The Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors. v. Ameerbi reported in 2007 (11) SCC & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 14, 16, 16(4), 17, 162, 226, 309
- Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 s. 15
- State Act, 1993
- Tamil Nadu Act
- School Education Act
- ofTamil Nadu Act
Key paragraphs
- Para 66.Despite several opportunities given, the respondentState did not file any counter affidavit. On the contrary, aletter, dated 13.4.2010 sent by the Principal Secretary/SpecialCommissioner to the ICDS Scheme, Tharamani, Chennai to the Additional Government Pleader was produced. In that letter, theyhave only relied upon the D.O.…
Judgment
The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. By its Special Commissioner & Government Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
The Department of Adi Dravidar Welfare, rep. By its Secretary, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
The District Collector, Collectorate, Thiruvarur District... Respondents in W.P.Nos.3840, 3841,3842 3950, 5116, 5117 and 6645 of 2010W.P.No.10748 of 2009 is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamusto call for the records from the first respondent pertaining tothe impugned appointment order, proceedings Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.1581,A1/08 dated 30.5.2009 of the third respondent and to quash thesame and consequently to direct the first respondent to appointthe petitioner as noon meal organiser on the place of the thirdrespondent. W.P.Nos.3840, 3841, 3842, 5116, 5117 and 6645 of 2010 arepreferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for theissue of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents fromappointing the post of organizer at Adi Dravidar Primary School, Thenpathi, Thiruvarur District, the post of Cook in the noonmeal centre at Panchayat Union Primary School, SerumangalamUdyar Street, Needamangalam Taluk, Thiruvarur District and forthe post of Organiser in the noon meal centre at ThirumuruganHigh School, Melavasal, Mannarkudi Taluk, Thiruvarur Districtand also forbearing the third respondent from appointing thepost of Organizer in the noon meal centre at Panchayat Unionmiddle School.
Ayakudi, Thiruvarur District respectively andalso for appointing the post of Anganwadi Assistant at Korkai-II, Anganwadi Centre, Thiruthuraipoondi Taluk, ThiruvarurDistrict and also for appointing the post of Organizer in thenoon meal centre at S.S.A.Primary School, Karupattimoolai, Thiruvarur District, without following the rule of reservationin view of G.O.Ms.No.78, dated 30.6.2008 issued by the firstrespondent. W.P.No.3950 of 2010 is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of mandamusforbearing the respondents from appointing the post of AnganwadiAssistant in Maruthavanam, Thiruvarur District without followingthe rule of reservation in view of G.O.Ms.No.78, dated 30.6.2008and G.O.No.149 dated 20.11.2009 issued by the first respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioners : Mr.P.VijendranFor Respondents : Mr.N.Senthilkumar, AGP- - - - COMMON ORDERI. Prelude: We deal here with the right of all our children, whatevertheir race, to an equal start in life and to an equalopportunity to reach their full potential as citizens.
Thosechildren who have been denied that right in the past deservebetter than to see fences thrown up to deny them that right inthe future . . . [U]nless our children begin to learn together, there is little hope that our people will ever learn to livetogether. (Milliken v.Bradley, 418 U.S. 717, 783 (1974) (Marshall, J.,dissenting))II. The Fact file:2.1.As regards discrimination by providers, grassroots-level workers like Auxiliary Nurse Midwives (ANMs) and AnganwadiWorkers (AWWs) were more discriminating than the higher-orderproviders such as doctors and lab technicians. Of the totalnumber of times that Dalit children accessed health careservices, more than 93 per cent times they experienceddiscrimination by ANMs and AWWs.Almost always (98 per cent times), the AWWs served the foodlast to the Dalit children. (See: Tables below) 2.2.TABLE 7.3: Nature of Discrimination Experience by DalitChildren in Health Care Access-by Sphere, Form, and ProviderNature of discriminationTotalPositive Children response response experiencing discrimination (in percentage)AWWs do not touch them1931168087AWWs make them sit separately1703146586AWWs do not speak gently 839 60472AWWs serve them food last19021864982.3.Discrimination through touch was more vigorously https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ practised by pharmacists, ANMs and AWWs. They did not touch the Dalit children in almost all the times they interacted with thechildren. (See Table 7.4)2.
TABLE 7.4: Caste-based Discrimination Experienced by DalitChildren while Accessing Health Care by Degree of Prevalence80-90% 90%+AWWs do nottouch themAWWs make them sitseparatelyAWWs serve themfood lastSee: Sanghamitra S.Acharya in "Blocked by Caste ECONOMICDISCRIMINATION in MODERN INDIA" , Edited by Sukhadeo Thorat &Katherine S.Newman, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2010)pp.216-220 III. Debates on interdining among various Castes:3.1.Interdrinking, interdining, intermarrying, I hold, arenot essential for the promotion of the spirit of democracy. I donot contemplate under a most democratic constitution auniversality of manners and customs about eating, drinking andmarrying. We shall ever have to seek unity in diversity, and Idecline to consider it a sin for a man not to drink or eat withanybody and everybody. ('The caste system', Young India, 8 Dec. 1920, The CollectedWorks of Mahatma Gandhi, vol. XIX, Ahmedabad: Navjivan Trust,1966, pp.83-5.)3.2.Responding to the controversy around separate diningpractised in the gurukulam (at Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu),M.K.Gandhi argued "I do not regard it as a sin for a person notto dine with another nor do I regard it as sinful if oneadvocates and practices inter-dining. I should, however, resistthe attempt to break down the restriction in regard to thefeelings of others. On the contrary, I would respect theirscruples.' See: Padmanabhan, V.V.S. Aiyer, p.196.3.3.E.V.Ramasamy (known as Periyar) opposed the practice ofseparate dining arrangements for Brahmin and the non-Brahminstudents in Cheranmadevi Gurukulam. (M.S.S. Pandian, Brahmin & Non Brahmin, Permanent Black, Delhi,(2007) p.190. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
3.4."E.V.R. quarrelled with Congress and Gandhi very soonafter the Vaikkam affair over the question of separate diningfor Brahman and non-Brahman students in a Congress-sponsoredschool (Gurukkulam) near Madras. The school was set up by thenationalist leader V.V.S. Iyer with the aim of impartingtraditional religious education in the larger context of acommitment to patriotism and social service. After severalcomplaints, it became clear that Iyer had arranged for separatedining facilities for several Brahman students at the request oftheir parents. Although Gandhi attempted to intervene through acompromise resolution, the controversy split a number of Brahmanand non-Brahman Congress leaders and led to a great deal ofbitterness on the part of E.V.R. and several of his principalassociates. While this controversy raged, E.V.R. furtherattempted to interest the Tamil Nadu Congress to support aresolution for communal representation.
"(Nicholas B.Dirks: "Castes of Mind" Colonialism and the Makingof Modern India, Permanent Black : Delhi 2002 (p. 258))IV.Grievances projected by petitioners:4.1.In W.P.No.10748 of 2009, the petitioner has comeforward to challenge the order, dated 30.5.2009 passed by thefirst respondent District Collector, Thiruvarur District inappointing the third respondent as an Anganwadi Assistant in the Anganwadi Centre at Kattakudi, Bharathidasan Street, Needamangalam.4.2.The case of the petitioner was that the thirdrespondent was appointed without any norms. It was also claimedthat the the petitioner belonged to scheduled caste and thethird respondent belonged to backward community. The officialrespondents have not reserved any post for the reservedcategories. It was also claimed that particular post of the NoonMeal Organizer's post was reserved for scheduled caste. When thewrit petition came up on 18.6.2009, the learned AdditionalGovernment Pleader took notice.
4.3.On behalf of the District Programme Officer, ICDS,Thiruvarur, a counter affidavit, dated 29.7.2009 has been filed. In the counter affidavit, it was stated that selection has beenmade by the recommendations of selection committee. The thirdrespondent is fully qualified to hold that post. With referenceto the reservation, in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit, itwas averred as follows: "3. In all Anganwadi centres married women https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ candidates are eligible to apply for the Anganwadi worker irrespective of caste andseparate quota for SC candidate is notprescribed either in G.O. or Government Letteror Head of Department instructions. Theappointment is purely made only on merit basis. Hence I submit that the appointment is notagainst the Art.17 of the Constitution of India. "4.4.Mr.P.Vijendran, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner contended that number of posts became vacant bothunder the Nutritious Meal Scheme as well as for AnganwadiWorkers under the ICDS Scheme.
The Government by G.O.Ms.No.78,Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Scheme department, dated30.6.2008 decided to fill up the posts of Noon Meal Organisers, Cook, Assistants, Anganwadi Workers and Anganwadi Assistantsnumbering about 29773 posts. The break-up given was 10028 postsunder Nutritious Meal scheme and 19745 under the ICDS Scheme. Itwas decided to recruit candidates on the basis of educationalqualifications, age, communal roster as well as recruitmentguidelines available on the date of the order. V.Stand of the State:5.1.Though it was found that the posts shall be filled upby following communal roster, but no posts have been reservedbased on the communal roster. Several representations have beenmade. But the department was taking shelter under a letterwritten by the Ministry of Human Resource DevelopmentDepartment, Department of Women and Child Development of Government of India in F.No.1-15/03-CD-I, dated 20.10.2003.
Inthat letter under the caption "Reservation in recruitment of Anganwadi Workers" , it was observed as follows: "Please refer to your letter No.SSW-473/2003dated 17.10.2003 on the subject mentioned above. The ICDS Scheme envisages Anganwadi Workers(AWWs) and Helpers to be 'honorary workers' fromthe local community. Consequently, noreservation for SCs/STs and OBCs in theirselection has been provided under the Scheme asthey are not deemed to be "Governmentemployees".5.2.To support the stand of the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Women and Child Development, reliance was placed upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and others Vs. Ameerbi andothers reported in 2007 (11) SCC 681. In that case, the SupremeCourt held as follows: "13. The posts of anganwadi workers are not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ statutory posts. They have been created in termsof the scheme.
It is one thing to say that thereexists a relationship of employer and employee byand between the State and anganwadi workers butit is another thing to say that they are holdersof civil post.14. We are not oblivious to the fact thattheir presence in their respective villages isextremely important. They are supposed to makesignificant contribution to the society. They, weunderstand, are required to carry out a largenumber of activities, primary amongst them beingthe welfare of the children.......20. Anganwadi workers, however, do not carryon any function of the State. They do not holdpost under a statute. Their posts are notcreated. Recruitment rules ordinarily applicableto the employees of the State are not applicablein their case. The State is not required tocomply with the constitutional scheme ofequality as adumbrated under Articles 14 and 16of the Constitution of India. No process ofselection for the purpose of their appointmentwithin the constitutional scheme exists............28.
However, rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India are notattracted in the case of the respondents. Theyare appointed under a scheme which is not of apermanent nature, although might have continuedfor a long time.29. Appointments made under a scheme andrecruitment process being carried out through acommittee, in our opinion, would not render theincumbents thereof holders of civil post. Ourattention has not been drawn to any rule orregulation governing the mode of theirrecruitment.............31. One of the questions which was raisedbefore us was in regard to the right of ananganwadi worker to contest an election. They areindisputably free to do so. A holder of a civilpost may not be entitled thereto............38.......We are concerned herein with only onequestion viz. whether the respondents are holdersof any civil post. We are, having regard to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ materials on record, of the view that they arenot.
"5.3.The question that came up for consideration in thatcase was whether the State Administrative Tribunal constitutedunder Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 canentertain an application from the Anganwadi workers and whetherthey are holders of civil posts and whether the Tribunal canentertain applications at the instance of such Anganwadi workersin relation to their service grievances. 5.4.The letter of the Central Government quoted above hasbeen understood by the District Programme Officer, Thiruvarur toinform that there are exempted from the communal roster whilefilling up the posts of Anganwadi workers and Noon MealAssistants. 5.
When this writ petition is pending, several otherpetitioners came before this court and filed writ petitionschallenging the appointments of Cooks and Anganwadi workers invarious noon meal centres and Anganwadi Centres withoutfollowing rules of reservation as assured in G.O.Ms.No.78, dated30.6.2008. Those writ petitions were clubbed together and weredirected to be posted along with the earlier writ petition. Pending those writ petitions, this court granted an interiminjunction from filling up various posts without following rulesof reservation. 5.
Despite several opportunities given, the respondentState did not file any counter affidavit. On the contrary, aletter, dated 13.4.2010 sent by the Principal Secretary/SpecialCommissioner to the ICDS Scheme, Tharamani, Chennai to the Additional Government Pleader was produced. In that letter, theyhave only relied upon the D.O. letter sent by the CentralGovernment, dated 20.10.2003, the judgment of the Supreme Courtin State of Karnataka Vs. Ameerbi reported in 2007 (11) SCC 681and also another letter, dated 5.4.2010 sent by the JointSecretary to Government, Social Welfare and Nutritious MealProgramme Department. In that letter, similar contentions wereraised. It is useful to refer to the following passage from thatletter: "I am to invite your king attention toyour letter cited and to state that as per the Government of India Letter No.F.No.1-15/03-CD-1, Department of Women and Child Development, dated 20.10.2003, it has been stated that the Integrated Child Development Services Schemeenvisages Anganwadi Workers and Helpers to beHonorary workers from the Local Community.
Consequently No reservation for SCs/STs andOBCs in their selection has been provided underthe scheme as they are not deemed to be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Government employees.2)Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court intheir judgement dated 7.12.2006 in Civil appealnos.4953-4957 of 1998 has stated that the Anganwadi Workers are not the holders of anycivil post. " (Emphasis added)VI.Issue on Hand:6.1.The short question that arises for consideration iswhether the respondent State while filling up the posts of Anganwadi workers and noon meal organisers coming under ICDSScheme as well as under Nutritious Meal Scheme respectivelyshould follow rules of reservation?6.2.It must be noted that the post of noon meal organizer, Cook and Assistant Cook as well as Helper in the Anganwadicentres are not created by any rule framed under Article 309 ofthe Constitution. It is not a constituted service.
But, nevertheless since the Government took over to maintain thescheme and had created a separate Ministry for administering thescheme and bearing the entire cost of the scheme, includingprovisions, utensils and overhead expenditures, salaries of allemployees, it is none the less a public employment. Anyappointment to such posts must be subjected to the touchstone of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Whatever may be thecircumstances which prevailed earlier, the Government has nowdirectly started implementing mammoth the scheme at the level ofa Secretary to the Government and the District Collector at the District level. It is a public employment. In case of any publicemployment, equality doctrine with exception for rule ofreservation are available subjected to qualification prescribedtherein.VII.Are the AWWs and NMOs hold Public Employment?7.1.It must also be noted that subsequent to the judgmentof the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs.
Ameerbi case(cited supra), the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider thestatus of Anganwadi workers relating to their recruitment in twosubsequent decisions.7.2.The Supreme Court in Dipitimayee Parida v. State of Orissa reported in (2008) 10 SCC 687 in paragraphs 11 and 14held as follows: "11. The matter relating to recruitment of Anganwadi workers is not governed by anystatute. Recruitments are made pursuant to ascheme framed by the Central Government. TheState, therefore, while making recruitments insuch projects in exercise of its jurisdictionunder Article 162 of the Constitution of India, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ may issue such guidelines and/or circulars as itmay deem fit and proper. The said guidelines areordinarily binding on all the functionariesworking in terms of the “scheme” including the Selection Committees constituted for therecruitment of Anganwadi workers......14. .... It is one thing to say that thecriteria fixed by the State for the purpose ofthe recruitment of Anganwadi workers are illegalor ultra vires but it is another thing to saythat although they are valid, in theirapplication some relaxation could be granted.
"7.3.The Supreme Court vide its judgment in State of W.B. v.Kaberi Khastagir reported in (2009) 3 SCC 68, (relating to therecruitment of Angawandi workers under ICDS Scheme), hadobserved in paragraphs 31 and 36 as follows: "31. Having considered the submissions madeon behalf of the respective parties, we findourselves unable to agree with the reasoningeither of the learned Single Judge or the Division Bench of the High Court in holdingthat the writ petitioners were projectemployees in respect of the ICDS Project andnot employees of the State Government and thattheir services were coterminous with the Project. Para 35 of the Scheme clearly providesthat though the same was a Centrally sponsoredscheme, its implementation was left to therespective State Governments with 100%financial assistance from the CentralGovernment for inputs other than supplementarynutrition which was identified as theresponsibility of the State Government.
Infact, Para 47 of the Scheme, which has beenextracted hereinabove, in no uncertain termsmakes it very clear that even though funds forthe Scheme would be provided by the CentralGovernment, the staff would be borne on theappropriate cadres of the States which wouldsanction the posts in the appropriatecorresponding State pay scale. In the face ofsuch provision it is difficult to accept thatthe writ petitioners were project workers andnot employees of the State Government.......36. All the aforesaid Rules promulgated bythe State Government under Para 47 of the Integrated Child Development Scheme leavelittle room for doubt that Respondents 1, 2 and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 and others similarly situated, were, in fact, State Government employees. The learned SingleJudge, as well as the Division Bench of the High Court, appear to have been swayed by thesubmissions made on behalf of Respondents 1, 2and 3 (writ petitioners before the High Court)that the State of West Bengal is merely a nodalagency to supervise the implementation of the Scheme which was in the nature of a project andthat the employees thereunder were, therefore, project employees, overlooking the overallintention and object of the Scheme that inorder to provide child care and nutrition forchildren and lactating mothers, the CentralGovernment was willing to fund the entireproject but left the implementation thereof tothe State Governments who were authorised underthe Scheme to appoint the staff of the Project, who were to be borne on the appropriate cadresof the States.
Para 35 of the Scheme, whichdeals with the functional responsibilities, makes this position very clear. "(Emphasisadded)7.4.Further, the Supreme Court had entertained a PublicInterest Litigation filed by the Peoples Union for CivilLiberties (PUCL) represented by its Rajasthan unit in April,2001. They sought legal enforcement of the Right to Food. Thesaid matter was taken on file as WP(C)No.196/2001, and the caseis now known as Right to Food case. In one of its interimorder, (which is binding on the State Government) issued on07.10.2004, the Supreme Court held that every efforts should bemade that all Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribeshamlets/habitation in the Country to have Anganwadi centres asearly as possible. Such direction may take its own time toprovide necessary logistics. Filling up of posts cannot waittill Centres are established in all habitants and hamlets livedby Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
7.5.The Supreme Court vide its order, dated 20.4.2004,gave the following directions: "Having regard to the aforesaid, in respectof cooked Mid-Day Meals scheme, we issue thefollowing directions:1.All such States and Union Territories whohave not fully complied with the order dated 28thNovember, 2001 shall comply with the saiddirections fully in respect of the entireState/Union Territory, preferably, on the re-opening of the primary schools after a longvacation of 2004 and, in any case, not later than https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1st September, 2004.2.All Chief Secretaries/Administrators aredirected to file compliance report in regard todirections No.1 on or before 15th September, 2004.3.omitted. 4. In appointment of cooks and helpers, preference shall be given to Dalits, ScheduledCastes and Scheduled Tribes. "(Emphasisadded)7.6.Apart from this, it must also be noted that the TamilNadu State Legislature has enacted the Tamil Nadu BackwardClasses, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and of Appointments or Postsin the Services under the State) Act, 1993 (Act 45 of 1994). TheAct provides for mandatory reservation in not only EducationalInstitutions, but also in the Appointments or posts in theservices under the State. 7.
Section 5 of the Act reads as follows:5.Reservation in appointment or posts in theservices under the State.-(1)Notwithstanding anything contained in anyjudgment, decree or order of any court or otherauthority, having regard to the inadequaterepresentation in the services under the State ofthe Backward Classes of citizens and the personsbelonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, who constitute the majority ofthe total population of the State of Tamil Nadu, the reservation for appointments or posts in theservices under the State, for the Backward Classesof citizens and for the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, shallbe sixty-nine percent. Explanation.-For the purposes of the Act,"services under the State" includes the servicesunder-(i)the Government; (ii)the Legislature of the State; (iii)any local authority; (iv)any corporation or company owned orcontrolled by the Government' or(v)any other authority in respect of whichthe State Legislature has power to make laws. (2)the reservation referred to in sub-section(1) shall in respect of the persons belonging tothe Backward Classes, the Most Backward Classesand Denotified Communities, the Scheduled Castes https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and the Scheduled Tribes, be as hereunder.-(a)Backward ClassesThirty percent. (b)Most Backward Classes and Denotified CommunitiesTwenty percent(c)Scheduled CastesEighteen percent(d)Scheduled TribesOne percent.7.
Appointment in services under the State has been widelydefined under the explanation provided in the said section andcertainly, appointments made to Noon Meal centres and AnganwadiCentres will attract the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 45 of1994.VIII.Reservation need of the hour:8.1.It is needless to mention that such reservations willnot only help empower the members of underprivileged sections ofthe Society to get economically empowered, but also it willbring social integration in the Civil society which is alreadyfractured by communal and caste divisions. In the existingguidelines framed by the Government for filling up the post ofworkers under the Nutritious Meal scheme as well as Anganwadiworkers, preference is given to residents of the village or topersons who are living with the same locality. In most of thecases, either schools or Anganwadi centres are located in thehamlets dominated by upper castes and applying preference asindicated in the guidelines, will clearly edge-out the membersof scheduled caste from getting opportunity to work in suchcentres, since hardly there are any schools or Anganwadi centressituated in the Dalit colonies.
That was why the Supreme Courtalso in the Right to Food case gave direction to States to makeefforts that all Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe colonies inthe Country must have Anganwadi Centres. Such direction may takeyears to achieve. Social integration can be achieved byproviding reservation for the underprivileged sections of thesociety in such employment. That is why, by its interim ordersin the Right to Food case, the Supreme Court had directed givingpreference in employment of dalits as Cooks, helpers in suchcentres as noted already. 8.2.Feeding of children by members of the Scheduled castewill go a long way in removing social disparities and practiceof untouchability in different forms. Feeding of childrenbelonged to different communities by a Dalit cook being resistedby the caste Hindus is another form of apartheid and it is notsomething new to this Country. Even during the Freedom struggle, controversies arose among the National leaders as noted above.8.3.After bitter experiences, it was emphasised that bycommunal feasting and food being served to various groups byengaging cooks from underprivileged society will remove https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ instantaneously some form of untouchability and will be amilestone in our march to an egalitarian society.
8.4.In Bharat Sevashram Sangh v. State of Gujarat reportedin (1986) 4 SCC 51, the Supreme Court emphasised the purpose ofproviding reservation in Schools and exhorted such provisionfound in the School Education Act made by the Gujarat State. Itis necessary to extract the following passage found in paragraph8 of the judgment: "8. The next section which was attacked beforeus is Section 34 of the Act. Section 34(1) ofthe Act provides that 15 per cent of vacanciesof the teaching staff of a registered privateschool shall be filled up by persons belongingto the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. It is argued that the above provisioninterferes with the managerial function. Asalready mentioned a large number of teacherswhose salaries are met by the grants given bythe State under the Grants-in-Aid Code areemployed by the managements. The State shouldtherefore, have a voice in the method ofrecruitment.
The State should also makeprovision for reservation of certain percentageof seats for members belonging to the ScheduledCastes and the Scheduled Tribes under Article 16(4) of the Constitution. The insistence onhaving teachers belonging to the ScheduledCastes and the Scheduled Tribes is also in thepublic interest. Children should be brought upin an atmosphere where there is opportunity tomix freely with students and teachers belongingto traditionally disfavoured communities also. The opportunity to show reverence to teachersbelonging to the Scheduled Castes and ScheduledTribes will in the long run enable the childbrought up in that atmosphere to shed thefeeling of superiority over members belonging tothe Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. Such an atmosphere would also be congenial tothe development of a society consisting ofpersons free from feelings of hatred or contempttowards others. ..." (Emphasis added) 8.5.It is surprising to note that the State is takingumbrage under the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs.
Ameerbi case, but not referring to the subsequentjudgments in Dipitimayee Parida Vs. State of Orissa and State ofW.B. Vs. Kaberi Khastagir's case (cited supra) as well as theinterim order passed by the Supreme Court in PUCL's case. It https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ also ignores the scheme of appointment formulated in this Statewhich is vastly different from the State of Karnataka.XI.Relief Granted:9.1.In the light of the above, this court has no hesitationto reject the stand taken by the respondent State and by givinga positive direction to provide for Reservation in terms of Tamil Nadu Act 45/1994, and also in the light of the interimorder dated 20.4.2004 passed by the Supreme Court in W.P.(C)No.196 of 2001 in People's Union for Civil Liberties, RajasthanVs. Union of India and to provide for reservation for SC/STs.Till such time they provide such rules of reservation, the Stateis forbidden to fill up such large number of posts (as many as20000 posts) without due representation to SC/ST communitiesignoring the Constitutional mandate.
9.2.In the light of the above, these writ petitions aredisposed of with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed. Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. RegistrarvvkTo1.The District Collector, Collectorate, Thiruvarur District. 2. The Project Officer for Children Development, Needamangalam, Mannarkudi Taluk, Thiruvarur District. 3. The Special Commissioner & Government Secretary, The Government of Tamil Nadu, Social Welfare Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
4. The Secretary, The Department of Adi Dravidar Welfare, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.+8ccs to Mr.P.Vijendran, Advocate Sr 26036+1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 25795GS(CO)km/27.4.W.P.NOs.10748 of 2009, 3840 to 3842, 3950,5116, 5117 and 6645 of 2010
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 14, 16, 16(4), 17, 162, 226, 309; Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 — s. 15; State Act, 1993; Tamil Nadu Act; School Education Act; ofTamil Nadu Act.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Madras High Court, on 19 Apr 2010. The bench was K CHANDRU.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.