Supreme Court Quashes 100% Reservation for Tribal Teachers in Andhra Pradesh: Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. M. Rama Rao (2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: May 19, 2023

Citation: Not Available

Judges: Vikram Nath, J. and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.

Can a state government reserve all teaching posts in scheduled areas for local Scheduled Tribe candidates? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, examining the legality of 100% reservation provided by the Andhra Pradesh government. This case revolves around the validity of government orders that sought to reserve all teaching positions in scheduled areas for local tribal candidates and whether such a reservation is constitutionally permissible. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah.

Case Background

The State of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms. No.3 on January 10, 2000, which provided for 100% reservation for local Scheduled Tribe candidates for the post of teachers in all schools located in Scheduled Areas. Subsequently, on December 19, 2009, and January 1, 2010, the Principal Secretary to the Government, Tribal Welfare Department, Hyderabad, and the Commissioner of Tribal Welfare, Hyderabad, issued memos. These memos clarified that G.O.Ms. No.3 would also apply to promotions, granting 100% reservation to local tribals, and that the order would have retrospective effect from November 5, 1986.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad had set aside the government orders on November 28, 2011. However, the High Court of Judicature for the State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh overturned the Tribunal’s decision, upholding the validity of the government orders through judgments dated June 12, 2014 and April 29, 2014. This matter was then appealed to the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the validity of G.O.Ms. No.3 of 2000 was also challenged in other matters before the Supreme Court, which led to a reference to a Constitution Bench. The Constitution Bench decided the matter in Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, setting aside G.O.Ms. No.3 of 2000.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the principle of reservation in public employment, particularly concerning Scheduled Tribes in Scheduled Areas. The judgment refers to the decision in Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, which addressed the validity of 100% reservation. The Supreme Court has consistently held that reservation should not exceed 50% except in extraordinary circumstances.

Arguments

The judgment notes that the State of Andhra Pradesh had issued G.O.Ms. No.3, providing 100% reservation for local Scheduled Tribe candidates for the post of teachers in all schools situated in Scheduled Areas. The state government argued that this reservation was necessary to protect the interests of the tribal population in these areas. The state also issued memos to extend the reservation to promotions and to give it retrospective effect from 1986.

However, the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench in Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao had already ruled against the validity of 100% reservation, stating that it exceeds the permissible limits as laid down in the case of Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India [AIR 1993 SC 477]. The court noted that the state government had previously attempted a similar exercise in 1986, which was quashed by the State Administrative Tribunal. Despite this, the state government re-issued G.O.Ms. No.3 in 2000.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame any specific issues in this judgment, as it was primarily concerned with the implementation of the Constitution Bench’s decision in Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao. The main issue was whether the appeals in this case were rendered infructuous by the Constitution Bench’s judgment, which had already set aside G.O.Ms. No.3.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The following authorities were considered by the court:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others [(2021) 11 SCC 401]*: The Supreme Court relied on this judgment to dispose of the appeals, as the Constitution Bench had already set aside the primary government order in question.

✓ Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India [AIR 1993 SC 477]: The Constitution Bench in Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao relied on this case to establish the 50% limit on reservations.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the binding precedent set by the Constitution Bench in Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao. The court emphasized that the principal G.O.Ms. No.3 had already been set aside, rendering the subsequent memos and the appeals infructuous. The court also considered the fact that the Constitution Bench had conditionally saved the appointments made under the invalidated order, directing that promotions be considered according to the service rules.

The court’s reasoning was straightforward, focusing on the fact that the core issue had already been decided by a larger bench. The court did not delve into new interpretations but rather applied the existing law to the specific facts of the case.

The judgment quotes the following from the Constitution Bench decision in Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao:

“167. As a sequel to the quashing of G.O.Ms. No.3 of 2000, the appointments made in excess of the permissible reservation cannot survive and should be set aside. However, on behalf of State and other respondents, it was urged that appointments may not be set aside. In the peculiar circumstances, the incumbents, who have been appointed, cannot be said to be at fault and they belong to Scheduled Tribes.”

“168. We cannot ignore the fact 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.”

“169. Resultantly, we allow the appeals, and save the appointments made so far conditionally with the aforesaid riders. The cost of appeal is quantified at Rupees Five Lakhs and to be shared equally by the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana.”

There were no minority opinions in this case, as the decision was based on the binding precedent of the Constitution Bench.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ 100% reservation for Scheduled Tribes in teaching posts in Scheduled Areas is unconstitutional.
• ✓ Government orders providing for 100% reservation are invalid.
• ✓ Appointments made under such orders are conditionally saved, but future appointments must adhere to the 50% reservation limit.
• ✓ State governments should not attempt to implement reservations exceeding 50%, as established in Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India [AIR 1993 SC 477].

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appointments made under the invalidated government orders are saved conditionally, and their promotions should be considered in accordance with appropriate service rules. The court also directed that the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana should not attempt similar exercises in the future that exceed the limits of reservation.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Constitution Bench in Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao, which had already declared 100% reservation as unconstitutional. This case reaffirms the principle that reservation cannot exceed 50%, except in extraordinary circumstances, and it reinforces the binding nature of decisions made by larger benches of the Supreme Court. There is no change in the previous position of law, but a reaffirmation of the law laid down in Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India [AIR 1993 SC 477].

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeals in The Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. vs. M. Rama Rao & Ors. Etc., holding that they were rendered infructuous by the Constitution Bench’s judgment in Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao. The court reaffirmed that 100% reservation is unconstitutional and that the State governments must adhere to the 50% reservation limit. The appointments made under the invalidated orders were conditionally saved, and future appointments must comply with the established legal principles.