9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to legality of special quota policy for children/wards of police personnel. Analysis: The case involved a challenge by the Government of Tamil Nadu against the Madras High Court's judgment declaring the state's policy of providing a 10% special quota to children/wards of serving/retired/deceased police personnel as invalid. The respondent, an applicant who sought preferential treatment under this policy, had filed a Writ Petition before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the petition on grounds of the applicant's failure in tests and ruled that reservation based on descent was unconstitutional under Article 16(2) of the Constitution. The High Court, relying on a previous Supreme Court decision, held that the reservation for wards of police personnel was unconstitutional. However, the High Court acknowledged that invalidating appointments already made under the policy would not be appropriate. The Tribunal had earlier held that the applicant was not entitled to preferential treatment as he did not qualify for selection based on his performance in tests. The Tribunal did not express an opinion on the constitutional validity of the policy. The Supreme Court found that there was no challenge to the constitutional validity of the policy providing the special quota for children/wards of police personnel. The Government Orders dated 10.9.2001 and 26.3.2002 outlined the policy, extending the benefit to dependents of police personnel and ministerial staff. The Supreme Court emphasized that since there was no challenge to the policy's validity, the High Court erred in declaring it unconstitutional and set aside that part of the High Court's order. The Supreme Court highlighted that the applicant did not have the opportunity to present his stance on the policy decision before the High Court due to the lack of challenge to the policy in the proceedings. The Court distinguished the facts of a previous case and emphasized that without a challenge to the policy decision, the High Court could not dismiss the application on the ground of unconstitutionality. The Supreme Court did not express an opinion on the policy's validity but affirmed the part of the High Court's order regarding the lack of merit in the applicant's case. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
|
