NDLI: Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao & Ors. Vs. State of A.p. & Ors.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Constitution of India A.P. Regulation of Reservation and Appointment to Public Services Act 100% reservation Scheduled Tribe
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Constitution of India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9 Referred Case 10 Referred Case 11 Referred Case 12 Referred Case 13 Referred Case 14 Referred Case 15 Referred Case 16 Referred Case 17 Referred Case 18 Referred Case 19 Referred Case 20 Referred Case 21 Referred Case 22 Referred Case 23 Referred Case 24 Referred Case 25 Referred Case 26 Referred Case 27 Referred Case 28 Referred Case 29 Referred Case 30 Referred Case 31 Referred Case 32 Referred Case 33 Referred Case 34 Referred Case 35 Referred Case 36 Referred Case 37 Referred Case 38 Referred Case 39 Referred Case 40 Referred Case 41 Referred Case 42
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Constitution of India – Arts. 14, 15, 16(1), 16(4), 244 and 371 D; Para 5(1) of Schedule V – A.P. Education Act, 1982 – A.P. Regulation of Reservation and Appointment to Public Services Act, 1997 – The G.O.Ms. No. 3/2000 issued by the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh provided 100% reservation to the Scheduled Tribe candidates for the post of teachers in the schools in the scheduled areas in the State of Andhra Pradesh – Validity of – Held: G.O.Ms. No. 3/2000 providing for 100% reservation is not permissible under the Constitution, the outer limit is 50% as specified in Indra Sawhney case – By providing 100% reservation to the scheduled tribe has deprived the scheduled castes and other backward classes also of their due representation – The concept of reservation is not proportionate but adequate – The action is thus unreasonable and violative of provisions of Arts. 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India – Consequently, G.O.Ms.No. 3/2000 is quashed.Constitution of India – Para 5(1) of Schedule V – Scope of – Held: The Governor in the exercise of powers under para 5(1) of Schedule V of the Constitution, can exercise the powers concerning any particular Act of the Parliament or the legislature of the State – Para 5(1) of Schedule V confers power upon the Governor to exclude law, which is applicable in a Scheduled area – It also empowers the Governor to apply the same with exceptions and modifications as he deems fit – However, no new law can be formulated while exercising power under para 5(1) of Schedule V – The power of modification cannot extend to re-writing the entire statute. Constitution of India – Para 5(1) of Schedule V and Art. 309 – A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 – rr. 22, 22 A – G.O.Ms. No. 3/2000 issued by the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh provided 100% reservation to the Scheduled Tribe candidates for the post of teachers in the schools in the scheduled areas – The G.O.Ms. No. 3/2000, inter alia, refers to the Rules, 1996 and the said rules have been framed under proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution – The rules 22 and 22 A framed u/Art.309 were amended – Held: The power of the Governor under Para 5(1) of Schedule V of the Constitution is restricted to modifying or not to apply, Acts of the Parliament or legislature of the State – Thus, the rules could not have been amended in the exercise of the powers conferred under Para 5(1) Schedule V – The rules made under the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution cannot be said to be an enactment by the State legislature – Thus, it was not open to the Governor to issue the impugned G.O.Ms. No. 3/2000. Constitution of India – Para 5(1) of Schedule V – Power of Governor extend to subordinate legislation or not – Held: The power of the Governor under Para 5(1), Fifth Schedule to the Constitution does not extend to subordinate legislation, it is with respect to an Act enacted in the sovereign function by the Parliament or legislature of the State which can be dealt with. Constitution of India – Para 5(1) of Schedule V – Can exercise of the power conferred in para 5(1) of the fifth Schedule override fundamental rights guaranteed under Part-III – Held: The power of the Governor does not supersede the fundamental rights under part-III of the Constitution – When Para 5 of the fifth Schedule confers power on the Governor, it is not meant to be conferral of arbitrary power – The power is not in derogation but the furtherance of the Constitutional aims and objectives. Constitution of India – Para 5(1) of Schedule V – Effect of the non-obstante clause – Held: The provision of the fifth Schedule beginning with the words “notwithstanding anything in this constitution” cannot be construed as taking away the provision outside the limitation on the amending power and has to be harmoniously construed consistent with the fundamental principles and basic features of the Constitution. Constitution of India – Para 5(1) of Schedule V – Whether there is any conflict between the Presidential order and G.O.Ms. No. 3/2000 issued under the order of the Governor under para 5(1) of the Schedule V – Held: The Presidential order was issued providing district/zone for local cadre, on the other hand, the order issued by the Governor has reserved all the posts of teachers in the Scheduled Areas for Schedule Tribe candidates – The aspiring candidates of the district/ zone in the Scheduled Area cannot apply for the post of teachers in the district as 100% reservation was made vide G.O.Ms. No. 3/2000 by the Governor and it is also not disputed that aspiring candidates cannot apply outside the district/ zone because of the restrictions u/Art. 371D of the Constitution – Thus, there is a clear repugnancy between the notification issued by the president and the subsequent order issued by the Governor under Para 5(1) of the Schedule V – It is not possible to harmonise both notifications – The Governor is competent to issue an order which is not in conflict with Presidential Order – The Governor could not have issued the order in derogation to the Presidential order – In the instant case, 100% reservation could not have been provided as that violates the Presidential Order. Constitution of India – Arts. 16(1) and 16(4) – Whether notification G.O.M. No. 3/2000 contains classification u/Art. 16(1) and does not provide reservation u/Art. 16(4) of the Constitution – Held: G.O.Ms No. 3/2000 provided 100% reservation – It cannot be said to be a case of classification that has been made u/Art. 16(1) – The incumbents of various categories have the right to stake a claim for the employment of which they have been deprived – Thus, it is not a matter of classification – The reservation u/Art. 16(4) was made – The order providing 100% reservation is arbitrary, illegal, impermissible and unconstitutional. Constitution of India – G.O.Ms No. 3/2000 required candidate or the parents to reside in the area continuously w.e.f. 26.01.1950 to date – Propriety of – Held: There is no rhyme or reason to require continuous residence for last 50 years or more – It overlooks the rights of various other persons who might have settled decades together in the area in question – It is discriminatory vis-a-vis to the Scheduled tribes also settled in the area – The conditions of eligibility in the notification with cut-off date i.e. 26.01.1950, to avail benefit of reservation, is unreasonable and arbitrary one.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra
Neutral Citation	2020 INSC 344
Petitioner	Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao & Ors.
Respondent	State Of A.p. & Ors.
SCR	[2020] 6 S.C.R. 28
Judgement Date	2020-04-22
Case Number	3609

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao & Ors. Vs. State of A.p. & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Kavita Solunke Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Chairman and Managing Director Fci and Ors. Vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and Ors.

Geeta Vs. State of M.p. and Ors.

Nityanand Sharma and Anr. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors .

Bank of India and Anr. Vs. Avinash D. Mandivikar and Ors.

Ramavatar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.

Punjab Rao Vs. D. P. Meshram & Others

Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and Ors.

Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao Vs. State of A.p. & Ors.

Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao & Ors. Vs. State of A.p. & Ors.

Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao & Ors. Vs. State of A.p. & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Kavita Solunke Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Chairman and Managing Director Fci and Ors. Vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and Ors.

Geeta Vs. State of M.p. and Ors.

Nityanand Sharma and Anr. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors .

Bank of India and Anr. Vs. Avinash D. Mandivikar and Ors.

Ramavatar Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.

Punjab Rao Vs. D. P. Meshram & Others

Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and Ors.

Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao Vs. State of A.p. & Ors.

Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao & Ors. Vs. State of A.p. & Ors.