Page 1

REPORTABLE

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 19898 of 2014

D. Sudhakar       ..…Petitioner

         versus

State of A.P. & Ors.              …Respondents  

J U D G M E N T

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1.   The  petitioner  was  directly  recruited  in  the  Group-I  

services as a Regional Transport Officer in 1990 and has been  

working as Joint  Transport Commissioner since 2008.  The  

petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste community and is  

physically handicapped (Ortho).

2. The petitioner says that he has been unfairly treated for  

selection to the Indian Administrative Service (for  short ‘the  

IAS’)  and that  he is  entitled to the benefit  of  the quota for  

physically  handicapped  persons  under  S.C.  category  for  

selection  under  the  Indian  Administrative  Service  

(Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997.  For this, the  

S.L.P (C) No. 19898 of 2014                                                 Page 1 of 8

Page 2

petitioner  places  reliance  on  the  decision  of  this  Court  in  

Union of India v. National Federation of the Blind1 and  

Section  33  of  the  Persons  with  Disabilities  (Equal  

Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act,  

1995.  

3. The background facts of the case indicate that the State  

of Andhra Pradesh had short listed the petitioner in 2002 for  

consideration for  appointment to the IAS against  Non State  

Civil Services Officers quota.  The petitioner was interviewed  

but  not  selected.   Even  thereafter,  the  petitioner  was  

considered  for  appointment  but  was  not  short  listed  or  

selected.  The petitioner says that in spite of the reservation  

for persons with disabilities as provided under Section 33 of  

the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection  

of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short ‘the PWD  

Act’)  which  provides  for  3%  reservation  for  persons  with  

disabilities  in  every  establishment  of  the  appropriate  

Government, the petitioner was not selected in the IAS.

4. At this stage, it may be mentioned that there are three  

modes  of  recruitment  to  the  IAS  under  the  Indian  

Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954.  These are  

1

(2013) 10 SCC 772

S.L.P (C) No. 19898 of 2014                                                 Page 2 of 8

Page 3

(a)  by  direct  recruitment;  (b)  by  promotion  of  State  Civil  

Services Officers; (c) by selection from amongst Non State Civil  

Service Officers.  The case of the petitioner falls in the third  

category  that  is  selection  from  amongst  Non  State  Civil  

Services Officers.   

5. When the petitioner was not short listed for selection for  

the  IAS in  2010,  he  approached the  Central  Administrative  

Tribunal,  Hyderabad Bench by filing O.A. No. 1297 of 2010  

challenging  the  selection  of  15  candidates  by  the  Selection  

Committee  constituted  for  this  purpose  that  had  

recommended the 15 candidates to the Union Public Service  

Commission for consideration for appointment in the IAS.  The  

further prayer of the petitioner was for a direction to include  

his name in the short list sent by the State of Andhra Pradesh  

under  the  physically  handicapped  quota  and  under  S.C.  

category.

6. The  State  of  Andhra Pradesh and the  Union of  India  

both contested the claim of  the petitioner on merits and at  

law.  It was submitted by the State of Andhra Pradesh and the  

Union of  India that the concerned Selection Committee had  

fully examined the records of the candidates and thereafter did  

not shortlist the petitioner.  As such it was contended that the  

S.L.P (C) No. 19898 of 2014                                                 Page 3 of 8

Page 4

decision taken by the Committee could not be faulted.  The  

State  of  Andhra  Pradesh  and  the  Union  of  India  also  

contended  that  the  Indian  Administrative  Service  

(Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997 do not provide  

for rules of reservation for including a candidate in the zone of  

consideration.  Therefore,  apart from the contention that the  

petitioner  was  not  meritorious  enough,  the  submission was  

that even at law the petitioner had not made out any case for  

interference by the Tribunal.

7. The  Tribunal  by  its  Order  dated  28th February,  2011  

partly allowed the original application filed by the petitioner.  

The  Tribunal  held  that  the  short  listing  process  by  the  

Selection Committee was not at all satisfactory and therefore  

the  short  listing of  the  15 candidates was set  aside as the  

selection was not fair.    

8. With regard to the prayer of the petitioner that his name  

should be included in the short list, the Tribunal held that on  

an earlier occasion it had dealt with a somewhat similar issue  

in O.A. No. 998 of 2009.  In that case the Tribunal had held  

that there was no provision for reservation in recruitment by  

promotion from the State Police to the Indian Police Service.  It  

was held that the rationale for coming to that conclusion holds  

S.L.P (C) No. 19898 of 2014                                                 Page 4 of 8

Page 5

good for recruitment by selection of Non State Civil Services  

Officers to the IAS.  Accordingly, it was held that the petitioner  

had not made out any case for being short listed for selection.  

9. The Tribunal,  in a  somewhat  oblique manner,  upheld  

the contention of the State of Andhra Pradesh and the Union  

of India that there is no provision for reservation in the Indian  

Administrative Service (Appointment by Selection) Regulations,  

1997 or the Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules,  

1954.  

10. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition  

No. 18563 of 2011 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.  By  

its  judgment and order dated 20th February,  2014 the High  

Court dismissed the writ petition (impugned).

11. The  High  Court  did  not  even  advert  to  the  Indian  

Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 or the Indian  

Administrative Service (Appointment by Selection) Regulations,  

1997 but in a rather cryptic manner rejected the case set up  

by the petitioner.  The High Court held as follows:-

“7. The facts are not in dispute.  As on the date of committee  constituted  for  selecting  Non-Indian  Administrative  Service  Cadre from various departments, the petitioner was eligible to  be considered.  The main contention of the learned counsel for  the  petitioner  is  that  the  case  of  the  petitioner  has  to  be  considered  under  office  memo,  dated  3.12.13,  wherein  the  persons with disabilities  have to be given preference in 3%  reservation  on  the  total  number  of  vacancies  in  the  cadre  

S.L.P (C) No. 19898 of 2014                                                 Page 5 of 8

Page 6

strength.   But,  in view of  the fact  that  the decision of  the  Hon’ble Supreme Court and the amendment of Office Memo  dated 29.12.2005, is prospective, that amendment cannot be  retrospective to the petitioner to consider his case under 3%  reservation of persons with Disabilities Act.  Therefore, we do  not find any merit in this writ petition and it is liable to be  dismissed.”   

12. The decision of  this  Court  referred to above is  in  the  

case of  National Federation of the Blind which dealt with  

the  Office  Memorandum  dated  29th December,  2005  and  

struck down paragraph 12 thereof.   

13. Subsequent to the decision of this Court, the Union of  

India issued another Office Memorandum dated 3rd December,  

2013 and inserted the following paragraph:-

“Reservation for persons with disabilities in Group A or  Group B post shall be computed on the basis of total  number  of  vacancies  occurring  in  direct  recruitment  quota  in  all  the  Group  A  post  and  Group  B  post  respectively, in the cadre.”

14. A perusal of the impugned judgment and order indicates  

quite clearly that the decision of the High Court was based on  

completely different grounds than the decision of the Tribunal.  

In  fact  the  reasons  given  by  the  Tribunal  were  not  even  

remotely adverted to by the High Court.

15. Be  that  as  it  may,  feeling  aggrieved  by  the  decision  

rendered by the High Court the petitioner is now before us.  

The primary contention urged before us is that in view of the  

S.L.P (C) No. 19898 of 2014                                                 Page 6 of 8

Page 7

decision of this Court in  National Federation of the Blind  

read with Section 33 of the PWD Act, the petitioner is entitled  

to the benefit of reservation for persons with disabilities in the  

matter of short listing for selection to the IAS.   

16. We may note at this stage that the Office Memorandum  

dated 3rd December, 2013 and more particularly the inserted  

paragraph mentioned above came up for consideration before  

the Delhi High Court in H.C. Sharma v. N.D.M.C.2  The Delhi  

High  Court  took  the  view  that  the  inserted  paragraph  was  

contrary  to  the  conclusions  and  directions  in  National  

Federation of  the Blind.   Accordingly,  the said paragraph  

was  struck  down.   In  coming  to  this  conclusion,  the  High  

Court made a reference to Municipal Corporation of Delhi v.  

Manoj Gupta3 and the dismissal on 10th December, 2013 of  

the petition for special leave to appeal against the decision of  

the High Court in Manoj Gupta.   

17. Be that as it may, the decision of the High Court in H.C.  

Sharma came up for consideration before this Court and on  

18th December,  2014  leave  was  granted  to  challenge  the  

decision.   The Civil  Appeal arising therefrom being C.A. No.  

11895 of 2014 is pending and has been tagged with C.A. No.  

2 211 (2014) DLT 462 3 171 (2010) DLT 600

S.L.P (C) No. 19898 of 2014                                                 Page 7 of 8

Page 8

7295 of 2012 (State of Haryana v. Viklang Sangh).

18. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that  

apart  from  the  fact  that  this  petition  raises  questions  

regarding the interpretation of Section 33 of the PWD Act read  

with  the  Indian  Administrative  Service  (Appointment  by  

Selection)  Regulations,  1997  and  the  Indian  Administrative  

Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 this petition also relates to  

the  interpretation  of  the  Office  Memorandum  dated  29th  

December,  2005  and  the  Office  Memorandum  dated  3rd  

December, 2013.  Since all these issues are inter-linked with  

the  pending  Civil  Appeals,  we  are  of  the  view  that  for  a  

comprehensive  decision  in  the  matter  and  to  settle  the  

controversy, it will be more appropriate if leave is granted to  

the petitioner and this matter is tagged along with C.A. No.  

7295 of 2012 and C.A. No. 11895 of 2014.  

19. Accordingly,  we grant leave and tag this  appeal  with  

C.A.No.7295 of 2012 and C.A.No.11895 of 2014.

                                            .……………………..J     (Madan B. Lokur)  

New Delhi;                           ..……………………J March 28, 2016              (S. A. Bobde)

S.L.P (C) No. 19898 of 2014                                                 Page 8 of 8