GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus P.B. VIJAYAKUMAR AND ANR.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 462 · Decided: 12-05-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.M. SAHAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
v. 
P.B. VIJAYAKUMAR AND ANR. 
MAY 12, 1995 
[R.M. SAHA! AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.] 
Service Law 
Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules: Rule 22-A (2 ). 
Public Services--Recruitment-Posts equally suited to men and 
women-Provision for preference to women-Extent of at/east 30% of posts 
in each category of backward classe:r-Scheduled Castes and Scheduled 
T1ibes quota-Held not violative of A1ticle 16-Ru/e held within the ambit of 
Article 15(3}-Held it was not reservation in the nonnal sense-Concept of 
D rese1vation explained. 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Articles 15 and 16-lnterpretation of-Article 15(3) should be read 
hannoniously with Article 16-Power conferred under Article 15(3}-Held 
E cannot be whittled down by Article 16. 
A1ticle 15(3)-0bject and Scope of-Expression ''4ny special provision 
for women"-Contemplates affinnative action as well as reservation. 
With a view to providing reservation to women in public services to a 
F specified extent, the State of Andhra Pradesh introduced Rule 22-A in 
Andhra Pradesh State Subordinate Service Rules under proviso to Article 
309 of the Constitntion of India. Sub-rule (2) of the said Rule provides that 
in the matter of direct recruitment to posts for which women and men are 
equally suited, other things being equal, preference shall be given to women 
and they shall be selected to an extent of atleast 30% of the posts in each 
G category of O.C., B.C., S.C. and S.T. quota. Respondent-I challenged the 
validity of this rule on the ground that it was violative of Articles 14 and 
16(4) of the Constitution as it had seriously affected all male unemployed 
persons in the State of Andhra Pradesh. A single Judge of the High Court 
upheld the validity of Rule 22-C while a Division Bench upheld sub-rules (1) 
H and (3) but struck down last portion of Rule 22-A(2) as unconstitutional in 
462 
.
J 
GOVf. OF AP. v. P.B. VIJAYAKUMAR 
463 
so far as it provided that "women shall be selected to an extent of at least A 
30% of the posts in each category of O.C., B.C., S.C. and S.T. quota". State 
of Andhra Pradesh preferred appeals before this Court. 
On behalf of the respondents it was contended that the State cannot 
make any reservation in favour of women in relation to appointments or 
posts under the State, because Article 16(2) read with Article 16( 4) ex-
B 
pressly permits reservation in favour of any backward classes of citizens 
but it contains no such provision for reservation in favour of women. 
Allowing the appeals, this Court. 
HELD : 1. The judgment of the High Court in so far it strikes down 
the second part of Rule 22·A(2) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subor-
dinate Service Rules is set aside and Rule 22-A(2) is upheld as valid. 
[473-E] 
c 
2. Rule 22-A(2) does make certain special provisions for women as D 
contemplated under Article 15(3). It provides for preference being given to 
women to the extent of 30% of the posts, other things being equal. This is 
clearly not a reservation for women in the normal sense of the term. It is a 
Rule for a very limited affirmative action. It operates, first of all, in respect 
of direct recruitment to posts for which men and women are equally suited. 
Secondly, it operates only when both men and women candidates are equally E 
meritorious. This is an express condition of Rule 22-A(2), thus limiting its 
application. It is not the intention of the Rule that it would apply only if all 
the candidates have not merely the same number of marks in the selection 
test but are also born on the same date, or have identical marks in the 
qualifying diploma or degree examination. The preference contemplated F 
under the Rule will come into operation at the initial stage when in the 
selection test for the post in question, candidates obtain the same number 
of marks or are found to be equally meritorious. The said Rule prescribes a 
. minimum preference of 30% for women, clearly contemplating that for the 
remaining posts also, if women candidates are available and can be selected 
on the basis of other criteria of selection among equals which are applied to G 
the remaining candidates, they can also be selected. The 30% rule is also not 
inOexible. In a situation where sufficient number of women are not avail .. 
able, preference that may be given to them could be less than 30%. This rule 
is within the ambit of Article 15(3), nor is it in any manner violative of 
Article

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