Dr. Kumbha Brahmaiah vs Union Of India

Existing,Modified

,"Rule 6(c)(ii) :

 While filling non-executive Grade posts  at entry level by direct recruitment, the  first 20% of

the posts will  be filled from  the combined merit list of the candidates as open category (both

local and non- local candidates of Telangana State)  based on their overallÂ

merit and  communal roster point. The remaining  80% of posts will be filled only by loca

 candidates based on their merit and  communal roster.

The consideration by the Court,

In Telangana Judges Association and another vs. Union of India and others (2019) 18 SCC 769 = 2019 (1) A.L.D. 7 (S.C.), the Supreme Court",

had categorically held that nativity for public employment runs contrary to the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16(2) of the Constitution of,

India except when it is provided by a parliamentary law as per the exception carved out in Article 16(3) of the Constitution of India.,

It further clarified that in the Andhra Pradesh Re-organization Act, 2014 there is no provision which expressly provides for allotment of the State on",

the basis of place of birth or residence, and allotment of employees cannot be solely on the basis of the criteria of their place of birth or residence or",

nativity.,

When the petitioner herein joined service, he was treated as a person belonging to the ‘S.T.’ Community, on the basis of a Caste Certificate",

issued on 11.03.1999 as belonging to the ‘S.T.’ Community by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Nakrekal; and had got subsequent promotions on",

the same basis up to E-6 Grade by 01.04.2012. Denying petitioner now the benefit of reservation by way of amended Recruitment Rule No.6(c)(2),

and confining the benefit of reservation only to candidates of Telangana State, and denying it to candidates belonging to other than Telangana Sates, is",

per se arbitrary and violates Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India.,

Under Article 342 of the Constitution of India, the President may, with respect to any State after consultation with the Governor thereof, by public",

notification specify the Tribes or Tribal Communities or parts of or groups within tribes or tribal communities which shall for the purposes of this,

Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State.,

Under the said provision, the Constitution Schedule Tribes Order, 1950 had been issued. In the said order, as it originally stood, Yerukula",

Community to which the petitioner herein belongs was included at Serial No.33 in regard to the then composite State of Andhra Pradesh.,

After passing of the Andhra Pradesh Re-Organization Act, 2014 certain amendments were brought to the Constitution (Schedule Tribes) Order,",

1950 by Section 29 of the said Act in the VI Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh Re-Organization Act, 2014.",

As per the said Schedule, Part No.24 was inserted in the Constitution (Schedule Tribes) Order, 1950 specially for the State of Telangana, and at",

Serial No.31, again Yerukula Community was mentioned.",

Therefore, even in the new State of Telangana the petitioner continues to be belonging to ‘S.T.’ Category. Merely on the basis of",

petitioner’s nativity, the respondent nos.7 to 11 cannot treat petitioner as a person belonging to the General Category and deny him the benefit of",

reservation in promotions to the E-7 Grade.,

The decision in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao vs. Seth G.S. Medical College 1990 (3) S.C.C. 130, relied upon by the respondents merely lays down",

that the benefit available in the original State where a person was a ‘S.C.’ or ‘S.T.’ cannot be availed in other States in India in a,

situation where there is no such reservation in other States for the said communities.,

In the instant case, when the Yerukula Community is classified as a ‘Schedule Tribe’ Community, both in the residuary State of Andhra",

Pradesh and also in the new State of Telangana even after the bifurcation of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh, the said decision has absolutely",

no application to the facts of the present case.,

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed; the respondent nos.7 to 11 are directed to pay costs of Rs.50,000/- within four (04) weeks, and the",

action of respondent nos.7 to 11 in not extending the said benefit in the D.P.C. 2020 to 2021 held in November, 2020 is declared as illegal, improper,",

arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; and they are directed to consider the case of petitioner for promotion to the,

post of Dy. Chief Medical Officer as per orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.5 Social Welfare (SW.ROR.I) Department dt.14.02.2003 with all consequential,

benefits within four (04) weeks from to-day.,

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.",