Holding

The retrospective reservation order increasing women’s quota to 33 1/3% is valid and applicable, and the short notice for the second screening test does not invalidate the selection.

Summary

The appellants applied for the post of Assistant Director of Agriculture under a 1992 APSC notification that did not specify any reservation for women. While the selection process was pending, the Andhra Pradesh Government issued a order on 6 October 1995 granting 30% reservation for women in direct recruitment with retrospective effect from 2 January 1984, later increased to 33 1/3% by a 1996 notification. The tribunal limited the reservation to 30% and ordered a fresh screening test with only seven days' notice, which the appellants challenged on the grounds of illegality of the retrospective reservation and insufficient preparation time. The Supreme Court held that the State, under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, may amend service rules retrospectively, and the increased reservation was therefore valid and applicable to the pending recruitment. It further ruled that the short notice for the second screening test did not constitute discrimination or a ground to set aside the selection process. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal of the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission and dismissed the appellants' appeal with costs.

Issues considered

Whether a government order increasing reservation for women, with retrospective effect, is constitutionally permissible and applicable to a recruitment process whose advertisement did not mention such reservation.
Whether the tribunal erred in limiting the reservation to 30% instead of the 33 1/3% prescribed by the later notification.
Whether the limited preparation time (seven days) for a second screening test is a valid ground to set aside the entire selection process.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 16(4), s. Article 309, s. Article 335

Subjects

reservationwomenservice lawretrospective rulerecruitmentselection testadministrative tribunalArticle 309Rule 22-AAPSC

Judgment

A MARRIPATI NAGARAJA AND ORS.
v.
THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

OCTOBER 12, 2007
B
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.]

Service Law: ..,.
c Reservation-For women-In direct recruitment-Not specified
in the Advertisement-By subsequent Government Order, provided to
the extent of 30% with retrospective effect-:By further Notification
percentage ofreservation increased to 33 113 %-Permissibility to such
reservation-Held: Reservation permissible-Rule providing
D reservation to women already existing on the date, the posts were
advertised-Subsequent Notification only increased percentage for
such reservation-State has the power to make Rules with retrospective t-
effect and retro-active operation-The rule providing reservation
having been given retrospective effect and particularly when its
E constitutionality has not been questioned would be applicable~
Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules-r. 22-A---;-
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 309 Proviso-Retrospective
Operation.
Recruitment-Screening test-Second screening test with the
F approval ofAdministrative Tribunal-Candidates challenging selection
process on the ground that preparation time given for second screening ~
test was very short-Held: Selection process not being discriminatory,
could not be set aside on this ground alone.

G Andhra Pradesh Public Service commission issued Notification
inviting applications for recruitment to various posts including the posts
ofAssistant Director ofAgriculture. No stipulations were made in the
Notification, regarding reservation for the women.

H 506
)
MARRIPATI NAGARAJA v. THE GOVERNMENT OF 507
ANDHRA PRADESH
;.

" Appellants had applied for the post ofAssistant Director, in tenn~ A
of the Notification. About 510 candidates appeared for screening test
on 27.12.1992.

Appellants-candidates filed original application on different
grounds which was dismissed by the Tribunal. During pendency of the,
B
application, State had issued Government Order on 6.10.1995 providing
for reservation for women candidates to the extent of30% in the matter
ofdirect recruitment with retrospective effect from 2.1.1984. By another
y
Notification, dated 28.5.1996, State increased the percentage of
reservation to 33 113 %.
c
An application by the Commission seeking short-listing of the
candidates was allowed by the Tribunal As per direction ofthe Tribuna~ ·
a Notification for conducting a fresh screening test was issued on
12.12.2000 whereby second screening test of 510 candidates was to be
conducted on 7.1.2001. .n
Candidates filed original applications on the ground that '
reservation for women could not have been provided in terms of ,
Notification dated 28.5.1996 and that a very limited time had been given
to them for appearing in the second screening test. In the meantime E
Commission interviewed the suitable candidates. The applications were
dismissed by the Tribunal holding that the Selections had to revised
restricting the reservation for women to the extent of30%.

• Writ Petitions by the candidates as well as the Commission,
challenging the order ofthe Tribunal, were dismissed. Hence the present F
., ;-
appeals by the candidates and also by the Commission•

Dismissing the appeals of the candidates and allowing that of the
Commission, the Court
G
HELD: 1.1. It is well settled that the rules which would be applicable
for selecting the candidates would be the one which were prevailing at
~ ~
the time of the notification. It is also equally well settled that the State
may, subject to constitutional limitations, amend the rule with
retrospective effect. [Para 12) [513-A, B] H
\
508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

~
A 1.2. The women candidates, in terms of Rule 22-A of Andhra "'
Pradesh State and subordinate Service Rules, were, therefore, only
entitled to preference. By reason of the said notification merely, the
percentage has been increased from 30% to 33113 %. It has been given
a retrospective effect; as the existing sub-rule (2) of Rule ~22-A was
B substituted. By reason of the said Notification, no existing right of any
person has been taken away. In fact, as the selection process was not
.over, the question of applicability of the said Notification would have
fallen for consideration only when a fmal selection list was to be made
and not prior thereto. [Para 13] (513-F, G]
c
1.3. The State, in exercise ofits power conferred upon it under the
proviso appended to Article 309 ofthe Constitution oflndia, is entitled
to make rules with retrospective effect and retro-active operation.
Ordinarily, in absence ofany rule and that too a rule which was exp~ly
given a retrospective effect, the rules prevailing as on the date of the
D
notification are to be applied. But if some rule has been given a
retrospective effect which is within the domain of the State, unless the
same is set aside as being u~constitutional, the consequences flowing
therefrom shall ensue. In such an event, the applicable rule would.not
be the rule which was existing butthe one which had been validly brought
E
on the statute book from an an.terior date. The Tribunal and the High
Court, therefore, committed an error in opining otbenvise, particularly
when the constitutionality of the said rule was not in question.
(Para 14] (514-A, B, C]
..
F NT. Devin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service Commission, [1990]
3sec157, relied on. ...
"""
2. The fact that candidates had been given only seven days time
for making preparation to appear in the second screening test, cannot,
G give rise to a ground for setting aside the entire selection process. The
Tribunal did not make any discrimination. One screening test had
already been held. The number of candidates appeared in the first
screening test was 510. The Commission obtained the permission of
the Tribunal for holding the second screening test. All the candidates
H were given the same time for preparation. Only because the appellants
_}
MARRIPATI NAGARAJA v. THE GOVERNMENT OF 509
ANDHRA PRADESH [SINHA, J.]
herein were employees at the relevant time, the same by itself could A
not confer on them any special privilege to ask for an extended time.
They had no legal right in relation thereto. Appellants had appeared at
the examination without any demur. They did not question the valid'ty
of the said question of fixing of the said date before the appropri~te
authority. They are, therefore, estopped and precluded from questioning B
the selection process. (Para 17] [515-E, F, G; 516-A]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4868 of
2007.
From the Judgment & Order dated 22.1.2004 of the High Court of C
Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P. No. 16970/2003.
WITH
C.A. Nos. 4869-4873 of 2007.
C.S.N. Mohan Rao, P. Veera Reddy and Guntur Prabhakar for the D
Appellants.
D. Bharathi Reddy, D. Rama Krishna Reddy, Asha G. Nair, It
Santhan Krishnan, K. Radha Rani, Praveen K. Pandey, P. Vijaya Kumar,
D. Mahesh Babu, Manoj Saxena, Rajnish Kr. Singh and Rahul Shukla E
for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, on the advice of the F
State of Andhra Pradesh, issued a notification on or about 1.10.1992
inviting applications for recruitment to various posts including 34 posts in'
the category of Assistant Director of Agriculture in the Andhra Pradesh
Agricultural Service. Although in the said notification stipulations were,
made in respect of grant of reservation for women to the extent of 30%, G
no such stipulation was made in respect of the vacancies in the category·
of Assistant Director of Agriculture. This appeal involves the question of'
reservation of women in the said category.
3. Appellants herein had been working as Agricultural Officer in H
\
510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] '11 S.C.R.
..(_ "-
A Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Service. They, in tenns ofthe said riqtification,
applied for the said posts. A screening test was to be held therefor. About
510 candidates appeared f<?r th~_ screening test on 27.12.1992;
. ~

4. Several original applications were filed before the Andhra P~esh
Administrative Tribunals claiming different reliefs and on different grounds.
B
Appellant herein filed an original application which was registered as OA
No.6451 of 1992 questioning the carry forward of vacancies from the
year 1976; the omission to make zonal reservation; prescription of 'f
minimum and maximum age limits by way of eligibility criteria as a result
whereof, allegedly, some of the agricultural officers were deprived of their
c right to apply for the posts. Indisputably, interim orders were passed in
January 1993 by the Tribunal which remained in force till the disposal of t;-

the said original applications.
5. The State of Andhra Pradesh issued GOMs No.928 G.A.D. on
D or about 6.10.1995 providing for reservations of women candidates to
the extent of 30% in the matter of direct recruitment with retrospective
effect from 2.1.1984. By reason of another Notification issued on
28.5.1996, the percentage of reservation for womeµ was increased to
33 113%. Original Applications filed by the petitioners as also those of other
E employees were dismissed by the Tribunal on 23 .11.1998.
6. An application filed by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service
Commission to short-list the candidates was allowed by the Tribunal by
an order dated 14.11.2000 by holding a fresh screening test for the 510
candidates who had appeared therein on 27 .12.1992 and to finalise the
F
result. A Notification for conducting a fresh screening test wa5 issued on
""" ""
12.12.2000 pursuant whereto a second screening test was conducted on
7.1.2001. Appellant, although appeared, did not pass the sai_d test.
7. Inter alia, on the premise that a very limited time had been granted
G to them for appearing in the second screening test as also on the ground
that no reservation for women could be provided for in terms of the said
>-- --
Notification dated 28.5.1996, an original application marked as OA No.
83 of2001 was filed by the appellants before the Tribunal on 8.1.2001.
No order of stay was passed therein.
H
MARRIPATI NAGARAJA v. THE GOVERNMENT OF 511
ANDHRA PRADESH [SINHA, J.]
f
"' 8. The Public Service Commission interviewed the candidates on A
8.1.2001 and 9.1.2001 who had been found suitable therefor.
An interim order was passed by the Tribunal only on 9.1.2001.
However, by order dated 1.8.2003, the original applications were
dismissed by the Tribunal holding that the selections made by the
Commission did not call for any interference except to the extent that the B
selections have to be revised restricting the reservation in favour of w~men
-y·
to the extent of 30% and wherever vacancies which were reserved to be
filled by women candidates could not be filled for want of wo~en
candidates, they should be filled up by men in terms of the rules existing
at the time of notification. c
j
'
9. Writ petition filed by the appellants questioning the same was
dismissed. A writ application was also filed by the Andhra Pradesh Public
Service Commission challenging the decision of the Tribunal restricting
reservation for women to 30% instead of 33 113 %. By reason of the D
impugned judgment both the writ petitions have been dismissed.
10. Not only the original applicants but the Andhra Pradesh Public
Service Commission also are, thus, b~fore us.
11. Mr. Mohan Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the E
appellant, would submit that keeping in view the fact that for the purpo~
of giving an opportunity to the appellants herein for appearance in the
second test, only a few days' time had been granted by the Commission,
the same must be held to be wholly arbitrary. It was furthermore contended
that by reason of any notification issued subsequent to the date of F
... >- advertisement, a provision for reservation of women could not have been
made.
12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Andhra Pradesh
Public Service Commission, on the other hand, submitted that as on the
G
date of publication of the notification, selection process was not over, the.
Tribunal and consequently the High Court committed an error in opining
~-. -J..
that reservation for women should have been kept confined to 30% only. ·
The Notification being GOMs No.928 dated 6.10~199S reads thus:
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
'
(2007] 11 S.C.R.
\
512
~ '
~
A "In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309
read with clause (4) of Article 16 and Article 335 of the 'Ir-
Constitution of India, the Governor of Andhra Pradesh hereby
makes the following amendment to the Andhra Pradesh State and
Subordinate Service Rules.
B
2. The amendments hereby made shall be deemed to have come
into force in so far as it relates to the reservation to the extent of
1--
30% of posts:- · -,..
(a) with effect from the 2nd January, 1984 to each category of
c O.C., S.C., S.T., and to the unclassified B.Cs; and
(b) with effect from the 17th October, 1990 to the categories of -t""<
....

B.Cs as classified into groups the physically handicapped and
Ex-servicemen quota.
D AMENDMENT
In the Andhra Pradesh State and Sunbordinate Services Rules, for .._
Sub-rule (2) of Rule 22-A, the following shall be substituted
namely:-
E "(2) In the matter of direct recruitment to posts for which women

" and men are equally suited, there shall be reservation to
women to an extent of 30% of the posts in each category of
0.C., B.C-A, B.C.B., B.C.C., B.C.D., S.C., S.T. and
physically handicapped and Ex-Servicemen quota.
F Provided that if sufficient number of women candidates are not
~ ,,..
available the vacancies shall be filled in by men."
EXPLANATION: "It is hereby clarified that all sections made in
accordance with sub-rule (2) prior to its amendment shall be and
G shall be deemed always to have been made in accordance with
this rule; and shall not entitle any person to enforce 30% reservation
merely on the ground that this amendment is made with retrospective "
> ·-
effect."
(BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR OF
H
'
'
t
MARRIPATI NAGARAJA v. THE GOVERNMENT OF 513
~ ;>
ANDHRA PRADESH [SINHA, J.]
ANDHRA PRADESH)" A
It is now a well settled principle of law that the rules which would
be applicable for selecting the candidates would be the one which were
prevailing at the time of the notification. It is also equally well settled that
the State may, subject to constitutional limitations, amend the rule with
B
retrospective effect. Rule 22-A which was applicable as on the date of
the said notification reads as under :
y
"Rule 22-A. Notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules or
Special or Ad hoc Rules,-
c
( 1) In the matter of direct recruitment to posts for which women
are better suited than men, preference shall be given to women :
(G.O.Ms. No.472, G.A., Dt.11.10.85)
Provided that such absolute preference to women shall not result
in total exclusion of men in any category of posts. D
-t (2) In the matter of direct recruitment to posts for which women
and men are equally suited, other things being equal, preference
shall be given to women and they shall be selected to an extent of I

at least 30% of the posts in each category of 0.C., B.C., S.C. E
and S. T. quota.
(3) In the matter of direct recruitment to posts which are reserved
exclusively for being filled by women they shall be filled by women 1

only (Vide G.O.Ms. 691, G.A. (Ser-0), Dt.22.11.1984, w.e.f.
y· 2.1.1984)" F
• ..4

13. The women candidates, in terms thereof, were, therefore, only
entitled to preference. By reason of the said notification merely, the 1

percentage has been increased from 30% to 33 113%. It has been given a
retrospective effect; as the existing sub-rule (2) of Rule 22-A was, G
substituted. By reason of the said Notification, no existing right of any
.. "" person has been taken away. In fact, as the selection process was not
over, the question of applicability of the said notification would have fallen
for consideration only when a final selection list was to be made and not
prior thereto. H
}-

514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A 14. The State, in exercise of its power conferred upon it under the
proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, is entitled
to make rules with retrospective effect and retro-active operation.
Ordinarily, in absence of any rule and that too a rule which was expressly
given a retrospective effect, the rules prevailing as on the date of the
B notification are to be applied. But if some rule has been given a
~-
retrospective effect which is within the domain of the State, unless the
same is set asid~ as being unconstitutional, the consequences flowing '!
therefrom shall ensure. In such an event, the applicable rule would not be
the rule which was existing but the one which had been validly brought
c on the statute book from an anterior date. The Tribunal and the High
Court, therefore, in our opinion, committed an error in opining otherwise,
particularly when the constitutionality of the said rule was not in question.
15. In N. T. Devin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service
Commission, [1990] 3 SCC 157, this Court categorically held:
D
"11. There is yet another aspect of the question. Where
advertisement is issued inviting applications for direct recruitment
to a category of posts, and the advertisement expressly states that i-

selection shall be made in accordance with the existing rules or
E government orders, and if it further indicates the extent of
reservations in favoiir of various categories, the selection of
candidates in such a case must be made in accordance with the
then exist~g rules and government orders. Candidates who apply, I
I
and undergo written or viva voce test acquire vested right for being •'.

F considered for selection in accordance with the terms and
conditions contained in the advertisement, unless the advertisement
itself indicates a contrary intention. Generally, a candidate has right
to be considered in accordance with the terms and conditions set
out in the advertisement as his right crystallises on the date of
G publication of advertisement, however he has no absolute right in
the matter. If the recruitment Rules are amended retrospectively
during the pendency of selection, in that event selection must be
held in accordance with the amended Rules. Whether the Rules
have retrospective effect or not, primarily depends upon the
H .language of the Rules and its construction to aseertain the legislative
.J
MARRIPATI NAGARAJA v. THE GOVERNMENT OF 515
ANDHRA PRADESH [SINHA, J.]
intent. The legislative intent is ascertained either by express provisio1iJ A
or by necessary implication; if the amended Rules are not
retrospective in nature the selection must be regulated in
accordance with the rules and orders which were in force on the
date of advertisement. Detem1ination of this question largelr
depends on the facts of each case having regard to the terms and B
conditions set out in the advertisement and the relevant rules and
orders. Lest there be any confusion, we would like to make it clear
y
that a candidate on making application for a post pursuant to atiJ.
advertisement does not acquire any vested right of selection, but
ifhe is eligible and is otherwise qualified in accordance with the C
relevant rules and the tem1S contained in the advertisement, he does
acquire a vested right of being considered for selection is
accordance with the rules as they existed on the date of
advertisement. He cannot be deprived of that limited right 011
the amendment ofrules during the pendency ofselection unless D
the amended rules are retrospective in nature. " '
(Emphasis supplied)
16. In this case, the qualification of a candidate is not in question,.
Nobody has been deprived of his right of being considered. Only E a
preferential right had been given to the women. In that view of the matter,
the High Court, in our opinion, was not correct in taking the said view.
17. The other contention of Mr. Rao that the candidates had giverl
only seven days' time for making preparation to appear in the second F
screening test, cannot, in our considered view, give rise to a ground for
setting aside the entire selection process. The Tribunal did not make any
discrimination. One screening test had already been held. The number of
candidates appeared in the first screening test was 510. The Commission
obtained the permission of the Tribunal for holding the second screening G
test. It issued a notification on 12.12.2000 stating that such a test woulq
be conducted on 7.1.2001. All the candidates were given the same time
for preparation. Only because the appellants herein were employees at
the relevant time, the same by itself could not confer on them any special
privilege to ask for an extended time. They had no legal right in relation H
;

\
516 SUPREME coµRT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A thereto. Appellants had appeared at the examination without any demur.
They did not question the validity ofthe said question of fixing of the said
date before the appropriate authority. They are, therefore, estopped and
precluded from questioning the selection process.
B 18. For the reasons aforementioned, the appeals of the Andhra
Pradesh Public Service Commission are allowed and that ofMarripati
Nagaraja is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee quantified at
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five t.h.ousand only).
19. The Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission is hereby
C directed to finalise the selection process in the light of the judgment of
this Court as expeditiously as possible and not later than three months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
K.K.T. Appeals disposed of.

..i r .• .J j d

'"
,,, _,,,; ~. _- '.

•. T.