Holding

Rule 22, as incorporated by the special rules, applies to appointments by promotion, allowing reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes where the State deems their representation inadequate.

Summary

The Commissioner of Commercial Tax appealed against an Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal order that held Rule 22 of the State and Subordinate Service Rules did not apply to appointments by promotion for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Supreme Court examined Rule 5 of the A.P. Commercial Tax Subordinate Service Rules, which incorporates the general reservation rule for both direct recruitment and transfer, and considered constitutional provisions under Articles 14, 16(1), 16(4) and the amended 16(4A). Relying on precedents such as General Manager Southern Railway v. Rangachari, State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas, Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh v. Union of India, and Indira Sawhney v. Union of India, the Court held that reservation can extend to promotions where the State deems SC/ST representation inadequate. The 77th Constitution Amendment introducing Article 16(4A) further confirmed the legislature’s intent to allow reservation in promotions. Consequently, the Tribunal’s view that Rule 22 applies only to direct recruitment was declared illegal, and the appeal was allowed without costs.

Issues considered

Whether Rule 22 of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules is applicable to appointments by promotion for SC/ST candidates.
Whether constitutional provisions, including Article 16(4) and the amended Article 16(4A), permit reservation in promotions.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 16(1), s. Article 16(4), s. Article 16(4A)

Subjects

reservationSC/STpromotionArticle 1616(4A)state service rulesequalityspecial leave

Judgment

THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX A
ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD AND ANR.
v.
G. SETHUMADHAVA RAO AND ORS.

JANUARY 17, 1996
B
[K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.]

Seivice Law :

A.P. State and§ubordmate Seivice Ru/es/A.P. Commercial Tax Sub- C
ordinate Seivice Rules :

Rules 22/5-Reseivation for SC/ST-Promotion Rule of reserva-
tion-Applicable not only to initial recntitmenl-A/so in promotions where
the State is of opinion that SC/ST are not adequately represented in promo-
tional posts in class or classes of se1vice under the State. D
Constitution of India, 1950 :

Article 14, 16(1) and 16(4)-SC!ST-Rule of reseivation-lncludes
reservation in pronzotion as welt.
E
General Manager, Southem Railway v. Rangacha1i, (1962) 2 SCR p.
586; State of Kera/a v. N. M. Thomas & Ors., (1976) 1 SCR p. 906; Akhil
Bhartiya Soshit Karamachari Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India & Ors.,
(1981) 1 SCC 246 and Indira Sawlmey and Ors. v. Uni011 of India and Ors.,
(1992) Supp. 3 SCR 217, relied on. F

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2523 of
1996.

From the Judgment and Order dated 2.12.92 of the Andhra Pradesh
Administrative Tribunal in 0.A. No. 5158 of 1992. G

K. Ram Kumar for the Appellants.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted. H
693
(
694 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 1 S.C.R.

A Though the respondents have been served with notice they are not
appearing either in person or through counsel.

We have heard Sri Ram Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants.

This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Administra-
B tive Tribunal of Andhra Pradesh passed on December 2, 1992 in 0.A. No.
5158/92. The Tribunal in the impugned order has held that though the posts
of Assistant Commercial Tax Officers etc. are governed by rules made y"
under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution issued in G.0. Ms. No.
107 dated January 30, 1962 and G.O. Ms. No. 81-Revenue dated February
C 3, 1990, Rule 22 of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules is not
applicable to the recruitment by transfer and promotion. Conseque.ntly, the
Government was not justified in applying the rule to the above services.
The view taken by the Tribunal is not correct in view of special rules
holding the field.
•
D Rule 5 of the AP. Commercial Tax Subordinate Service Rules (the
special Rules) reads thus :

"Special Representation : Except in so far as it relates to physically
handicapped persons the rule of special representation (General
E Rule 22) shall apply separately to the appointment of Commercial
Tax Officers by direct recruitment and to their appointment by
transfer."

Rule 22 of the State and Subordinate Service Rules, which is the
general rule, which alone is relevant for the purpose of this case reads thus:
F
"22. Sp,ecial representation: All appointment to a service, class or
category -

(i) by· direi:t recruitment, except where the Government by a
general or special order made in this behalf except such service,
G class or category;

(ii) otherwise than by direct recruitment, where the special rules
lay down that the principle of reservation of appointments shall
apply to such service, class or 'category; shall be made on the
H following basis; '
'
\
1
COMMNR.OFCOMME.RCIAL TAXv. G.SETHUMADHAVARAO 695

"Provided further that the carry forward vacancies and current A
."' a
reserved vacanc!es in recruitment year shall be available for
utilisation even where the total number of such reserved vacancies
' .. -"""
.
exceeds {52%) of the vacancies filled that year in case the overall
representation of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in
the total strength of the concerned grade or Cll!'lre, has not reached B
the prescribed percentage of reservation of {15%) for the
•• Scheduled castes and (6%) for the Scheduled Tribes respectively."
-1
;·~ -,.

Rule 5 of the Special Rules envisages apPftcability of Rule 22 of the
State and Subordinate Service 'Rules {General Rules) for appoint~ents to
the above service. The relevant proviso to Rule 22 extracted hereinbefore C
postulates that the carry forward vacancies and current reserved vacancies
in a recruitment year shall be available for utilisation even where the total
number of such reserved vacancies exceeds 52% of the vacancies filled that
year in case the overall representation of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes in the total strength of the concerned grade .or cadre; has D
not reached the prescribed percentage of reservation of 15% (subsequently
increased to 16%) and for the Scheduled Tribes 6% {subsequently in-
creased to 7%), as the case may be .
.... '
In General Manager, Southem Railway v. Rangachari, [1962] 2 SCR
p. 586, the Constitution Bench per majority had held that the matters E
relating to employment cannot mean merely matters prior to the act of
appointment nor' can appointment to an office mean merely the initial
·• appointment bu~milst include all matters relating to employment whether
prior or..-subsequeni to the employment that are either incidental to such
employment or form part of its terms and conditions and also include F
promotion to the selection post. This principle was reiterated by a Bench
of 7 Judges of this Court in State of Kera/av. N.M. Thomas & Ors., [1976]
1 SCR p. 906. The same was followed per majority in Akhi/ Bharatiya
Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India & Ors., [1981] 1 SCC
246. It was thus interpreted by this Court that appointment would include
promotion. G

The. reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in contra
distinction to the rest of the Indian community and others are classified to
accord fundamental right of eql)ality of opportunity to the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes for the purpose of adequate representation H
(
696 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) 1 S.C.R.

A in the services under the State. In Indra Sawlmey a11d Ors. v. U11ion of India
and 01~., [1992] Supp. 3 SCR 217, a larger Bench of nine Judges per
majority, in which Justice A.M. Ahmadi, J. (as he then was) did not
participate on the issue since it did not directly arise for decision therein,
held that reservation of appointment or post under Art. 16(4) is confined
B to initial appointment only and cannot extend to provide reservation in
matters of promotion. However, this Court upheld the promotions made
until the date of the judgment, namely, November 16, 1992 and held that
wherever special rules have not provided reservation in appointment by
promotion, the same was permitted to be done within 5 years from that
date. The Parliament amended Article 16 by 77th Constitution (Amend-
C ment Act) 1995 which came into force from June 17, 1995 incorporating
clause 4A to Art. 16 which reads thus:

"Nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from making any
provision for reservation in matters of promotion to any class or
D
classes of posts in the services under the State in favour of the •
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes which, in the opinion
of the States, are not adequately represented in the services under
the State."

The Parliament by amending the Constitution and introducing Art.
E 16(4A) has removed the base as interpreted by this Court in llldra
.
Sawlmey's case that appointment does not include promotion by making
express provisions that when the State forms an opinion that members of
the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes are not adequately represented +
in any service or to any class or classes of base in the service under the
p State, the State is empowered to make provisions for reservation by promo-
tion. Article 16(1) does not prevent the State from making such a provision.
In l11dra Sawhney's case also, this Court reiterated that right to equality
under Article 16(1) is equally applicable to the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes and Articles 16(4) is not an exception. Reservation is
part of the scheme of equality under Article 16(1). Article 16(4A) would
G establish that the interpretation put up in Ra11gachari's, Thomas' and
Karamc11a1i Sa11gh's cases received parliamentary approval. It would thus
be clear that as a principle of law, rule of reservation can apply not only
to initial recruitment but also in promotions where the State is of the
opinion that Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are not adequately
H represented in promotional posts in class or classes of service under the
COMMNR.OFCOMMERCIAL TAXv. G.SETIIUMADHAVARAO 697

State. It is seen that Rule 22 of the general Rules provides reservation for A
appointment by direct recruitment. By Constitutional parameters and in-
terpretation of law by this Court, reservation under Articles 16(1), 16(4A)
would include reservation in promotion as well.

In view of the above, the stand taken by the Tribunal that Rule 22
would apply only for direct recruitment and not for appointment by promo- B
tion, is illegal.

The appeal is accordingly allowed, but in the circumstances, without
costs.

G.N. Appeal allowed.

-·