A.P.B.CS AND S.CS AND S.TS., ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS Vs. CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT., HYDERABAD AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question at issue in this writ petition is, whether the rule of reservation in favour of backward classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes applies in the matter of appointment of Law Officers, and in case it does not apply, whether it should be directed to be applied. Specifically the contention is that, by virtue of Rule 22, Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, as also G. O. Ms. No. 1793 dated 23-9-1970, the rule of reservation is applicable even in the matter of recruitment of Law Officers and that, inasmuch as appointments have been made ignoring the said rule, they must be declared to be invalid. The alternative contention, though it was argued by Mr. B. S. A. Swamy as the first contention, is that the Government must be directed to apply the said rule of reservation in this matter, in pursuance of the policy decision already taken by the Cabinet, and as directed by Art. 46 of the Constitution:

(2.) In G. O. Ms. No. 1794, Education Department dated 23-9-1970, the Government of Andhra. Pradesh accepted the report submitted by the Commission appointed under G. O. Ms. 870, Education, dated 12-4-1968, and directed, inter alia:

(3.) The contention of Sri B. S. A. Swamy, the learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the "Law Officers Service" is a State Service and, therefore, the rule of reservation applies both on account of R. 22, as well as G. O. Ms. No. 1793. He contends that for applying the rule of reservation it is not strictly necessary that a rule must be made under the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution and that even administrative instructions are sufficient for the purpose. Emphasis is laid upon the words "any provision" employed in clause (4) in contrast with the words "any law" employed in clauses (3) and (5) of Art. 16.