Holding

The amendment to Rule 22‑A(2) introduced a reservation of at least 33⅓ % for women, so the rule was correctly applied and the appointments stand.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined the appointment of District Munsiff magistrates in Andhra Pradesh where a number of women and SC/ST candidates were selected under Rule 22‑A(2) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules. The petitioners argued that the rule, even after amendment, only created a preference for women and did not constitute a reservation, making the appointments illegal. The Court held that the amendment introduced a reservation of at least 33⅓ % for women, so the rule was correctly applied. It also found that the writ petitions filed under Article 32 were filed many years after the notification and the appointments, rendering them stale. Consequently, all the civil appeals and writ petitions were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the amendment to Rule 22‑A(2) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules provides for a reservation for women or merely a preference.
Whether the selection of women candidates under the said rule is illegal.
Whether the writ petitions filed under Article 32 are barred by delay (staleness).

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 15(3), s. Article 16(2), s. Article 16(4)

Subjects

service lawreservationwomenDistrict MunsiffRule 22-Aappointmentwrit petitionstalenessconstitutional law

Judgment

.-
A MOHD. SIDDIQ ALI
v.
HIGH COURT OF A.P. THROUGH REGISTRAR AND ORS.

OCTOBER 24, 2005 '

B [R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., G.P. MATHUR AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.]
,,
~
Service law:
~

Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules-Rule 22-A(2)(As
c amended by G.O.Ms. No.237 dated 28.5.1996)-Appointment-To the post of
Distt. Munsijf-Of women candidate-Applying policy of reservation provided
in the Rule-Appointment challenged-Plea that the Rule did not provide for
reservation but only a rule of preference-Dismissal of writ petition-On
appeal, held: Jn view of amendment of the Rule providing for first time '•
reservation for women, the Rule cannot be said to have been wrongly applied.
D
Appellants challenged appointment of some women candidates and
candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to the posts
of District Munsiff, by filing two Writ Petitions. Prior to filing the present
Writ Petitions, a Writ Petition challenging the same appointments was filed
E wherein (Mohd. Iqbal Ahmedv. High Court ofA.P., (1998) 5 ALT 385) High
Court considering amendments in Rule 22-A(2) of A.P. State and Subordinate
Service Rules held that the Rule provided for first time reservation for women
candidates. High Court dismissed the petitions. One of the Writ Petitions
was dismissed holding that one of the petitioners had no chance of selection
F even if his plea was accepted. Hence the present appeals. Fresh Writ Petitions
were also filed in this Court challenging the appointments.

In appeal to this Court, appellants contended that selection of women
candidates after applying Rules 22-A(2) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service
Rules for their reservation was illegal, as the Rule did not provide for a
G reservation but merely laid down rule of preference.
Dismissing the appeals and petitions, the Court

HELD: 1. In view of the amendment of Rule 22-A(2) of A.P. State and
Subordinate Services Rules providing for first time reservation for the women
H 478
MOHD. SIDDIQ All v. HIGH COURT OF A.P. THROUGH REGISTRAR 479

candidates, it cannot be said that the Rule was wrongly applied as it did not A
provide for reservation in favour of women, but merely laid down rule of
preference. [484-DI

Government of A.P. v. P.B. Vijyakumar and Anr., 11995] 4 S(:C 520,
distinguished.
B
2. It cannot be said that Writ Petition could not have been dismissed on
the ground of !aches. In the present case the persons selected had already
joined as District Munsiffs long back and the challenge has been raised to
their selection after the decision had been rendered by the High Court in
Mohd. Iqbal Ahmad's case. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order passed C
by the High Court. 1485-81

RS. Deodhar v. State ofMaharashtra, AIR (1974) SC 259, distinguished.

Mohd. Iqbal Ahmad v. High Court ofA.P., (1998) 5 ALT 385, referred
to.
D
3. In respect of the other appeal, High Court has recorded a finding
that the appellant had no chance of selection even if the contention raised by
him was accepted. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the
reasons given by the High Court in dismissing his Writ Petition are
incorrect. [485-C[
E
4. Writ Petitions which have been directly filed in this Court under
Article 32 of the Constitution are highly belated and are liable to be dismissed
on the ground of !aches. [485-EI

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3006 of2001. F
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.1.99 of the Andhra Pradesh High
Court in W.P. No. 35876of1998.

WITH

W.P. (C) No. 504/99, C.A. No. 3007/2001, W.P. (C) Nos. 22, 554 and 555 G
'
of2001.

H.S. Gururaja Rao, G. Seshagiri, A. Raghunath, A.T.M. Sampath, Mrs.
P.S. Shanthi, Mrs. R. Meena Kumari, B.D. Sharma, (NP) and G. Ramakrishna
Prasad for the Appellant.
H
480 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A B. Sridhar, K. Ram Kumar and T.V. Ratnam for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

G.P. MA THUR, J. I. The issue raised in the Civil Appeals and Writ
Petitions which have been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution is same
'
B and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order.

2. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh issued a notification on 23. I 0.1996
for making appointments to the posts of District Munsiff and the relevant part
of the notification which has a bearing on the controversy in dispute is
reproduced below :
c "Notification

For appointment to the post of District Munsiffs.

Applications are invited for 200 posts of District Munsiffa of which
27 by limited Recruitment-backlog vacancies and 173 by General
D Recruitment in the A.P. State Judicial Services.

VACANCY POSITION :

E
Note : L The General Recruitment vacancies are subject to the rule of Sp!.
Representation under Rule I 0 of the Sp!. Rules for A.P. State
Judicial Service and also Rule 22(A){2) of the A.P. State and
Subordinate Service Rules.
2 The High Court reserves the right to increase or decrease the
F
number of vacancies after issue of this notification, if necessary."

After a written examination was held, candidates were called for interview
keeping iri view the number of vacancies and the result was declared on
18.3.1997. On the basis of the merit list prepared, some appointments were
G initially made on 7.4.1998. Mohd. Siddiq Ali (appellant in C.A. No.3006 of
200 I) filed Writ Petition No.35876 of 1998 challenging the selection and
appointment of some women candidates and candidates belonging to
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The writ petition was dismissed in
limine by a Division Bench of the High Court (B. Subhashan Reddy and Y.V.
Narayana, JJ) on 18.1.1999 and the order passed by the Court reads as under:
H
MOHD. SIDDIQ ALI v. HIGH COURT OF A.P. THROUGH REGISTRAR [GP. MA THUR, J.] 48 J

"This writ petition challenges the women reservation in the matter A
of selection of Munsiff Magistrates as also backlog for Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates,

In so far as backlog of SC and ST candidates is concerned, it is
a well settled law that such a backlog is permissible under the
Constitution Scheme. In so far as women reservation is concerned, a B
Division Bench of this Court by judgment dt. 31.8.1998 in W.P. 18307/
98 and batch had maintained women reservation on the ground of the
same being not challenged and that challenge could not sustain in
auxiliary proceedings. The Division Bench, however, has set aside the
action regarding carry-forward in the matter of women candidates,
Taking a clue from the judgment of the said Division Bench that the C
action in providing reservation to women was not challenged, this writ
petition has been filed, but the same is hit by !aches for the reason
that the notification was issued far back in 1996, selection process
went through and selections have been finalised and appointments
have been made. D
In the circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs."

Civil Appeal No.3006 of 200 I has been filed challenging the aforesaid
order of the High Court.

3. Another writ petition being Writ Petition No.32021of1998 was filed
E
by S. Sreeramulu and D.D.V.S.N. Prasad challenging the same selection and
appointment of women candidates. The writ petition was dismissed by a
Division Bench (P. Venkatarama Reddi and Bilal Nazlci, JJ) on 2.12.1998 and
the order passed by the Cqurt reads as under :
F
"We are not inclined at this distance of time to entertain this Writ
Petition directed against the selection of candidates for the posts of
District Munsiffs which was finalised long back and pursuant to
which appointment orders were issued. That apart, on the basis of the
information furnished by the panel counsel for the High Court, the I st
petitioner has no chance of selection even if his contention is accepted. G
The writ petition in so far as the 2nd petitioner is concerned, is
dismissed as he has separate cause of action and he should have filed
a separate writ petition. In fact, it is noticed that the affidayit is filed
by the I st petitioner only. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed at ·
the admission stage." H
482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A Civil Appeal No.3007 of 200 I has been filed challenging the aforesaid
order of the High Court.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Rule 22-A(2) of
the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules was wrongly applied
while making the selection to the post of District Munsiff. He has further
B contended that Rule 22-A(2) of the aforesaid Rule~ did not provide for a
reservation to the extent of 30% in favour of women but merely laid down a
rule of preference and, therefore, the selection made of women candidates
after applying a policy of reservation in their favour is wholly illegal. The
appellant in civil appeal no.3006 of 2001 has filed a copy of A.P. State and
C Subordinate Rules in the additional documents filed in I.A. No. 7 of 2005 and
Rule 22-A of the Rules is reproduced below :

''.22-A. Notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules or Special
. or Ad hoc Rules

(I) In the matter of direct recruitment to posts for which women
D are better suited than men, preference shall be given to women :

Provided that such absolute preference to women shall not result
in total exclusion of men, in any category of posts.

(2) In the matter of direct recruitment to posts for which women
E and men are equally suited, other things being equal, preference shall
be given to women and they shall be selected to an extent of atleast
30% of the posts in each category ofO.C., B.C., S.C., and S.T. quota.

(3) In the matter of direct recruitment to posts which are reserved
exclusively for being filled by women they ~hall be filled by women
F only."

5. Learned counsel has submitted that the aforesaid Rule came up for
consideration before this Court in Government of A. P. v. P. B. Vijayakumar and
Anr., [1995] 4 SCC 520 and it was held therein that the preference contemplated
by the Rule will come into operation only when the candidates obtain the
G same number of marks as the Rule uses the expression "other things being
equal". This position was made clear in the judgment and the relevant part
of headnote (B) of the report on which great emphasis was laid during the
course of arguments is being reproduced below :

"Rule 22-A(2) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules does
H
MOHD. SIDDIQ ALI v. HIGH COURT OF A.P. THROUGH REGISTRAR [G.P. MATHUR J.] 483

not provide reservation for women in the normal sense of the term. A
It is a rule for a very limited affirmative action. The preference
contemplated under Rule 22-A(2) will come into operation at the initial
stage when in the selection test for the post in question, candidates
obtain the same number of marks or are found to be equally meritorious.
Rule 22-A(2) prescribes a minimum preference of 30% for women, B
clearly contemplating that for the remaining posts also, if women
candidates are available and can be selected on the basis of other
criteria of selection among equals, which are applied to the remaining
candidates, they can also be selected. The phrase "other things being
equal" does not refer to these other norms for choosing from out of
equally meritorious persons. The 30% rule is also not inflexible. In a C
situation where sufficient number of women are not available,
preference that may be given to them could be less than 30%. The rule
is thus within the ambit of Article 15(3) and is not violative of Articles
16(2) and 16(4) which have to be read harmoniously with Articles 15(1)
and 15(3)."
D
6. We have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the
appellant and have examined the record. It is rather unfortunate that what is
placed on record is the unamended A.P. State and Subordinate Rules and
arguments have been advanced on its basis. Rule 22-A(2) of the aforesaid
Rules has undergone several amendments and this position was noticed by E
a Division Bench of A.P. High Court (P. Venkatarama Reddi and R.M. Bapat,
JJ) in Writ Petition No.18307 of 1998 filed by Modh. Iqbal and Ors. wherein
the same selection of District Munsiff was challenged. The judgment in this
case was delivered on 31.8.1998 i.e. prior to the filing of the two writ petitions
in the High Court and.the same is reported in 1998 (5) ALD 590. The amendment
in the Rules were considered in para 5 of the judgment which reads as under: F

"5. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 22-A of A.P. State and Subordinate Service
Rules (hereinafter referred to as APSS Rules) as amended by
G.O.Ms.No.237 dated 28.5.1996 provided for the first time reservation
for women to the extent of 33-I/3% of posts in each category i.e., OCs,
BCs, SCs, STs, Physically Handicapped and Ex-servicemen with effect G
from 8.3 .1996. This was in modification of the earlier rule of preference
in favour of women. It is laid down by means of a proviso that if
sufficient number of women candidates are not available, the vacancies
shall be filled by men. Jhe Rule in the same form was retained when
the APSS Rules were further amended by G.0. No.436, dated 15.10.1996. H
484 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A A few months thereafter, Rule 22-A(2) had undergone a further change
by G.O. No.65, dated 15.2.1997. The proviso to Rule 22-A(2) was
deleted. Simultaneously, there was a corresponding amendment to
Rule 22 placing the women candidates on par with SCs, STs, BCs and
Physically handicapped candidates for the purposes of application of
the procedure for limited requirement and carry forward of vacancies.
B Note (2) was added to Rule 22 by which it was provided that the
"principle of carry forward of vacancies in respect of women shall be
with effect from 28. I0.1996". Note (3) provided for application of
roster points for women candidates with effect from 1.8.1996."

C The Bench struck down the action of the respondents in carrying
forward the unfilled vacancies reserved for women candidates, while not
disturbing the selections and appointments of women candidates already
made on the ground that Rule 22-A(2) which the High Court purported to
adopt in the recruitment notification did not contain any principle of carrying
forward of vacancies relating to women candidates. A direction was accordingly
D issued that those vacancies should be filled in by men candidates in the order
of merit and subject to the observance of roster point and the rules of
reservation applicable to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and backward
classes. In view of the amendment of the Rules, the contention raised by
learned counsel for the appellant has no merit at all and has to be rejected.

E 7. In Civil Appeal No.3006 of2001, the writ petition was dismissed by
the High Court on the ground that though the notification had been issued
on 23.10.1996, but the writ petition wherein reservation in favour of women
was challenged was filed in November, 1998 and, therefore, the writ petition
was highly belated. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
F writ petition should not have been dismissed on the ground of !aches. In
support of his submission learned counsel has placed reliance on R.S. Deodhar
v. State of Maharashtra, AIR (1974) SC 259, wherein it has been held that the
rule which says that a Court may not inquire into belated or stale claims is
not a rule of Jaw but a rule of practice based on sound and proper exercise
of discretion and there is no inviolable rule that whenever there is delay, the
G Court must necessarily refuse to entertain the petition. The question is one
of discretion to be followed on the facts of each case. On the strength of the
aforesaid authority it is submitted that the High Court has erred in dismissing
the writ petition on the ground of !aches. We are unable to accept the
contention raised. In the authority cited, the dispute related to inter se
H seniority of Mamlatdars/Tehsildars in the newly constituted State of Bombay
MOHD. SIDDIQ ALI"· HIGH COURT OF AP. THROUGH REGISTRAR [GP. MA THUR, J.] 485

by virtue of the provisions of the States Reorganization Act, 1956. The inter A
se seniority of persons holding the same rank has a great bearing at the stage
of promotion to a higher post and in such a situation it was heid that in the
facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition could not be dismissed
on the ground of !aches. In the present case the persons selected had already
joined as District Munsiffs long back and the challenge has been raised to B
their selection after the decision had been rendered by the A.P. High Court
in Writ Petition No.18307of1998 (Mohd. Iqbal Ahmad and Ors. v. High Court
of A.P.) on 31.8.1998. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order
passed by the High Court.

8. In Civil Appeal No.3007 of 2001, the High Court has recorded a C
finding that the appellant S. Sreeramulu had no chance of selection even if
the contention raised by him was accepted. Nothing has been brought on
record to show that the reasons given by the High Court in dismissing his
writ petition are incorrect. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the appeal.

9. Regarding the writ petitions which have been directly filed in this D
Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, it may be noted that Writ Petition
(C) No.504of1999 was filed on 6.11.J 999, Writ Petition (C) No.22 of 200 I was
filed on 8.11.2000, Writ Petition (C) No.554 of 2001 and Writ Petition (C)
No.555 of2001 were filed on 19.10.2001. We are of the opinion that these writ
petitions, wherein challenge has been made to the notification issued by the
High Court on 23 .10.1996, are highly belated and are liable to be dismissed E
on the ground of !aches.

I 0. For the reasons discussed above, all the Civil Appeals and Writ
Petitions are dismissed.

K.K.T. Appeals and petitions dismissed. F