MOHD. SIDDIQ ALI versus HIGH COURT OF A.P. THROUGH REGISTRAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 478 · Decided: 24-10-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
MOHD. SIDDIQ ALI 
v. 
HIGH COURT OF A.P. THROUGH REGISTRAR AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 24, 2005 
[R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., G.P. MATHUR AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.] 
Service law: 
Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules-Rule 22-A(2)(As 
amended by G.O.Ms. No.237 dated 28.5.1996)-Appointment-To the post of 
Distt. Munsijf-Of women candidate-Applying policy of reservation provided 
in the Rule-Appointment challenged-Plea that the Rule did not provide for 
reservation but only a rule of preference-Dismissal of writ petition-On 
appeal, held: Jn view of amendment of the Rule providing for first time 
reservation for women, the Rule cannot be said to have been wrongly applied. 
Appellants challenged appointment of some women candidates and 
candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to the posts 
of District Munsiff, by filing two Writ Petitions. Prior to filing the present 
Writ Petitions, a Writ Petition challenging the same appointments was filed 
E wherein (Mohd. Iqbal Ahmedv. High Court of A.P., (1998) 5 ALT 385) High 
Court considering amendments in Rule 22-A(2) of A.P. State and Subordinate 
Service Rules held that the Rule provided for first time reservation for women 
candidates. High Court dismissed the petitions. One of the Writ Petitions 
was dismissed holding that one of the petitioners had no chance of selection 
F even if his plea was accepted. Hence the present appeals. Fresh Writ Petitions 
were also filed in this Court challenging the appointments. 
In appeal to this Court, appellants contended that selection of women 
candidates after applying Rules 22-A(2) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service 
Rules for their reservation was illegal, as the Rule did not provide for a 
G reservation but merely laid down rule of preference. 
H 
Dismissing the appeals and petitions, the Court 
HELD: 1. In view of the amendment of Rule 22-A(2) of A.P. State and 
Subordinate Services Rules providing for first time reservation for the women 
478 
.-
' 
,, 
~ 
~ 
'• 
MOHD. SIDDIQ All v. HIGH COURT OF A.P. THROUGH REGISTRAR 
479 
candidates, it cannot be said that the Rule was wrongly applied as it did not A 
provide for reservation in favour of women, but merely laid down rule of 
preference. [484-DI 
Government of A.P. v. P.B. Vijyakumar and Anr., 11995] 4 S(:C 520, 
distinguished. 
2. It cannot be said that Writ Petition could not have been dismissed on 
B 
the ground of !aches. In the present case the persons selected had already 
joined as District Munsiffs long back and the challenge has been raised to 
their selection after the decision had been rendered by the High Court in 
Mohd. Iqbal Ahmad's case. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order passed C 
by the High Court. 1485-81 
RS. Deodhar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR (1974) SC 259, distinguished. 
Mohd. Iqbal Ahmad v. High Court of A.P., (1998) 5 ALT 385, referred 
to. 
3. In respect of the other appeal, High Court has recorded a finding 
that the appellant had no chance of selection even if the contention raised by 
him was accepted. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the 
reasons given by the High Court in dismissing his Writ Petition are 
incorrect. [ 485-C[ 
4. Writ Petitions which have been directly filed in this Court under 
Article 32 of the Constitution are highly belated and are liable to be dismissed 
on the ground of !aches. [485-EI 
D 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3006 of2001. 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.1.99 of the Andhra Pradesh High 
Court in W.P. No. 35876of1998. 
WITH 
W.P. (C) No. 504/99, C.A. No. 3007/2001, W.P. (C) Nos. 22, 554 and 555 G 
' 
of2001. 
H.S. Gururaja Rao, G. Seshagiri, A. Raghunath, A.T.M. Sampath, Mrs. 
P.S. Shanthi, Mrs. R. Meena Kumari, B.D. Sharma, (NP) and G. Ramakrishna 
Prasad for the Appellant. 
H 
480 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
B. Sridhar, K. Ram Kumar and T.V. Ratnam for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G.P. MA THUR, J. I. The issue raised in the Civil Appeals and Writ 
Petitions which have been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution is same 
' 
B and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order. 
c 
2. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh issued a notification on 23. I 0 .1996 
for making appointments to the posts of District Munsiff and the relevant part 
of the notification which has a bearing on the controversy in dispute is 
reproduced below : 
"Notification 
For appointment to the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.