THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU W.P.NOs. 27828 of 2009 02/12/2010 Between: Andhra Pradesh State Backward Classes Welfare Association, Hyderabad rep by its president Sri R.Krishnaiah s/o Adivappa, Hyderabad. … Petitioner And: Government of Andhra Pradesh Law (L.A.7J – SC.F) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU W.P.NOs. 27828 of 2009 ORDER: (Per Justice G. Raghuram) The Andhra Pradesh State Backward Classes Welfare Association has filed this writ petition challenging Rule 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2007 (‘the 2007 Rules’) issued in G.O.Ms. No. 119, Law (L.A. & J-SC.S) Department, dated 02.08.2008. The challenged provision reads as under: 7. Reservation: Rules 22 and 22-A of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 insofar as they relate to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, Women and one percent for Physically handicapped [Orthopedically Handicapped (lower portion of the body)] persons shall apply to the appointments to be made by direct recruitment. The petitioner also seeks a declaration that notifications Nos. 1/20090RC and 2/2009-RC (back log vacancies) dated 28.01.2009 and 18.02.2009 respectively, issued by the 2nd respondent, in so far as recruitment by transfer is concerned are illegal for failing to provide reservation to Scheduled Castes and Tribes and Backward Class communities candidates. The petitioner contends that failing to extend the benefits of reservation in recruitment by transfer while applying it for direct recruitment is unjust, arbitrary and discriminatory. The 2nd respondent states in response that the State judicial service is separate and distinct from other services, from some of whose categories a chnnel created for appointment by transfer to the post of Civil Judge. Direct recruitment and recruitment by transfer are distinct and dissimilar methodologies of recruitment. Further the 2007 Rules treat in service candidate as one class for the purpose of recruitment by transfer and no distinction is made on the basis of a community whether unreserved or reserved. 20% of the vacancies are exclusively earmarked to all the inservice candidates belonging to the specified feeder categories and the rule making authority has not considered it appropriate, in its expert and considered judgment, to provide a reservation for recruitment by transfer. It is further stated that the statistics of recruitment during the year 2007-2009 discloses vast dissimilarity in the ratio of competition between direct recruitment and recruitment by transfer. While the applications verses vacancy position for direct recruitment was 86 : 1; in case of recruitment by transfer it is 5 : 1 in 2007 and 10 : 1 in 2009. There is thus a nominal competition in recruitment by transfer. It is further stated that the maximum age limit in case of direct recruitment is 35 years with a relaxation of 5 years for BC, SC & ST candidates, whereas for inservice candidates for recruitment by transfer the age limit is 48 years, irrespective of the community. The 2nd respondent states that as direct recruitment and recruitment by transfer are wholly distinct and dissimilar no comparison could be made and there is no nexus between the two methods of recruitment, inviting vice of hostile discrimination. Article 16(4) of the Constitution is an enabling provision. The State is enabled to make provisions for reservation of appointment to posts. Even Art. 16(4)A is an enabling provision in so far as reservations in promotions are concerned. There is no right fundamental nor legal to claim reservation in public employment – vide Indra Sawhney vs Union of India ([1]); Ajit Singh (II) vs State of Punjab ([2]); and M.Nagaraj vs Union of India ([3]). On the aforesaid analysis the writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. However there shall be no order as to costs. Dt: 02-12-2010 Pvsn ----------------------------- Justice G. Raghuram ---------------------------------------- Justice Samudrala Govindarajulu [1] (1992) Supp.III SCC 217 [2] (1999) 7 SCC 209 [3] (2006) 8 SCC 212