B. MANMAD REDDY & ORS. versus CHANDRA PRAKASH REDDY & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 2 S.C.R. 860 · Decided: 17-02-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
(2010] 2 S.C.R. 860 
B. MANMAD REDDY & ORS. 
V. 
CHANDRA PRAKASH REDDY & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 933-935 of 2004 etc.) 
FEBRUARY 17, 2010 
~MARKANDEY KAT JU AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Andhra Pradesh Education Service Rules - r. 3 Note 6 
- Classification of officers, drawn from different sources and 
integrated into one class I cadre I category, into separate 
categories for the purpose of promotion - Propriety of - Held: 
Such classification is unjustified and discriminatory - Note 6 
D to r. 3 is unconstitutional - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 14. 
The question for consideration in the instant cases 
was whether persons drawn from different sources and 
integrated into one class I cadre I category, can be 
E classified into separate categories for purposes of 
promotion on the basis of the source from which they 
were drawn, as provided under Note 6 to Rule 3 of 
Andhra Pradesh Education Service Rules. 
F 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. Tribunal and the High Court were justified 
in holding that Note 6 to Rule 3 of Andhra Pradesh 
Education Service Rules, was unconstitutional inasmuch 
as the same classified officers eligible for appointment 
G against class II category 1 posts depending upon whether 
they were direct recruits or promotees. Such a 
classification based on the birth mark that stood 
obliterated after integration of officers coming from 
different source into a common cadre/category would be 
H 
860 
B. MANMAD REDDY & ORS. v. CHANDRA 
861 
PRAKASH REDDY & ORS. 
wholly unjustified and discriminatory. [Para 12] [870-C-D] 
A 
2. Any imbalance among those eligible for 
appointment against class II category 1 posts coming 
from different sources and categories would itself not 
justify a classification like the one made in Note 6. There 
8 
is no gainsaying that classification must rest on a 
reasonable and intelligible basis and the same must bear 
a nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the 
statute. By its very nature, classification can and is often 
fraught with the danger of resulting in artificial 
inequalities which make it necessary to subject the power C 
to classify to restraints lest the guarantee of equality 
becomes illusory on account of classifications being 
fanciful instead of fair, intelligible or reasonable. [Para 13] 
[870-E-G] 
The State of Jammu and Kashmir vs. Shri Triloki Nath 
Khosa and Ors. 1974 (1) SCC 19; Roshan Lal Tandon vs. 
Union of India 1968 (1) SCR 185, relied on 
Case Law Reference: 
1968 (1) SCR 185 
1974 (1) sec 19 
Relied on 
Relied on 
Para 9 
Para 10 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICITION : Civil Appeal Nos. 
D 
E 
933-935 of 2004. 
F 
From the Judgment & Order dated 10.1.2003 of the High 
Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition Nos. 
537, 2073 and 2075 of 2002. 
WITH 
C.A. Nos. 937-939 of 2004 
Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, A. Mariarputham, I. Venkatanarayan, 
G 
D. Rama Krishna Reddy (for D. Bharathi Reddy) T. Anamica, 
H 
862 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Chandra Mohan Anisetty, Manoj Saxena, Mayank Nigam (for 
T.V. George), D. Bharat Kumar, Balasubrahmanyam Kamarsu 
(for Abhijit Sengupta) for the appearing parties. 
B 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. These appeals by special leave arise 
out of a common order passed by the High Court of Andhra 
?radesh whereby Writ Petition Nos.537, 2073, 2075, 7234 and 
11033 of 2002 have been partly allowed, and the order passed 
by Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal set aside to the 
C extent the same had declared Note 1 (i) to Rule 3 of the Andhra 
Pradesh Educational Service Rules to be unconstitutional. To 
the extent the Tribunal had declared Note 6 to Rule 3 of the 
Rules aforementioned to be ultra vires the High Court has 
affirmed the view taken by the Tribunal and dismissed the writ 
D petitions. It is noteworthy that the State of Andhra Pradesh has 
not assailed the judgment delivered by the High Court of Andhra 
Pradesh. The present appeals have been preferred by the direct 
recruits to the Andhra Pradesh State Educational Service wh·o 
contend that the Tribunal and the High Court fell in error in 
E declaring Note 6 to Rule 3 of the Rules in question to be 
unconstitutional. 
2. The short question that falls for consideration and that 
was argued at considerable length before us by learned counsel 
for the parties is whether persons drawn from different sources 
F 
and integrated into one class/cadre/category can be class

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