MARRIPATI NAGARAJA AND ORS. versus THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 11 S.C.R. 506 · Decided: 12-10-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA, H.S. BEDI · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MARRIPATI NAGARAJA AND ORS. 
v. 
THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 12, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
..,. 
c 
Reservation-For women-In direct recruitment-Not specified 
in the Advertisement-By subsequent Government Order, provided to 
the extent of 30% with retrospective effect-:By further Notification 
percentage of reservation increased to 33 113%-Permissibility to such 
reservation-Held: Reservation permissible-Rule providing 
D reservation to women already existing on the date, the posts were 
advertised-Subsequent Notification only increased percentage for 
such reservation-State has the power to make Rules with retrospective 
t-
effect and retro-active operation-The rule providing reservation 
having been given retrospective effect and particularly when its 
E constitutionality has not been questioned would be applicable~ 
Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules-r. 22-A---;-
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 309 Proviso-Retrospective 
Operation. 
Recruitment-Screening test-Second screening test with the 
F approval of Administrative Tribunal-Candidates challenging selection 
process on the ground that preparation time given for second screening 
~ 
test was very short-Held: Selection process not being discriminatory, 
could not be set aside on this ground alone. 
G 
Andhra Pradesh Public Service commission issued Notification 
H 
inviting applications for recruitment to various posts including the posts 
of Assistant Director of Agriculture. No stipulations were made in the 
Notification, regarding reservation for the women. 
506 
) 
MARRIPATI NAGARAJA v. THE GOVERNMENT OF 
507 
ANDHRA PRADESH 
;. " 
Appellants had applied for the post of Assistant Director, in tenn~ A 
of the Notification. About 510 candidates appeared for screening test 
on 27.12.1992. 
Appellants-candidates filed original application on different 
grounds which was dismissed by the Tribunal. During pendency of the, B 
application, State had issued Government Order on 6.10.1995 providing 
for reservation for women candidates to the extent of30% in the matter 
y 
of direct recruitment with retrospective effect from 2.1.1984. By another 
Notification, dated 28.5.1996, State increased the percentage of 
reservation to 33 113%. 
c 
An application by the Commission seeking short-listing of the 
candidates was allowed by the Tribunal As per direction of the Tribuna~ · 
a Notification for conducting a fresh screening test was issued on 
12.12.2000 whereby second screening test of 510 candidates was to be 
conducted on 7.1.2001. 
.n 
Candidates filed original applications on the ground that ' 
reservation for women could not have been provided in terms of , 
Notification dated 28.5.1996 and that a very limited time had been given 
to them for appearing in the second screening test. In the meantime E 
Commission interviewed the suitable candidates. The applications were 
dismissed by the Tribunal holding that the Selections had to revised 
restricting the reservation for women to the extent of30%. 
• 
Writ Petitions by the candidates as well as the Commission, 
challenging the order of the Tribunal, were dismissed. Hence the present F 
., ;-
appeals by the candidates and also by the Commission • 
Dismissing the appeals of the candidates and allowing that of the 
Commission, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. It is well settled that the rules which would be applicable G 
for selecting the candidates would be the one which were prevailing at 
~ ~ 
the time of the notification. It is also equally well settled that the State 
may, subject to constitutional limitations, amend the rule with 
retrospective effect. [Para 12) [513-A, B] 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
508 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 11 S.C.R. 
1.2. The women candidates, in terms of Rule 22-A of Andhra 
Pradesh State and subordinate Service Rules, were, therefore, only 
entitled to preference. By reason of the said notification merely, the 
percentage has been increased from 30% to 33113%. It has been given 
a retrospective effect; as the existing sub-rule (2) of Rule ~22-A was 
substituted. By reason of the said Notification, no existing right of any 
person has been taken away. In fact, as the selection process was not 
.over, the question of applicability of the said Notification would have 
fallen for consideration only when a fmal selection list was to be made 
and not prior thereto. [Para 13] (513-F, G] 
1.3. The State, in exercise ofits powe

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