GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. BALAMUSALAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present is an unusual case despite it being related to the usual demand of reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The peculiarity lies in the fact that the demand for reservation herein is not related to appointment, but is relatable to termination.

(2.) The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued an Order (hereinafter referred to as the G.O.) on 3-8-67 by which an ad hoc rule was framed in exercise of powers conferred by Article 309 of the Constitution prohibiting termination of reserved category candidates following normal rule applicable in such cases. The G.O. spells out in what order retrenchment of temporary employees has to take place. The order set out is as below :-

(3.) It came to be assailed before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh to meet its Waterloo. The High Court, after taking note of various decisions of this Court dealing with different facets of reservation, held that the G.O. did not strike a reasonable balance between the claims of different communities and has sought to introduce by the back door an unlimited form of carry-forward rule which it regarded as invalid because of what was held in T. Devadasan vs. Union of India, AIR 1964 SC 179. The Court further stated that the G.O. does not merely postpone the retrenchment of temporary employees belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to temporary employees of other communities, but postpones the retrenchment of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes employees to probationers also and, what is worse, even approved probationers of other communities. Because of all these the G.O. was held to be violative of Article 16(1) of the Constitution and was, therefore, declared as invalid. The State of Andhra Pradesh has preferred this appeal by special leave.