LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao & Ors. v. State of A.P. & Ors.

Civil Appeal · 2020 INSC 344Decided 22 Apr 2020
Civil Appeal No. 3609 of 2002
Justice Arun Mishra · Justice Indira Banerjee · Justice Vineet Saran · Justice M.R. Shah · Justice Aniruddha Bose

Background

In 2000, the (undivided) State of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms. No.3, invoking the Governor's special power under Paragraph 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution, to reserve 100% of teacher posts in schools located in Scheduled Areas exclusively for local Scheduled Tribe candidates. This followed an earlier, similar notification from 1986 that had already been struck down. Non-tribal candidates challenged the fresh notification, and a split (2:1) Full Bench of the High Court had upheld it by majority. The matter was referred to a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court to settle several questions about the Governor's powers and the permissible limits of reservation.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the Governor's power under Paragraph 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule is a power to adapt or modify existing laws of Parliament or the State Legislature for Scheduled Areas: it is not a free-standing power to create new subordinate legislation, and it cannot override the fundamental rights in Part III of the Constitution. It held that 100% reservation is constitutionally impermissible, reaffirming the 50% ceiling laid down in Indra Sawhney, and that providing reservation to one community to the complete exclusion of all others (including other backward and reserved categories) was arbitrary and violated Articles 14 and 16. The cut-off eligibility date of 26.1.1950 fixed in the notification was also held unreasonable. As relief, the Court quashed G.O.Ms. No.3 of 2000 but, considering 20 years had passed and the appointees were not personally at fault, conditionally protected appointments already made, while directing the successor States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana never to attempt such an exercise again, on pain of losing that protection, and imposed costs of Rs. 5 lakh shared equally between the two States.

Lesson Learnt

Reservation in public employment, even when justified on grounds of historical disadvantage or local administrative need, cannot be extended to 100% of posts: some representation for other eligible candidates must always remain available, and the outer constitutional limit of 50% (with narrow exceptions) continues to bind even specially empowered bodies like a Governor acting under the Fifth Schedule.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Service & Administrative Law

Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

M. Prema v. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to the Government and Ors.

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that Direct recruits, having come through the regular competitive process, rank above Special appointees, who entered through temporary appointments later regularised. However, it held the High Court was wrong to rank Compassionate appointees above Direct recruits merely because of an executive Government Order fixing their seniority by appointment date: such an executive order cannot override the basic service-law principle that employees selected through a regular process must rank senior to those who entered through exceptions like compassionate appointment. The Court further held that, as between Special appointees and Compassionate appointees, seniority should be fixed by date of regularisation rather than any other formula. The Transferred Cases were dismissed, and the Civil Appeals were disposed of/allowed to the extent needed to reflect this ranking (Direct recruits > Compassionate appointees > Special appointees, broadly, subject to date-of-regularisation for the latter two inter se).

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

State of Bihar & Ors. v. Nandeshwar Kumar

The Supreme Court allowed Bihar's appeal and set aside the reinstatement order. It held that eligibility had to be assessed under the 2006 recruitment rules governing Kumar's 2007 appointment, rather than solely by the date of his training certificate. He lacked a certificate from an NCTE-recognised training institution as required for that appointment, so obtaining the certificate before the NCTE law took effect did not establish eligibility. The Court noted the inadequate material behind earlier findings about the college's genuineness, but resolved this appeal on the statutory qualification requirement rather than declaring the certificate fake.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Chhaganbhai Kohyabhai Pateliya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in the terms it set out. Because the Single Judge was dealing with a batch of employees, the Court held that each claimant must apply, and the authorities must verify each claim and pay the increment and revise pension and retiral dues accordingly. It extended the same benefit to the proforma respondents who had not joined the appeal. It directed the authorities to release the amounts due within 30 days, failing which interest at 6% per annum would be payable from the date of default. It also left the individual calculations to the authorities, relying on its earlier orders on arrears and interest.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Axay Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court granted leave and liberty to withdraw, and the writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn, with the petitioner free to file afresh in accordance with law. No findings were made on the underlying grievance.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Santosh B. Naik v. State of Goa & Ors.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in interfering with the selection committee's eligibility decision, which was in accordance with the Recruitment Rules for the post and the advertisement. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, along with the other candidate's later appointment, and restored the committee's decision and the appellant's temporary appointment. It clarified that its conclusion applies only to the Recruitment Rules for this post and expresses no view on the general recognition of NIOS qualifications for other purposes.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Anil Kumar Tanwar vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

The Court disposed of the writ petition on the parties' agreed terms: the CBI was directed to file its reply to the pending application within two weeks, both sides were to exchange short notes of submissions before the Tribunal, neither side could seek adjournments when the matter is listed, and the Court requested the Tribunal to finally decide the matter (which involves a transfer) on 29 October 2026.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case