9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Rule 13AA of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958. 2. Validity of the orders marked as Exhibits P-2 and P-6. 3. Alleged violation of Articles 16(1) and 16(2) of the Constitution. 4. Consideration of the claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes under Article 335. 5. Scope and interpretation of Article 16(4) in relation to reservations and classifications. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Rule 13AA of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958: The appeal concerns the validity of Rule 13AA, which allows the government to exempt members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from passing certain tests for a specified period. The rule was challenged on the grounds of violating Articles 16(1) and 16(2) of the Constitution. The court upheld the rule, stating that it is a reasonable classification aimed at providing equal opportunity to the backward classes, consistent with the objectives of Articles 46 and 335 of the Constitution. The rule does not grant permanent exemption but only a temporary one, ensuring that administrative efficiency is not compromised. 2. Validity of the Orders Marked as Exhibits P-2 and P-6: Exhibit P-2 is an order dated January 13, 1972, granting temporary exemption to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from passing all tests for a period of two years. Exhibit P-6, dated January 11, 1974, extended this exemption to cover a period during which two tests are held. The court found that these orders are consistent with Rule 13AA and do not violate the principle of equality. The orders were intended to prevent immediate reversion of a large number of Harijan employees and were made in consultation with the Kerala Public Service Commission. 3. Alleged Violation of Articles 16(1) and 16(2) of the Constitution: Article 16(1) guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment, while Article 16(2) prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence, or any of them. The respondents argued that Rule 13AA and the exemption orders violated these provisions by giving preferential treatment to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The court held that the classification made under Rule 13AA is reasonable and has a rational nexus to the objective of providing equal opportunity to backward classes. The rule does not violate Article 16(1) as it ensures that the backward classes are not left behind due to historical disadvantages. 4. Consideration of the Claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes under Article 335: Article 335 mandates that the claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes be taken into consideration in making appointments to services and posts, consistent with the maintenance of administrative efficiency. The court found that Rule 13AA and the exemption orders are in line with this mandate. The temporary exemptions provided by the rule and orders do not compromise administrative efficiency but rather aim to ensure that the backward classes get a fair opportunity to compete. 5. Scope and Interpretation of Article 16(4) in Relation to Reservations and Classifications: Article 16(4) allows the State to make provisions for the reservation of appointments or posts in favor of any backward class of citizens not adequately represented in the services under the State. The court clarified that Rule 13AA does not fall under Article 16(4) but is a form of reasonable classification under Article 16(1). The court emphasized that while Article 16(4) is an exception to Article 16(1), it does not cover all forms of classification. The court upheld the validity of Rule 13AA and the exemption orders, stating that they are consistent with the broader objectives of achieving social justice and equality as envisaged by the Constitution. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Rule 13AA and the orders marked as Exhibits P-2 and P-6, finding them consistent with the constitutional provisions aimed at providing equal opportunity and social justice to the backward classes. The judgment emphasized that reasonable classification is permissible under Article 16(1) and that the temporary exemptions provided by Rule 13AA do not violate the principle of equality or administrative efficiency. The appeal was accepted, and the judgment of the High Court was set aside.
|
