TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Validates Selection Process for Group-I Services</h1> The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the procedure used by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission for selecting candidates for Group-I services. ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the procedure for reservation in Group-I services.2. Compliance with Articles 14, 16, and 335 of the Constitution of India.3. Legality of GOMs No. 570 dated 31.12.1997.4. Validity of the notification dated 27.12.2007.5. Implementation of community-wise reservation.6. Right of reservation at all levels.7. Fixation of cut-off marks for each category.8. Locus standi of the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission to maintain the appeal.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Procedure for Reservation in Group-I Services:The Supreme Court examined the procedure adopted by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission for filling vacancies in Group-I services. The selection process involved a preliminary examination followed by a main examination and interview. The procedure had different criteria for general and reserved category candidates. The Court noted that the purpose of the preliminary examination was to ensure the basic standard of eligibility and that reservation rules should not be applied at this stage, as held in earlier cases like S. Jafeer Saheb v. State of Andhra Pradesh.2. Compliance with Articles 14, 16, and 335 of the Constitution of India:The Court reiterated that Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution provide for equality of opportunity and non-discrimination in public employment. Article 335 emphasizes the need for maintaining administrative efficiency while considering the claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Court held that the procedure adopted by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission did not violate these constitutional provisions as it aimed to maintain a basic standard of eligibility.3. Legality of GOMs No. 570 dated 31.12.1997:The Government Order (GOMs) No. 570 dated 31.12.1997 provided for shortlisting candidates based on a preliminary examination in the ratio of 1:50 to the total number of vacancies, irrespective of community. The Court observed that this GOMs was issued in compliance with the earlier judgment in S. Jafeer Saheb and had attained finality. The High Court's decision to declare this GOMs unconstitutional was set aside by the Supreme Court.4. Validity of the Notification dated 27.12.2007:The notification dated 27.12.2007, which called for applications for Group-I services, was also challenged. The High Court had declared it ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court held that the notification was in line with the established procedure and did not violate constitutional provisions. The Court emphasized that the preliminary examination was a necessary step to maintain a basic standard of eligibility.5. Implementation of Community-wise Reservation:The High Court had directed the implementation of community-wise reservation at the preliminary examination stage, which was challenged. The Supreme Court held that community-wise reservation at the preliminary stage was not required and that the procedure adopted by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission was valid. The Court noted that the reservation rules should be applied at the final selection stage.6. Right of Reservation at All Levels:The respondents argued that the right of reservation should be recognized at all levels, including the preliminary examination. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that reservation rules should not compromise the basic standard of eligibility and administrative efficiency. The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining merit and efficiency in public services.7. Fixation of Cut-off Marks for Each Category:The High Court had held that non-fixation of cut-off marks for each category was violative of Articles 14 and 16. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the preliminary examination was only an eligibility test and not a proficiency test. The Court noted that different qualifying marks for various categories were already provided for General English, which was a qualifying paper.8. Locus Standi of the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission to Maintain the Appeal:The respondents questioned the locus standi of the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission to file the appeal. The Supreme Court held that the Commission had the locus standi as it was responsible for conducting the examination and implementing the selection procedure. The Court noted that the High Court's judgment had set aside both the GOMs and the notification, necessitating a fresh selection procedure.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, upholding the validity of the procedure adopted by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission for shortlisting candidates for Group-I services. The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining a basic standard of eligibility and administrative efficiency while ensuring compliance with constitutional provisions. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment was set aside, with no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
