AP. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. BALOJI BADHAVATH & Ors.

Judgment

5 S.C.R. 688 A B AP. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. BALOJI BADHAVATH & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 2244 of 2009) APRIL 8, 200H [S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950: c Articles 14, 16, 335 - Reservation in recruitment - Andhra Pradesh Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, 22 and 22A - Validity and applicability of D E ANDHRA PRADESH SUBORDINATE SERVICE RULES, 1996: Rules 4, 22 and 22A - Reservation in appointments - Protection of - Constitutional validi(y of LOCUS STAND/: Public Service Commission - Selection Procedure - Locus standi of the Commission - Held it could maintain the writ petition. The Government of Andhra Pradesh used to issue F orders laying down norms to be adopted for filling up of vacancies in Group-I services in the State. The selection process contained preliminary examination and main examination followed by interview. For the preliminary and main examination, two criteria used to be adopted, G one for the general category and the other for the reserved category. The said procedure came to be challenged before the High Court. On the basis of the judgment of the High Court, the State issued fresh G.O. providing that the candidates who had applied for Group- H 688 ~ ,.. .. ..... 1 r A.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. BALOJI BADHAVATH & ORS. 689 I services would be shortlisted based on preliminary A examination (Screening Test) in the ratio of 1 :50 to the total no. of vacancies available at the material time irrespective of community. In accordance with the said G.O. a Notification was issued in 2003 calling applications for Group-I services. The Notification was challenged in B a writ petition but without success. A Notification was issued in 2007 notifying 196 vacancies. 1,68,000 candidates applied and 9800 candidates were shortlisted to take the main examination. c Some of the unsuccessful candidates approached the State Tribunal. The application was dismissed by the Tribunal. Aggrieved, the unsuccessful candidates filed a writ petition in the High Court. The High Court directed the Commission to prepare a statement showing the ratio as also category-wise data of the candidates permitted to appear for the Main examination as per the Commission; that despite noticing the ratio laid down, in regard to certain category of candidates, as for example, OC, BC(C), BC(E), women and physically handicapped candidates, in its earlier decisions in S. Jafeer Saheb as E also in G. Raju, it was held that in the said case as the ratio of the candidates in respect of those categories fell much short of 1 :15 ratio, the said GOMs dated 31.12.1997 as also the notification dated 27.12.2007 were held to be ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. F Hence the appeal. D Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The Constitution of India lays down provisions both for protective discrimination as also affirmative action. Reservation of posts for the disadvantaged class of people as also seats in educational institutions are provided for by reason of Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Reservation G H 690 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 5 S.C.R. A made for the members of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes, however, is subject to Article 335 of the Constitution of India. Concededly, no citizen of India can claim reservation as a matter of right. The provisions contained in Articles 15 B and 16 of the Constitution of India are merely enabling provisions. No writ of or in the nature of mandamus, thus, could be issued. [Para 17) [705-G, H; 706-A] C.A. Rajendran v. Union of India & Others, (1968) 1 SCR 721; Indra Sawhney and Others v. Union of India and Others C 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217; Ajit Singh and Others (//) v. State of Punjab and Others (1999) 7 sec 209 and State of Punjab and Others v. Manjit Singh and Others (2003) 11 SCC 559, relied on. D

#2. Appellant - Commission which has been constituted in terms of Article 315 of the Constitution of India is bound to conduct examination for appointment to the services of the State in terms of the Rules framed by the State. It is, however, free to evolve procedure for E conduct of examination. While conducting the examination in a fair and transparent manner as also following known principles of fair play, it cannot completely shut its eyes to the constitutional requirements of Article 335 of the Constitution of India. [Para 21) [707-H; 708-A] F State of Kera/a and Another v. N.M. Thomas and Others (1976) 2 sec 310, relied on.

#3. How the Commission would judge the merit of the G candidates is its function. Unless the procedure adopted by it is held to be arbitrary or against the known principles of fair play, the superior courts would not ordinarily interfere therewith. The State framed Rules in the light of the decision of the High Court in S. Jafeer H 1 ~. • -f _, _ _. , '" ' j ~ A.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. BALOJI BADHAVATH & ORS. 691 Saheb. Per se, it did not commit any illegality. The A correctness of the said decision, is not in question having attained finality. The matter, however, would be different if the said rules per se are found to be violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Nobody has any fundamental right to be appointed in terms of Article 16 B of the Constitution of India. It merely provides for a right to be considered therefor. A procedure evolved for laying down the mode and manner for consideration of such a right can be interfered with only when it is arbitrary, discriminatory or wholly unfair. [Para 22] [709-E-G] c S. Jafeer Saheb v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1985 (2) APLJ 380 and G. Raju v. Government of A.P. rep. by its Secretary, (Writ Petition No. 24247 of 2004 decided on 31.12.2004), referred to. D

4.1. Indisputably, the preliminary examination is not a part of the main examination. The merit of the candidate is not judged thereby. Only an eligibility criterion is fixed. The papers for holding the examination comprise of General Studies and Mental Ability. Such a test must be E held to be necessary for the purpose of judging the basic eligibility of the candidates to hold the tests. How and in what manner the State as also the Commission would comply with the constitutional requirements of Article 335 of the Constitution of India should ordinarily not be allowed to be questioned. [Para 25] [712-E, F] F

4.2. The proviso appended to Article 335 of the Constitution, cannot be said to have any application whatsoever in this case. Lowering of marks for the candidates belonging to the reserved candidates is not G a constitutional mandate at the threshold. It is permissible only for the purpose of promotion. Those who possess the basic eligibility would be entitled to appear at the main examination. While doing so, in regard to General H - ,~ ~ >- ' . -l 692 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 5 S.C.R. A English whereas the minimum qualifying marks are 40% for OCs, it would be 35% for BCs and 30% for SC/STs and physically handicapped persons. However, those marks were not to be counted for ranking. Candidates belonging to the reserved categories as specified in the B notification are not required to pay any fee. Their age is relaxed upto five years. It is, theriefore, not correct to contend that what is given by one hand is sought to be taken by another. They can, thus, appear in the examination for a number of times. Indisputably, the right c conferred upon the writ-petitioners - respondents in terms of Rules 22 and 22-A of the Andhra Pradesh State and SuJ>ordinate Service Rules, 1996 was to be protected. The extent of relaxation has been recognized. By reason of such a provision, the right to be considered has not been taken away. (Para 25] [712-G, H; 713-A-D] D