stating that such reservation exceeded constitutional limits. The court directed that any future attempts to exceed the reservation limit would invalidate existing appointments made under the unconstitutional G.O. (Paras 6-7).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appeals against the High Court's order regarding the validity of G.O.Ms. No.3 dated 10.01.2000 and subsequent memos were maintainable after the Constitution Bench's ruling.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals as infructuous, aligning with the Constitution Bench's ruling that quashed G.O.Ms. No.3 of 2000 and warned against exceeding reservation limits in the future.

Law Points

  • Reservation policy
  • retrospective effect
  • validity of government orders
  • constitutional limits on reservation
  • administrative tribunal decisions
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2023 LawText (SC) (05) 125

Civil Appeal Nos. of 2023 @ SLP (C) Nos. 34255-34256 of 2015

2023-05-19

Vikram Nath, Ahsanuddin Amanullah

Government of Andhra Pradesh

M. Rama Rao & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Challenge to the validity of government orders regarding reservation policy.

Remedy Sought

The Government of Andhra Pradesh sought to overturn the High Court's ruling.

Filing Reason

The High Court had allowed writ petitions challenging the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal's order.

Previous Decisions

The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal had set aside G.O.Ms. No.3 dated 10.01.2000.

Issues

Whether the appeals were maintainable after the Constitution Bench's ruling on G.O.Ms. No.3. The validity of the retrospective effect of G.O.Ms. No.3.

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued that the High Court's decision was incorrect and that G.O.Ms. No.3 was valid. The respondents did not appear to contest the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court reiterated that the limit of reservation should not exceed 50% as established in prior judgments, including Indra Sawhney, and that G.O.Ms. No.3 was unconstitutional for providing 100% reservation.

Judgment Excerpts

The appointments made in excess of the permissible reservation cannot survive and should be set aside. 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.

Procedural History

The Government of Andhra Pradesh filed appeals against the High Court's orders which had set aside the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal's ruling regarding G.O.Ms. No.3.

Acts & Sections

  • A.P. Regulation of Reservation and Appointment to Public Services Act:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal of Food Corporation of India Against Arbitration Award. The Court upheld the arbitrator's speaking award, finding no grounds for interference.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Relaxation of Bail Conditions in Criminal Case — Implied Power Under Section 439(1)(b) CrPC Recognized. Court holds that a trial court has inherent power to modify or relax bail conditions even if not expressly stated, as t...