1996 (1) TMI 380 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether prior or subsequent to the employment that are either incidental to such employment or form part of its terms and conditions and also include promotion to a selection post? Held that - Appeal allowed. It is seen that Rule 22 of the general Rules provides reservation for appointment by direct recruitment. By Constitutional parameters and interpretation of law by this Court, reservation under Articles 141B, 16(1) and 16(4) would include reservation in promotion as well. Thus the stand taken by the Tribunal that Rule 22 would apply only for direct recruitment and not for appointment by promotion, is illegal.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Rule 22 of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules in the context of recruitment by transfer and promotion; Applicability of reservation in promotion for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes; Validity of the Tribunal's decision regarding the application of Rule 22 only for direct recruitment.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court heard an appeal arising from an order of the Administrative Tribunal of Andhra Pradesh concerning the application of Rule 22 of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules to recruitment by transfer and promotion. The Tribunal had held that Rule 22 was not applicable to such appointments, contrary to the special rules governing the appointment of Commercial Tax Officers. The Court noted that Rule 5 of the A.P. Commercial Tax Subordinate Service Rules specifically envisaged the applicability of Rule 22 for appointments to the above service, emphasizing the importance of reservation policies in appointments.

The Court referred to the General Manager, Southern Railway v. Rangachari case, where it was established that matters relating to employment encompass all aspects of employment, including promotions. This principle was reiterated in subsequent cases, highlighting the significance of promotions as part of the employment process. The Court emphasized the reservation policies for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as a means to ensure adequate representation in the services under the State.

Furthermore, the Court discussed the interpretation of reservation in promotions in light of the Indra Sawhney case and subsequent amendments to Article 16 of the Constitution. The introduction of Article 16(4A) empowered the State to make provisions for reservation in promotions if Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are not adequately represented. The Court reaffirmed that reservation is integral to the equality framework under Article 16(1) and can extend to promotions where necessary.

Consequently, the Court held that the Tribunal's view that Rule 22 only applied to direct recruitment and not to appointments by promotion was incorrect. The Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of reservation policies in both direct recruitment and promotions to ensure equality and representation. The decision was made in line with constitutional provisions and judicial interpretations, without imposing costs on the parties involved.