{"id":228627,"date":"2020-04-23T13:06:57","date_gmt":"2020-04-23T07:36:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=228627"},"modified":"2020-05-01T09:51:52","modified_gmt":"2020-05-01T04:21:52","slug":"andhra-pradeshs-100-reservation-for-scheduled-tribe-candidates-for-the-post-of-teachers-without-rhyme-or-reason-sc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/04\/23\/andhra-pradeshs-100-reservation-for-scheduled-tribe-candidates-for-the-post-of-teachers-without-rhyme-or-reason-sc\/","title":{"rendered":"Andhra Pradesh’s 100% reservation for Scheduled Tribe candidates for the post of teachers without rhyme or reason: SC"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court<\/strong>: Holding the Government Office Ms. No.3 dated 10.1.2000 issued by the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh providing 100% reservation to the Scheduled Tribe candidates out of whom 33.1\/3% shall be women for the post of teachers in the schools in the scheduled areas in the State of Andhra Pradesh, unconstitutional, the 5-judge bench of Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, MR Shah and Aniruddha Bose, JJ has held that there was no rhyme or reason with the State Government to resort to 100% reservation<\/span><\/strong>.<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cIt was least expected from the functionary like Government to act in aforesaid manner as they were bound by the dictum laid down by this Court in Indra Sawhney<\/strong><\/a> and other decisions holding that the limit of reservation not to exceed 50%.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The Court noticed that a similar G.O. was issued by the erstwhile State Government of Andhra Pradesh in the year 1986, which was quashed by the State Administrative Tribunal, against which an appeal was preferred in this Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn in the year 1998. After withdrawal of the appeal from this Court, it was expected of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh not to resort to such illegality of providing 100% reservation once again.\u00a0 But instead, it issued G.O. Ms. No.3 of 2000, which was equally impermissible, even if the A.P. Regulation of Reservation and Appointment to Public Services Act, 1997 would have been amended, in that event also providing reservation beyond 50% was not permissible.<\/p>\n

Agreeing to the apprehensions of the appellants that the State may again by way of mis\u00adadventure, resort to similar illegal exercise as was done earlier, the Court directed the State of Andhra Pradesh to not exceed the limits of reservation in future. It said,<\/p>\n

\u201cIn the peculiar circumstance, we save the appointments conditionally that the reorganised States i.e. the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana not to attempt a similar exercise in the future. If they do so and exceed the limit of reservation, there shall not be any saving of the appointments made, w.e.f. 1986 till date.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The Court also held that the notification in question cannot be treated as classification made under Article 16(1). Once the reservation has been provided to Scheduled Tribes under Article 16(4), no such power can be exercised under Article 16(1). The notification is violative of Articles 14 and 16(4) of the Constitution of India.<\/p>\n

It, further, held that the conditions of eligibility in the notification with a cut\u00adoff date, i.e., 26.1.1950, to avail the benefits of reservation, were also unreasonable and arbitrary.<\/p>\n

The Court also answered, in detail, the questions relating to scope of power of the Governor. Here\u2019s a summary of the other questions referred to and answered by the Court<\/span><\/strong>:<\/p>\n

Scope of paragraph 5(1), Schedule V to the Constitution of India<\/strong>:<\/span><\/h3>\n

Under Para 5(1), Fifth Schedule of the Constitution, the Governor can:<\/p>\n