Holding

The petitioners have no right to appointment; the selection was illegal and the Court cannot direct the State to create ex‑cadre posts for them.

Summary

The State of Andhra Pradesh created Family Courts and Mahila Courts and, lacking sufficient women judges in the District & Sessions Judges Grade‑II cadre, sanctioned ten additional posts exclusively for women by relaxing Rule 2 of the Special Rules for the A.P. State Higher Judicial Service. An advertisement was issued, nine candidates (including women from open, SC and BC categories) were selected and a panel was sent to the State, which raised objections that the selection violated reservation rules, de‑reserved SC/ST vacancies, and converted BC categories, thereby creating a de‑facto 100% reservation for women. The High Court held the selection illegal and refused to recommend appointment of the candidates as Family Court or Mahila Court judges on an ex‑cadre basis, noting that no separate posts existed for such courts and that creating ex‑cadre posts would contravene the Rules. The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking direction for their appointment in the District & Sessions Judges cadre. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the petitioners had no vested right to appointment, the selection was contrary to the applicable rules and reservation policy, and the Court could not direct the State to create ex‑cadre posts.

Issues considered

Whether the selection of women candidates for District & Sessions Judges Grade‑II posts, involving 100% reservation for women, violated the Special Rules and reservation policy.
Whether petitioners could be appointed on ex‑cadre posts as Family Court/Mahila Court judges and later absorbed into the District Judges cadre.
Whether the Court can direct the State to appoint petitioners despite the selection being contrary to the Rules.
Interpretation of Rule 2, Rule 6 and Rule 22 of the Special Rules for A.P. State Higher Judicial Service in the context of reservation and recruitment.

Legislation cited

Family Courts Act, 1984s. 4(4)(a), s. 4(4)(b)

Subjects

Service lawJudicial appointmentReservation policyWomen judgesFamily CourtsMahila CourtsEx‑cadre postsJudicial recruitment

Judgment

S. RENUKA AND ORS. A
v.
STATE OF A.P. AND ANR.

MARCH 21, 2002

[G.B. PATTANAIK, S.N. PHUKAN AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] B

Service Law:

Appointment-Requirement of women Judges for Family Court and
., Mahi/a Court-Scarcity of adequate number of woman judges-Sanction of c
posts of District and Sessions Judges, Grade II for appointment-All the posts
reserved for women after relaxation of Rule 2 of Special Rules of the A.P.
State Higher Judicial Service-Reservation for SC, ST and Backward Classes
provided-Selection made-On State's request-High Court opined that the
candidates could not be appointed-Opinion of High Court challenged in D
Supreme Court-Held, petitioners have no right to clain1 an appointment, as
the selection was de-hors the Special Rules and reservation polic~They
r cannot be appointed even on ex-cadre post, as the san1e would an1ount to
creating ex-cadre post by Court and would be against Rules.

After establishment of Family Courts and Mahila Courts, High Court E
desired to post women Judges in such Courts. In view of in-sufficient number
of women Judges IO additional posts were sanctioned by the State.
Advertisement was issued for appointment to the posts of District Judges,
Grade IL Out of the IO posts, 5 were for open competition, 2 for SC, one for
ST, one for Backward Class category A and one for Backward Class, category
B. But after selection process, High Court approved 9 names for the panel F
consisting of 7 from the open competition and one each from SC and
Backward Class A category B. The names of9 candidates were sent to State
Government for appointment, informing that the appointments of the
candidates shall be provisional as family court judges and they would be later
recruited to Higher Judicial Service as District Judges, Grade II on the G
• availability of vacancies reserved for women. State Government then
requested High Court to express its views on certain aspects with regard to
~

the selection.

Full Bench of the High Court opined that it was not in favour of
H
697
698 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 2 S.C.R.
'--,...._
-_A recommending any candidate on provisional selection for appointment as
District & Sessions Judge, Grade-II in A.P. State Higher Judicial Service. The
view of the Court was that the Selection process was illegal and contrary to
rules, as eventual absorption of the candidates appointed as Family Court
Judges into the category of District Judges, Grade-II, was not permissible
under Special Rules for the A.P. State Higher Judicial Service and the same
B also did not provide for keeping the provisionally selected District Judges
within-service as Family Court and Mahila Court Judges; and that
earmarking of all the additional posts only to women amounted to cent percent ~
reservation which was not permissible under Rule 2 of the Special Rules; and
the relaxation of the Rule fQr Higher Judicial Services was not permissible,
c and that the selection was against Reservation Policy as the vacancies relating ,.
to SC & st candidates were de-reserved and the vacancies of Backward
Classes Group A, B, C & D were converted into other categories; and that -
the Selection was also not proper since the candidates had got less marks than
normally prescribed for such selection.

D Petitioners-the selected candidates filed the present writ petition seeking
direction for their appointment in the cadre of District and Sessions Judge
Grade II. After subsequent advertisement for appointment of six posts of ' '-
)
District Judges wherein only one post was reserved for women, petitioners
amended the petition for further directions for quashing the decision of the
full court not to appoint as per the selection earlier made and for quashing
..
E
the subsequent advertisement.

The petitioners contended that they could be appointed on the ex-cadre
posts as Judges of Family Courts and Mahila Courts. _...,__

Dismissing the writ petition, the Court
F
HELD : 1. No right accrues to a person merely because a person is
selected and his or her name is put on a panel. The Petitioners have no right
to claim an appointment. Even otherwise, the selection was contrary to the
rules in force at that time. There could not be 100% reservation for women.
Also the reservation policy had not been adhered to. The posts which are
G ~

created are posts of District and Sessions Judges, Grade 11: There is no
separate posts for Judges of Family Courts and Mahila Courts. Thus the
Petitioners could not be appointed as Judges of Family Courts and Mahila
Courts in ex-cadre posts even provisionally. This would amount to creation
----
of Ex-cadre posts not sanctioned by the Government. No fault can be found
H with the High Court being in favour of not appointing the petitioners. The
S. RENUKA v. STATE [S.N. VARIAVA, J.] 699

selection was entirely against the rules and against the reservation policy. The A
, rules also required that if no SC or ST candidate was available then the
vacancy had to be carried forward. Similarly the vacancy of Backward Class
Group A, B, C and/or D could not be converted into other category.
[706-D-E; 705-F-GJ

2. The High Court correctly realised that the P.,titioners could not be B
appointed in ex-cadre posts as Family Court and/or Mahila Court Judges and
then absorb them in the cadre of District and Sessions Judge, Grade II as
and when vacancy for women arose. It was also noticed that the candidates
provisionally selected i.e. the petitioners, had got less marks than those
normally prescribed for such selection. (705-G-H; 706-AJ
c
3. Court cannot direct the State Government to appoint these petitioners
on ex-cadre posts as Judges of Family Courts and Mahila Courts. If such a
direction were to be given this Court would be creating ex-cadre posts and
making appointments contrary to rules. (707-B, CJ

RS. Mittal v. Union of India, (1995) Supp. 2 SCC 230 and Munno Ray v. D
Union of India, (2000) 9 SCC 283, distinguished.

~ CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 490 of
2000.

(Under Article 32 of Constitution of India) E
L.N. Rao, P.N. Mishra, Santhana Krishnan, Ms. Manila Verma and
Sunil Kumar, Advs. with them for the Petitioners.

Ms. K. Amareswari, P.P. Rao, K. Subba Rao, Prem Malhotra, R.
Madhavi Latha and T.V. Ratnam for the Respondents.
F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.N. VARIA VA, J. I. The facts relevant for the purposes of this Writ
Petition are as follows:

The State of Andhra Pradesh established Family Courts and Mahila G
Courts. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh desired that these Courts be
• manned by women. However in the cadre of District and Sessions Judges,
Grade II there were not enough women Judges who could be posted in these
Courts. Therefore the High Court requested the State to create additional
posts. On 3rd September, 1996 the State Government issued Office
Memorandum No. 172 sanctioning I 0 additional posts of District and Sessions H
700 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 2 S.C.R.

A Judges, Grade Jl. The relevant portion of the said Memorandum reads as
. '-...__
follows:

"The Registrar, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, has
. informed in his letter 6th read above that six Family Courts in the
cadre of District and Sessions Judge were sanctioned at
B Visakhapatnam, Hyderabad, Vijayawada, Kumool, Tirupathi and
Warangal in the G. 0. 3rd read above and another Family Court at
Secunderabad was sanctioned in the G. 0. 5th read above. The
Registrar, High Court of Andhra Pradesh has further stated that the
.;,.__·
High Court considers it necessary to post lady District Judges to
preside over the Family Courts in the State with a view to protect and
c preserve that institution of marriage and to promote the welfare of the
children as stipulated in Rule 4 (4) (a) and (b) of the Family Court
Act, 1984, but due to non availability of women judicial Officers in
the cadre of District Judges, the High Court is unable to post Lady
District Judges to the Family Courts. The Registrar has also stated
D that Mahila Courts with Lady presiding Officers at Hyderabad,
Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam were sanctioned exclusively to deal
with offences against women, in the G.Os. first and fourth read above.
The Registrar, High Court of Andhra Pradesh has finally requested
that 10 posts of District and Sessions Judge, Grade-II, be sanctioned
in addition to the existing cadre strength, exclusively to recruit the
E women candidates by direct recruitment, for being posted to the Family '
Courts and Mahila Courts in the State.

2. Government after careful consideration of the matter hereby
sanction in relaxation of Rule 2 of the Special Rules for the A. P.
State Higher Judicial Service, 10 posts of District and Sessions Judges,
F Grade-II, in addition to the existing cadre strength, exclusively for
women candidates to be recruited by direct recruitment." ·

2. Pursuant to this Memorandum the High Court issued an Advertisement
inviting applications from women candidates for appointment to the post of
G District and Sessions Judge, Grade-IL The advertisement specified that five
posts would be available for open competition, two posts for the Scheduled
Castes, one post for the Scheduled Tribe, one post for Backward Class Group
A and one post for Backward Class Group B.

3. Pursuant to this advertisement 261 candidates applied for the posts.
H The High Court called 210 candidates for a written examination. 180 candidates
S. RENUKA v. STATE [S.N. VARJAVA..f.] 701

participated in the written examination. The High Court then called 35 A
candidates for oral interviews. The oral interviews were conducted on 20th
and 21st of March, 1997. A panel of IO candidates was prepared. The IO
candidates were asked to furnish further information relating to their legal
practice. After receipt of the information the High Court rejected one name.
A panel of nine candidates was then approved at Full Court meetings held on
17th September, 1997 and again on 17th October, 1997. This panel consisted B
of seven candidates from the open category, one from Scheduled Caste and
one from Backward Class Group D. The High Court then sent the names of
the nine candidates to the State Government for appointment.

4. The State Government brought to the notice of the High Court certain C
aspects and requested the High Court to consider the same and express its
views. The aspects brought to the notice of the High Court were as follows:

"!.As Rule 22 of the A. P. State and Subordinate Service Rules old
or new prescribes a specific procedure either for filling of S.C. and
S. T. vacancies with 0.C. candidates or for de-reserving such vacancies, D
it is for the consideration whether the 7th and 8th vacancies in the
I' recruitment reserved for SCs and STs respectively can straightaway
be de-reserved which is not in consonance with the said Rule 22.

2. As the notification inviting the applications for .the post in question
was issued much later to 18-3-1996, the principles of carry forward E
of vacancies in respect of BCs also applies to the recruitment. The
recommendation of the High Court at roster points 4th and 10th
reserved for BC.A and BC.B groups respectively, required
consideration in the light of rules issued in G.O.Ms.No. 65, General
Administration (Ser.D) Dept., Dated:lS-2-1997. p
3. The High court informed that the appointments of the nine
provisionally selected candidates shall be provisionally as Family Court
Judges under the Family Courts Act to man Family Courts and Mahila
Courts only. As the proposal for sanction and notification are for the
• posts of District and Sessions Judges Grade.II, it is for consideration G
whether the candidates provisionally appointed in such recruitment
can now be provisionally appointed designating them as Family Courts
Judges.

4. The High Court has stated that the nine recommended candidates
to be provisionally appointed as Family Court Judges would be H
702 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) 2 S.C.R.

-_;A recruited into Higher Judicial Service as District Judges Grade.II as
and when vacancies in the cadre to the extent of reservation for
women become available in order of their merit subject to the rule of
reservation, it has to be considered in view of Rule 2 of the Special
Rules and whether they can be so adjusted as suggested in view of
Rule 6 of the Special Rules.
B
5. Whether the provisionally selected candidates recruited as District
Judges in the Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial Service can be
kept out of the service by provisional appointment to some other post
and recruiting them into the posts of District Judges on the availability
c of vacancies reserved for Women.

6. The appointments to the posts of District Judges shall be made by
the Governor of the State, whereas under the Family Courts Act,
1984, the State Government appoints persons to be judges of the
Family Courts. Hence the appropriate procedure to be adopted for
D making the suggested appointments may also be considered."

5. The High Court considered the aspects brought to its notice in a
meeting of the Full Court held on 21st November, 2000. The High Court then
replied to the State Government as follows:

E "For Query No. 1:

As per the rules in force, the vacancies relating to SC and ST
Candidates cannot be straightaway de-reserved. If there are no qualified
candidates of SC and ST available, the said vacancies have to be
carried forward for Limited Recruitment. Therefore, the High Court
F is of the view that the vacancies reserved for SC and ST candidates
cannot be de-reserved.

For Query No. 2:

As per the rules in force, the vacancies relating to each category
G of candidates belonging Backward Class Group A,B,C and D cannpt
be converted into other categories and they have to be carried forward
for Limited Recruitment, if the candidates belonging to each sub-
group are not available. Therefore, the High Court is of the view that
the vacancies reserved for each sub group cannot be filled up with
H the candidates of other sub groups.
S. RENUKA v. STATE [S.N. VARIAVA, J.] 703

For Query No. 3: A
The advertisement for the recruitment of women candidates was
made inviting applications for the posts of District and Sessions Judges,
Grade.II. The Government accorded sanction of 10 additional posts
in G.0.Ms:No.172, Law (LA&J SCF) Department dated:3.9. l 996.
There is no provision in the Special Rules for A.P. State Higher B
Judicial Service for eventual absorption of the candidates appointed
as F !ly Court Judges into the Cadre of District Judges, Grade.II
inst the future vacancies falling with the direct recruitment quota.
In this regard, two aspects viz., (I) suitability test from the point of
view of merit of the candidates and (2) Legality of recruitment by C
inviting applications exclusively from women candidates only, have
been considered by the High Court.

Regarding the suitability, it is noticed by the High Court that the
candidates who were provisionally selected have got less marks even
if 40% is taken as minimum marks for Ocs and 30% for Scs and Sts D
for the purpose of selection as District Judges Grade.II. The
recommendation through the letter 4th cited, was for appointment of
the women candidates as Family Court Judges and not as District and
Sessions Judges, Grade.II. The High Court, therefore, is of the view
that it is not conducive to the efficiency in service and the image of
Judiciary ifthe candidates wlio have got such lower marks are inducted E
into Higher Judicial Service.

Regarding the legality of recruitment, the High Court is of the
view that there are formidable legal impediments in the way of
recommending the candidates for appointment as District and Sessions
Judges, Grade.II. The High Court is of the further view that the Sp!. F
Rules for A.P. State Higher Judicial Service issued in exercise of
powers conferred under Article 233 and the proviso to Article 309 of
the Constitution of India and those rules enjoin that 33.1/3% of the
total number of permanent posts shall be filled or reserved to be filled
by direct recruitment. The Government accorded sanction of 10 posts G
of District and Sessions Judges, Grade.II in addition to the existing
cadre strength exclusively for women candidates to be recruited by
direct recruitment. This was purportedly done by relaxation of rule 2
of the Special Rules for A.P. State Higher Judicial Service. Rule 2
provides for method of appointment and the proportion between the
recruits by transfer (Promotees) and direct recruits from the Bar. By H
,
704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002] 2 S.C.R.

A resorting to relaxation of the said rule, it is not legally permissible to
earmark 10 sanctioned posts exclusively for direct recruitment of
women candidates since there is no rule in the A.P. State Higher
Judicial Service giving the power to relax any of the rules. The power
to relax the rules would only be under the A.P. State ~nd Subordinate
Service rules. Even if there is such power, it is doubtful whether the
B · basic rules of recruitment can be relaxed in view of the rulings of the
Supreme Court in Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India, AIR
(1991) SC 284 and in J & K Public Service Commission v. Narinder
Mohan, AIR (1994) SC 1808. The High Court is of the further view
that ear-marking 10 additional posts sanctioned only to the women
C candidates amount to cent percent reservation in favour ·of women
which is not legal/constitutionally permissible. Even ifthe reservation
provided under Rule 22-A of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service
Rules is made applicable to A.P. State Higher Judicial Service, the
reservation could be to the extent of I/3rd only.

D For Query No. 4:

Since there is no rule under the Spl. Rules for A.P. State Higher
Judicial Service to ab_sorb the Family Courts Judges into the Higher
Judicial Service as District and Sessions Judges, Grade.II as and when
vacancies in the cadre to the extent of reservation for women become
E
available, the High Court is of the view that they cannot be absorbed
in view of Rule 2 read with Rule 6 of the Special Rules for A.P. State
Higher Judicial Service.

For Query No. 5:
F
According to Rule 6 of the Sp!. .Rules for A.P. State Higher
Judicial Service, seniority of a person appointed to the category of
District and Sessions Judges, shall be determined with reference to
the date from which he was continuously on duty in the category.
The Spl. Rules do not provide to keep provisionally selected District
G Judges out of service as Family Court and Mahila Court Judges and
recruiting them into the posts of District Judges as and when vacancies
for women for direct recruitment become available in order to their
merit and subject to the rule of reservation. Therefore, the High Court
is of the view that the provisionally selected candidates as District
H Judges cannot be kept out of that service by provisional appointment
S. RENUKA v. STATE [S.N. VARIAVA,J.] 705
to some other post and recruiting them into the posts of District A
Judges on the ~vailability of vacancies reserved for women.

For Query No. 6:
In view of the above views expressed by the High Court, this query
needs no clarification:
B
In the light of the above views for the queries raised by the
Government, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh is not in favour of
recommending any women candidates on provisional selection for
appointment as District and Sessions Judges, Grade.II under the A.P.
State Higher Judicial Service in pursuance of the Notification issued C
on the basis. of the High Court's letter No. 4610/96-B.Spl Dated:
7.10.1996."

Thus the Full Court, in its meeting held on 2 lst November, 2000 was not
in favaur of appointing any person from the Panel prepared earlier.

6. It must be noted that the vacancies were for Judges of Family Courts D
and Mahila Courts. These Courts could be manned by District and Sessions
Judges, Grade II. The State Government had thus created JO posts of District
and Sessions Judge, Grade II. The advertisement was also for appointmen( to
the posts of District and Sessions Judge, Grade II. The appointments were to
be not to any ex-cadre posts but to posts in the cadre of District and Sessions E
Judge, Grade II. The rules prescribed that in the cadre of District and Sessions
Judges there had to be reservations for Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Caste,
Backward Classes (groups A, B, C or D) and women. The rules did not allow
I 00% reservation for women. By reserving all the I 0 posts for women the
High Court had inadvertently created a !00% reservation for women. Further
the posts advertised were 5 open competition, 2 Scheduled Caste, I Scheduled F
Tribe, I Backward Class Group A and I Backward Class Group B. Yet the
panel sent to the Government consisted of 7 open competition candidates, I
Scheduled Caste candidate and I Backward Class Group D candidate. Such
a selection was entirely against the rules and against the reservation policy.
The rules also required that if no SC or ST candidate was available then the G
vacancy had to be carried forward. Similarly the vacancy of Backward Class
•
group A, B, C and/or D could not be converted into other category. Because
of these difficulties the persons empanelled could not be appointed in the
cadre of District and Sessions Judge Grade IL The High Court initially
considered that the Petitioners could be appointed in ex-cadre posts as Family
Court and/or Mahila Court Judges and then absorb them in the cadre of H
706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) 2 S.C.R.

A District and Sessions Judge, Grade II as and when vacancy for women arose.
The High Court correctly realised that this could not be ddne. It was also
noticed that the candidates provisionally selected i.e. the Petitioners had got
less marks than those normally prescribed for such selection.
I

7. It must be mentioned that in the meantime the Petitibners had made
B representations both to the Chief Justice as well as to the Chief Minister.
They received no reply. This Writ Petition was thus filed by the nine women
lawyers who were selected and whose names were forwarded to the State
Government for appointment. The Petitioners sought directions to appoint
them in the cadre of District and Sessions Judges, Grade II. Thereafter on
C 20th July, 2000 another advertisement was issued calling for applications for
appointment to six posts of District Judges. In this advertisement only one
post was reserved for women. The Petition was thus amended and a further
direction to quash the decision of the Full Court not to appoint as per the
selection earlier made and to quash the subsequent advertisement have been
sought.
D
8. It is settled Jaw that no right accrues to a person merely because a· '
person is selected and his or her name is put on a panel. The Petitioners have
no right to claim an appointment. Even otherwise, the selection was contrary
to the rules in force at that time. There could not be 100% reservation for
E women. Also the reservation policy had not been adhered to. The posts
which are created are posts of District and Sessions Judges, Grade II. There
is no separate posts for Judges of Family Courts and Mahila Courts. Thus the
Petitioners could not be appointed as Judges of Family Courts and Mahila
Courts in ex-cadre posts even provisionally. This would amount to creation
of Ex-cadre posts not sanctioned by the Government. No fault can be found
F with the High Court being in favour of not appointing the Petitioners.

9. The unfortunate part is that even though Family Court and Mahila
Courts have been established no appointments have been made. Thus, till
date the Family Courts and Mahila Courts are not being manned.

G 10. Mr. Nageshwar Rao has relied upon the case of R. S. Mittal v.
Union of India reported in [ 1995) Supp. 2 SCC 230. In this case even though •
the Court was of the opinion that the selection was not proper, it refused. to
interfere. Mr. Nageshwar Rao also relied on the case of Munna Roy v. Union
of India, reported in [2000] 9 SCC 283. In this case the Court directed
H appointment of the selected candidate in spite of the fact that she had no right
S. RENUKA v. STATE.[S.N. VARJAVA,J.] 707
to the appointment. .Both these. cases are based on the peculiar facts of those A
cases.

11. As the posts were lying vacant for such a long period of time
initially it was suggested that if the Petitioners filed an undertaking before
this Court, that they are willing to be appointed in ex-cadre posts of Judges
of the Family Court and/or Mahila Court and that they will not claim any B
right to be subsequently absorbed in the cadre of District and Sessions Judges
Grade II then the Court could consider directing the State Government to
appoint these nine Petitioners. Eight of these Petitioners have filed undertakings
before this Court. However on a proper consideration of the matter, we are
of the view that this Court cannot direct the State Government to appoint C
these Petitioners. If such a direction were to be given this Court would be
creating ex-cadre posts and making appointments contrary to rules. Thus it
is not possible for this Court to accede to the request of Mr. Nageshwar Rao
to appoint Petitioners, on the ex-cadre posts, as Judges of Family Courts and
Mahila Courts.

12. Writ Petition is thus dismissed. There will be no Order as to costs.

K.K.T. Petition dismissed.

r