C. DAMODAR DAS Vs. T. PENCHELAIAH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A difficult but important question arises in this Writ Appeal with respect to the application of the rule of reservation, and the rule of rotation (Roster). Both the appellant (2nd Respondent in the writ petition) and the 1st respondent herein (petitioner in the writ petition) are members of Scheduled Castes. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation called for applications for the posts of "Officer under Training (Traffic)"- There were 30 vacancies, out of which 4 were reserved for Scheduled Castes (one post having been carried forward from the previous selection), for backward classes, and 2 for Scheduled Tribes. The remaining 18 posts were to be filled by open competition. The appellant and the 1st respondent among others, applied for the said posts, and were selected. The appellant was selected in the open competition (OC) category because of his merit, while the 1st respondent could be selected only in the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes. He stood at Sl. No. 1 among the candidates selected against the reserved quota. In other words, the appellant was found to be more meritorious and stood far higher than the 1st respondent in the merit list. Indeed, it is only on account of his merit that he got selection in the open competition without the necessity to avail of the benefit of the rule of reservation. Regn. 12 of the A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees' (Recruitment) Regulation, 1966, which provides for reservation in favour of SCs, STs, and BCs, also provides for an order of rotation in which the appointments should be made. Regn. 12 (2) (b) reads as follows:-

(2.) In a previous selection held in 1976, four persons were selected of whom three were from the open competition and one from BC (Group A). Since no candidate was available from the Scheduled Castes, the No. 2 vacancy reserved for SCs in the above roster was carried forward. When the present selection was made in 1977, the said carried forward SC vacancy had to be filled in first, before continuing with the roster, from serial No. 6 onwards. Since the appellant was of more merit than the 1st respondent, the Corporation placed the appellant in the said carried forward vacancy, which was shown as Sl. No. 2 in the roster - carried forward vacancy - and the 1st respondent was placed against the next vacancy reserved for SCs, i.e., at No. 16 in the roster. So far as the seniority list is concerned, in the first instance the 1st respondent was shown as senior to the appellant but, subsequently, that was altered and the appellant was shown as a senior. Aggrieved by the said seniority list, the 1st respondent made a representation on 26-3-1983 to the Corporation, to treat him as senior to the appellant, which was rejected whereupon the 1st respondent approached- this Court by way of a writ petition, which has now been allowed by the learned Single Judge.

(3.) The argument of the 1st respondent (Writ Petitioner), which has found favour with the learned Single Judge, is this: the appellant has been selected in the OC category, and not in the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes; though he is a member of Scheduled Castes, he cannot be treated as a SC candidate for the purpose of placement in the roster, though, in fact, he belongs to Scheduled Castes; since he was selected in the OC category, he must be treated as a OC candidate alone, whereas the 1st respondent, having been selected against the quota reserved for SCs, is entitled to be treated as a SC candidate. If so, the 1st respondent is entitled to be placed against the carried forward vacancy in the roster, and not the appellant which means that the 1st respondent would be senior to the appellant, and not vice versa. The learned single Judge felt that he was bound to uphold the above contention because of the obtaining rule position, though he was of the opinion that the consequence is an unjust one. The learned Judge observed:-