Supreme Court Upholds 30:70 Local Reservation Rule in Telangana Recruitment: Telangana Residential Educational Institutions Recruitment Board vs. Saluvadi Sumalatha & Anr. (2024)

Date of the Judgment: March 5, 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 176
Judges: A.S. Bopanna, J. and M.M. Sundresh, J.
Can a recruitment agency’s decision be overturned simply because a court disagrees with its interpretation of rules? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question in a case concerning the recruitment of junior lecturers in Telangana. The court clarified the application of local reservation rules, emphasizing the importance of adhering to established procedures and the limited scope for judicial intervention in recruitment matters. The judgment was authored by Justice M.M. Sundresh, with Justice A.S. Bopanna concurring.

Case Background

The case revolves around a dispute over the recruitment of junior lecturers by the Telangana Residential Educational Institutions Recruitment Board. The recruitment process was governed by the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order 1975, which was issued under Article 371D of the Constitution of India. This order allows the state government to form committees to advise on the allocation of individuals to State, Zonal, and District cadres. In 1975, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued instructions on how to fill vacancies, which were later amended in 2002. The amendment stipulated that 30% of posts should be filled based on combined merit, including both local and non-local candidates, while the remaining 70% should be filled by local candidates, subject to reservation rules. The Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, also mandate a 100-point roster for appointments, with Scheduled Caste (Women) falling under Roster Point No. 2.

In 2018, the Recruitment Board issued a notification for the recruitment of junior lecturers. The notification specified that zonal and local reservations would be followed as per the 1975 order and its 2002 amendment. The selection process involved candidates exercising options for their preferred zones, with allotments made based on merit and zonal preference. The dispute arose when Respondent No. 1, a local candidate, was not selected despite having a first preference for Zone VI. Respondent No. 2, who had a higher merit rank and had listed Zone VI as her second preference, was selected instead. Respondent No. 1 challenged this decision, arguing for a 40:60 ratio and claiming that Respondent No. 2 should not have been considered for Zone VI as it was not her first preference.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The learned Single Judge of the High Court of Telangana allowed the writ petition filed by Respondent No. 1, setting aside the recruitment of Respondent No. 2. The Single Judge incorrectly fixed the ratio at 40:60 and held that Respondent No. 2 should not have been considered for Zone VI as it was her second preference. The Single Judge also determined that out of the 7 vacancies, 4 were to be filled by following the rule of reservation, leaving 3 vacancies for the unreserved category. This decision was upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court of Telangana. The Telangana Residential Educational Institutions Recruitment Board then appealed to the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The primary legal framework for this case is the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order 1975, issued under Article 371D of the Constitution of India. This order empowers the state government to create committees to advise on the allocation of personnel to different cadres. The instructions issued vide G.O.P No. 763 dated 15.11.1975, and its subsequent amendment vide GOMs No. 124 dated 07.03.2002, are also critical. The amendment altered the reservation policy, stipulating that 30% of posts should be filled based on combined merit (locals and non-locals), and the remaining 70% should be filled by local candidates, subject to the rule of reservation. Further clarification was provided by GOMs No. 924 dated 12.12.2007, which mandated all departments to maintain this 30:70 ratio. Rule 22 of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, also plays a role, mandating that appointments be made according to a 100-point roster.

The relevant legal provisions include:

• Article 371D of the Constitution of India: Grants the President the power to make special provisions for Andhra Pradesh, including the organization of local cadres.
• Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order 1975: Provides the framework for local cadre organization and recruitment.
• G.O.P No. 763 dated 15.11.1975: Original instructions for filling vacancies.
• GOMs No. 124 dated 07.03.2002: Amendment to G.O.P No. 763, changing the reservation ratio to 30:70.
• GOMs No. 924 dated 12.12.2007: Clarification mandating all departments to maintain the 30:70 ratio.
• Rule 22 of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996: Mandates a 100-point roster for appointments.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that both the High Court Single Judge and the Division Bench failed to consider the amendment made to G.O.P No. 763 dated 15.11.1975 vide GOMs No. 124 dated 07.03.2002, which mandates a 30:70 ratio for filling posts.
• The appellant contended that out of the 7 posts, 5 were earmarked for local reservation, and one of the remaining two was to be filled by a Scheduled Caste Woman.
• The appellant submitted that there is no prohibition against considering a candidate in a different zone, provided they have exercised that option.
• The appellant also reiterated that Respondent No. 1 was ranked below Respondent No. 2 and therefore was not considered.

Respondent No. 1’s Arguments:

• Respondent No. 1 argued that the recruitment process was unfair.
• Respondent No. 1 submitted that the High Court correctly applied the ratio and granted relief.
• Respondent No. 1 argued that the appellant failed to demonstrate the logic and reasoning behind the 30:70 ratio and earmarking only 2 out of 7 posts for both local and non-local candidates.

Respondent No. 2’s Arguments:

• Respondent No. 2 reiterated the submissions made by the appellant.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

• Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the recruitment made by the appellant in favour of respondent no.2 and ordering for redrawing of the merit list.
• Whether the High Court correctly interpreted and applied the local reservation rules, specifically the 30:70 ratio.
• Whether the High Court was correct in holding that a candidate cannot be considered for a zone that was not their first preference.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. B.S. Mahajan, (1990) 1 SCC 305* to emphasize that courts should not act as appellate authorities over selection committee decisions. The Court reiterated that the decision of the Selection Committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the Committee or its procedure vitiating the selection, or proved mala fides affecting the selection etc.
• The Court considered G.O.P No. 763 dated 15.11.1975* and GOMs No. 124 dated 07.03.2002* to highlight the 30:70 reservation rule.
• The Court also considered GOMs No. 924 dated 12.12.2007* to highlight that all departments are duty bound to complete recruitment process by adopting the 30:70 ratio.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to adhere to established rules and regulations in recruitment processes. The Court emphasized that the High Court had erred in not considering the amendment made to G.O.P No. 763 dated 15.11.1975 vide GOMs No. 124 dated 07.03.2002, which clearly mandated a 30:70 ratio. The Court also highlighted that the High Court had incorrectly applied a 40:60 ratio and had wrongly concluded that a candidate could not be considered for a zone that was not their first preference.

The Court also took into account the fact that the recruitment board had followed the rules and regulations and that the recruitment process had been conducted fairly. The Court noted that it should be cautious in dealing with recruitment processes adopted by the recruitment agency and that it should not interfere with the decision of the selection committee unless there is illegality or patent material irregularity.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court rejected the High Court’s interpretation of the reservation rules, stating that the High Court had erred in not considering the amendment made to G.O.P No. 763 dated 15.11.1975 vide GOMs No. 124 dated 07.03.2002, which clearly mandated a 30:70 ratio. The court also found that the High Court had incorrectly applied a 40:60 ratio and had wrongly concluded that a candidate could not be considered for a zone that was not their first preference. The Supreme Court clarified that candidates are allowed to be considered for other zones if they have exercised that option. The Court also emphasized that it should be cautious in dealing with recruitment processes adopted by the recruitment agency and that it should not interfere with the decision of the selection committee unless there is illegality or patent material irregularity. The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant had correctly followed the mandate of law. The court also relied on the decision in Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. B.S. Mahajan, (1990) 1 SCC 305, to emphasize the limited scope of judicial review in selection committee decisions.

The Supreme Court stated:

• “The amendment made to G .O.P No. 763 dated 15.11.1975 vide GOMs No. 124 dated 07.03.2002 does not leave any room for doubt. 30% of the posts meant for both locals and non -locals have to be mandatorily filled up first before going for the remaining 70%.”
• “On a reading of the notification, it is amply clear that a candidate is not non -suited from being considered in another zone subject to the only condition that it should form part of the option that she has exercised. This is exactly what respondent no.2 did.”
• “Courts will have to be cautious and therefore slow in dealing with recruitment process adopted by the recruitment agency. A lot of thought process has gone into applying the rules and regulations. Merely because a recruitment agency is not in a position to satisfy the Court, a relief cannot be extended to a candidate deprived as it will have a cascading effect not only on the said recruitment of respondent no.2, but also to numerous others as well.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• Recruitment agencies must strictly adhere to the rules and regulations governing the recruitment process, including reservation policies.
• Courts should be cautious in interfering with recruitment processes and should not act as appellate authorities over selection committee decisions.
• Candidates can be considered for other zones if they have exercised that option.
• The 30:70 ratio for local reservations in Telangana is to be followed strictly, with the 30% merit-based posts filled first.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order passed by the Division Bench and the Single Judge of the Telangana High Court and restored the recruitment made in favor of Respondent No. 2.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that recruitment agencies must strictly adhere to the rules and regulations governing the recruitment process, including reservation policies and that the courts should be cautious in interfering with the recruitment process. This case upholds the validity of the 30:70 reservation rule in Telangana and clarifies that candidates can be considered for other zones if they have exercised that option. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Telangana Residential Educational Institutions Recruitment Board vs. Saluvadi Sumalatha & Anr. clarifies the application of local reservation rules in Telangana, emphasizing the importance of adhering to established procedures and the limited scope for judicial intervention in recruitment matters. The Court upheld the 30:70 reservation ratio and restored the recruitment of Respondent No. 2, setting aside the High Court’s decision.