S. RENUKA AND ORS. versus STATE OF A.P. AND ANR.

Citation: [2002] 2 S.C.R. 697 · Decided: 21-03-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

S. RENUKA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF A.P. AND ANR. 
MARCH 21, 2002 
[G.B. PATTANAIK, S.N. PHUKAN AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Appointment-Requirement of women Judges for Family Court and c 
., 
Mahi/a Court-Scarcity of adequate number of woman judges-Sanction of 
posts of District and Sessions Judges, Grade II for appointment-All the posts 
reserved for women after relaxation of Rule 2 of Special Rules of the A.P. 
State Higher Judicial Service-Reservation for SC, ST and Backward Classes 
provided-Selection made-On State's request-High Court opined that the 
candidates could not be appointed-Opinion of High Court challenged in D 
Supreme Court-Held, petitioners have no right to clain1 an appointment, as 
r 
the selection was de-hors the Special Rules and reservation polic~They 
cannot be appointed even on ex-cadre post, as the san1e would an1ount to 
creating ex-cadre post by Court and would be against Rules. 
After establishment of Family Courts and Mahila Courts, High Court E 
desired to post women Judges in such Courts. In view of in-sufficient number 
of women Judges IO additional posts were sanctioned by the State. 
Advertisement was issued for appointment to the posts of District Judges, 
Grade IL Out of the IO posts, 5 were for open competition, 2 for SC, one for 
ST, one for Backward Class category A and one for Backward Class, category F 
B. But after selection process, High Court approved 9 names for the panel 
consisting of 7 from the open competition and one each from SC and 
Backward Class A category B. The names of9 candidates were sent to State 
Government for appointment, informing that the appointments of the 
candidates shall be provisional as family court judges and they would be later 
recruited to Higher Judicial Service as District Judges, Grade II on the G 
• 
availability of vacancies reserved for women. State Government then 
~ 
requested High Court to express its views on certain aspects with regard to 
the selection. 
Full Bench of the High Court opined that it was not in favour of 
697 
H 
698 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002] 2 S.C.R. 
'--,...._ 
-_A recommending any candidate on provisional selection for appointment as 
District & Sessions Judge, Grade-II in A.P. State Higher Judicial Service. The 
view of the Court was that the Selection process was illegal and contrary to 
rules, as eventual absorption of the candidates appointed as Family Court 
Judges into the category of District Judges, Grade-II, was not permissible 
B 
under Special Rules for the A.P. State Higher Judicial Service and the same 
also did not provide for keeping the provisionally selected District Judges 
within-service as Family Court and Mahila Court Judges; and that 
earmarking of all the additional posts only to women amounted to cent percent 
~ 
reservation which was not permissible under Rule 2 of the Special Rules; and 
the relaxation of the Rule fQr Higher Judicial Services was not permissible, 
c and that the selection was against Reservation Policy as the vacancies relating 
,. 
to SC & st candidates were de-reserved and the vacancies of Backward 
Classes Group A, B, C & D were converted into other categories; and that -
the Selection was also not proper since the candidates had got less marks than 
normally prescribed for such selection. 
D 
Petitioners-the selected candidates filed the present writ petition seeking 
direction for their appointment in the cadre of District and Sessions Judge 
' 
Grade II. After subsequent advertisement for appointment of six posts of 
'-
District Judges wherein only one post was reserved for women, petitioners 
) 
amended the petition for further directions for quashing the decision of the 
.. 
full court not to appoint as per the selection earlier made and for quashing 
E the subsequent advertisement. 
The petitioners contended that they could be appointed on the ex-cadre 
posts as Judges of Family Courts and Mahila Courts. 
_...,__ 
F 
Dismissing the writ petition, the Court 
HELD : 1. No right accrues to a person merely because a person is 
selected and his or her name is put on a panel. The Petitioners have no right 
to claim an appointment. Even otherwise, the selection was contrary to the 
rules in force at that time. There could not be 100% reservation for women. 
G Also the reservation policy had not been adhered to. The posts which are 
created are posts of District and Sessions Judges, Grade 11: There is no 
~ 
separate posts for Judges of Family Courts 

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