K VIJAYA BHASKER Vs. REVENUE DIVISONAL OFFICER WARANGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed praying tor the issue of writ of mandamus declaring the Notification issued by the 1st respondent published in Eenadu daily on 11-1-1999 and also G.O. Ms. No.99, dated 22-10-1998 issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the judgment of this Court and pass such other order or orders, as this Court deems fit.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner's father, by name K. Anandam, was the fair price shop dealer of Shop No.93 of Ursu and he worked for more than 28 years without any complaint. He died in the month of September 1998. Consequent upon the death of the Petitioner's father, the vacancy of the fair price shop dealer arose. To fill up the vacancies of fair price shop dealers, including that of shop No.93 of Ursu village, the 1st respondent had issued Notification dated 14-8-1998 for about 26 fair price shops. In the said Notification, the Shop No.93 was earmarked for general category. The said notification was set aside under the impugned Notification as well as by this Court's Judgment in P. Katama Reddy v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur, 1998 (1) ALD 136 (DB), under which a Memo issued by the Government reserving all the vacancies of fair price shop dealers in favour of the women candidates, was assailed. By the said judgment, a Division Bench of this Court, while allowing the writ petition, quashed the Memos issued by the Government as well as consequential notifications issued. The Division Bench also gave certain directions and one of the directions is that more than 50% of the vacancies shall not be reserved for filling up to those vacancies by the candidates belonging to the special categories. Pursuant to the said judgment, the State Government issued the impugned G.O. Ms. No.99, dated 22-10-1998 and the 1st respondent consequently issued the publication calling for applications in respect of 35 shops. According to the Petitioner, under the above said G.O., issued by the Government, though 30% of the vacancies are reserved for women candidates, but further a rider was incorporated in the said orders that until 30% reservation for women is achieved in the Unit, notifications may be issued inviting only women candidates. According to the Petitioner, the said rider contained in the G.O. is contrary to the - judgment of this Court, referred to earlier. It is also stated that in the said G.O. Ms. No.99, dated 22-10-1998, reservation was provided to the extent of 49% i.e., 15% for Scheduled Castes, 6% for Scheduled Tribes, 3% for Physically Handicapped and 25% for Backward Classes. Though the said reservation is in accordance with the restriction imposed in the judgment, but, however, while issuing the Notification, almost all the (35) vacancies were sought to be filled with the candidates belonging to women (15), Scheduled Tribe (13) and Physically Handicapped (7). In the said Notification, as almost all the vacancies are reserved only to the special categories specified therein, it amounts to 100% reservation and therefore, contrary to the judgment of this Court as well judgment of the Supreme Court.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the Petitioner also contended that separate reservation to the women candidates, as a separate entity itself, is illegal and contrary to the judgment of this Court. As held by the High Court as well as the Supreme Court, the women reservation has to be applied horizontally, cutting across all the categories of the candidates i.e., the said 30% has to be filled by adjusting in respect of each category, such as open category, scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, backward classes etc. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel, the reservation of 15 posts completely earmarking fpr women itself is illegal, which if allowed, would amounts to making a vertical reservation rather than horizontal, as was held by the High Court as well as the Supreme Court. Therefore, the learned Counsel sought for quashing of the G.O. as well as the consequential Notification issued by the respondents.