ANDHRA PRADESH SERVICE COMMISSION versus BALOJI BADHAVATH & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 5 S.C.R. 688 · Decided: 08-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 5 S.C.R. 688 
A 
AP. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 
v. 
BALOJI BADHAVATH & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2244 of 2009) 
B 
APRIL 8, 200H 
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950: 
c 
Articles 14, 16, 335 - Reservation in recruitment -
Andhra Pradesh Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, 22 and 
22A - Validity and applicability of 
ANDHRA PRADESH SUBORDINATE SERVICE 
D 
RULES, 1996: 
Rules 4, 22 and 22A - Reservation in appointments -
Protection of - Constitutional validi(y of 
LOCUS STAND/: 
E 
Public Service Commission - Selection Procedure -
Locus standi of the Commission - Held it could maintain the 
writ petition. 
The Government of Andhra Pradesh used to issue 
F orders laying down norms to be adopted for filling up of 
vacancies in Group-I services in the State. The selection 
process contained preliminary examination and main 
examination followed by interview. For the preliminary 
and main examination, two criteria used to be adopted, 
G one for the general category and the other for the 
reserved category. The said procedure came to be 
challenged before the High Court. On the basis of the 
~ 
judgment of the High Court, the State issued fresh G.O. 
providing that the candidates who had applied for Group-
H 
688 
A.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. BALOJI 
689 
BADHAVATH & ORS. 
I services would be shortlisted based on preliminary A 
,.. .. 
examination (Screening Test) in the ratio of 1 :50 to the 
total no. of vacancies available at the material time 
irrespective of community. In accordance with the said 
G.O. a Notification was issued in 2003 calling applications 
..... 
for Group-I services. The Notification was challenged in 
B 
a writ petition but without success. 
A Notification was issued in 2007 notifying 196 
vacancies. 1,68,000 candidates applied and 9800 
candidates were shortlisted to take the main examination. c 
Some of the unsuccessful candidates approached the 
State Tribunal. The application was dismissed by the 
Tribunal. Aggrieved, the unsuccessful candidates filed a 
writ petition in the High Court. The High Court directed 
the Commission to prepare a statement showing the ratio 
D 
as also category-wise data of the candidates permitted 
to appear for the Main examination as per the 
Commission; that despite noticing the ratio laid down, in 
regard to certain category of candidates, as for example, 
OC, BC(C), BC(E), women and physically handicapped 
candidates, in its earlier decisions in S. Jafeer Saheb as 
E 
also in G. Raju, it was held that in the said case as the 
ratio of the candidates in respect of those categories fell 
much short of 1 :15 ratio, the said GOMs dated 31.12.1997 
1 
as also the notification dated 27.12.2007 were held to be 
ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 
F 
Hence the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The Constitution of India lays down 
G 
provisions both for protective discrimination as also 
affirmative action. Reservation of posts for the 
r 
disadvantaged class of people as also seats in 
educational institutions are provided for by reason of 
Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Reservation 
H 
690 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009) 5 S.C.R. 
A made for the members of the Scheduled Castes, 
Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes, however, 
is subject to Article 335 of the Constitution of India. 
Concededly, no citizen of India can claim reservation as 
a matter of right. The provisions contained in Articles 15 
B and 16 of the Constitution of India are merely enabling 
provisions. No writ of or in the nature of mandamus, thus, 
could be issued. [Para 17) [705-G, H; 706-A] 
C.A. Rajendran v. Union of India & Others, (1968) 1 SCR 
721; Indra Sawhney and Others v. Union of India and Others 
C 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217; Ajit Singh and Others (//) v. State 
of Punjab and Others (1999) 7 sec 209 and State of Punjab 
and Others v. Manjit Singh and Others (2003) 11 SCC 559, 
relied on. 
D 
2. Appellant - Commission which has been 
1 
constituted in terms of Article 315 of the Constitution of 
India is bound to conduct examination for appointment 
to the services of the State in terms of the Rules framed 
by the State. It is, however, free to evolve procedure for 
E conduct of examination. While conducting the 
examination in a fair and transparent manner as also 
following known principles of fair play, it cannot 
completely shut its eyes to the constitutional 
requirements of Article 335 of the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.