CHEBROLU LEELA PRASAD RAO AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF A.P. AND OTHERS
LAWS(SC)-2020-4-24
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on April 22,2020

Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF A.P. Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

INDIRA NEHRU GANDHI VS. RAJ NARAIN [REFERRED TO]
DR. FAZAL GHAFOOR VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADRAS VS. CHAMPAKAM DORAIRAJAN [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL HABIB MOHAMMAD STATE OF HYDERABAD STATE OF MYSORE VS. ANWAR ALI SARKAR:ANWAR ALI SARKAR [REFERRED TO]
T DEVADASAN VS. UNION OF INDIA AND UNOTHER [REFERRED TO]
LILA VATI BAI VS. STATE OF BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
KAVALAPPARA KOTTARATHIL KOCHUNI MOOPIL NAYAR RAVUNNIARATH UNNIMALU AMMA DEVAKI AMMA RAVUNNIARATH RAJAN MENON RAVUNNIARATH RAJAN MENON RAVUNNIARATH RAJAN MENON K C GOPALAN UNNI THATHUNNI NAIR MANNARGHAT MOOPIL NAIR VS. STATES OF MADRAS AND KERALA:STATES OF MADRAS AND KERALA:STATES OF MADRAS AND KERALA:STATES OF MADRAS AND KERALA:STATE OF MADRAS:STATE OF MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
PURANLAL LAKHANPAL VS. PRESIDENT OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
HOTA VENKATA SURYA SIVARAMA SASTRY VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
LACHHMAN DASS ON BEHALF OF FIRM TILAK RAM RAM BUX NAND RAM TULSI RAM TILAK RAM RAM BUX VS. STATE OF PUNJAB:STATE BANK OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
M R BALAJI THE MYSORE STATE CHATHADA VAISH NAYA ASSOCIATION MYSORE ARYA VYSYA MAHASABHA BANGALORE VS. STATE OF MYSORE [REFERRED TO]
SOUTH INDIA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED VS. SECRETARY BOARD OF REVENUE TRIVANDRUM [REFERRED TO]
R CHITRALEKHA VENKATESUBBA REDDY VS. STATE OF MYSORE [REFERRED TO]
EDWINGSON BAREH VS. STATE OF ASSAM [REFERRED TO]
MANGAL SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
A V S NARASIMHA RAO VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
RAM KIRPAL BHAGAT VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
HIS HOLINESS KESAVANANDA BHARATI SRIPADAGALVARU SHRI RAGHUNATH RAO GANPAT RAO N H NAWAB MOHAMMAD IFTIKHAR ALI KHAN SHETHIA MINING AND MANUFACTURING CORPORATION LIMITED THE ORIENTAL GOAL GO LIMITED VS. STATE OF KERALA:UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
E P ROYAPPA VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. N M THOMAS [REFERRED TO]
SARWAN SINGH VS. KASTURI LAL [REFERRED TO]
MANEKA GANDHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
S K GUPTA VS. K P JAIN [REFERRED TO]
A SIYER OTHERS VS. V BALASUBRAMANYAM [REFERRED TO]
B S YADAV PRITPAL SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA:STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
WAMAN RAO HANMANTRAO CHANDRA SHEKAR VITHALRAO SHRI BABURAO ALIAS P B SAMANT VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
AJAY HASIA VS. KHAUID MUJIB SEHRAVARDI [REFERRED TO]
LINGAPPA POCHANNA APPELWAR KALU GOPYA BANJARI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
CHANDAVARKAR SITA RATNA RAO VS. ASHALATA S GURAM [REFERRED TO]
FAZAL GHAFOOR VS. PRINCIPAL OSMANIA MEDICAL COLLEGE HYDERABAD [REFERRED TO]
C SUREKHA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
S PRAKASHA RAO VS. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES [REFERRED TO]
SANWARMAL KEJRIWAL VS. VISHWA COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
NEELIMA MISRA VS. HARINDER KAUR PAINTAL [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN KUMAR SINGHANIA MAHESH D PATHAK NITIN D WAKANKAR NAVNEET GOEL S VENKATESWAR DINESH KUMAR SINGH ROHIT CHOUDHARY ANIL KANT R MANJUNATHASWAMY ARUN KUMAR RAY VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
R S RAGHUNATH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE AND INVESTMENT CO LIMITED RESERVE BANK OF INDIA RESERVE BANK OF INDIA RESERVE BANK OF INDIA VS. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA :TIMEX FINANCE AND INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED :TIMEX FINANCIAL AND INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED :TIMEX FINANCE AND INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
INDRA SAWHNEY VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
MAHARASHTRA TUBES LIMITED VS. STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF MAHARASHTRA LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
R C POUDYAL SOMNATH POUDYAL NANDU THAPA ROOP RAJ RAI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF SIKKIM VS. SURENDRA PRASAD SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
PARAYANKANDIYAL ERAVATH KANAPRAVAN KALLIANI AMMA VS. K DEVI [REFERRED TO]
M P OIL EXTRACTION K N OIL INDUSTRIES VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
SAMATHA HYDERABAD ABRASIVES AND MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
S R CHAUDHARY VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
A I I M S STUDENTS UNION VS. A I I M S [REFERRED TO]
V JAGANNADHA RAO VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
N T R UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES VIJAYAWADA VS. G BABU RAJENDRA PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
JOHN VALLAMATTOM VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
MARUTI UDYOG LTD VS. RAM LAL [REFERRED TO]
BOMBAY DYEING AND MFG CO LTD VS. BOMBAY ENVIRONMENT ACTION GROUP [REFERRED TO]
JAY ENGINEERING WORKS LTD VS. INDUSTRY FACILITATION COUNCIL [REFERRED TO]
M NAGARAJ VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
I R COELHO VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
GENERAL MANAGER UTTARANCHAL JAL SANSTHAN VS. LAXMI DEVI [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. RAKESH KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
K KRISHNA MURTHY VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. DEBASISH MUKHERJEE [REFERRED TO]
VINAYAKRAO GANGARAMJI DESHMUKH VS. P C AGRAWAL [REFERRED TO]
USHA MEHTA VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD VS. NEW PINK CITY NIRMAN SAHKARI SAMITI LTD [REFERRED TO]
SANDEEP AND ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
JARNAIL SINGH & OTHERS VS. LACHHMI NARAIN GUPTA & OTHERS [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

UNION OF INDIA VS. GOPAL MEENA [LAWS(SC)-2022-8-39] [REFERRED TO]
SATYAJIT KUMAR VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(SC)-2022-8-12] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

ARUN MISHRA,J. - (1.)In the reference, the validity of the Government Office Ms. No.3 dated 10.1.2000 issued by the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh providing 100% reservation to the Scheduled Tribe candidates out of whom 33.1/3% shall be women for the post of teachers in the schools in the scheduled areas in the State of Andhra Pradesh, is under challenge.
(2.)Several questions have been referred for consideration in the order dated 11.1.2016. We have renumbered question nos.1(a)(b)(c) and (d) based on interconnection. The questions are as follows:
"(1) What is the scope of paragraph 5(1), Schedule V to the Constitution of India?

(a) Does the provision empower the Governor to make a new law?

(b) Does the power extend to subordinate legislation?

(c) Can the exercise of the power conferred therein override fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III?

(d) Does the exercise of such power override any parallel exercise of power by the President under Article 371D?

(2) Whether 100% reservation is permissible under the Constitution?

(3) Whether the notification merely contemplates a classification under Article 16(1) and not reservation under Article 16(4)?

(4) Whether the conditions of eligibility (i.e., origin and cut-off date) to avail the benefit of reservation in the notification are reasonable?"

(3.)The facts in the backdrop project that by G.O.Ms. No.275 dated 5.11.1986, issued by the Governor in exercise of power under para 5(1) of Schedule V to the Constitution of India, directing the posts of teachers in educational institutions in the scheduled tribe areas shall be reserved for Scheduled Tribes only notwithstanding anything contained in any other order or rule or law in force. The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short "the tribunal") quashed the notification by order dated 25.8.1989. The order was questioned in this Court in C.A. Nos.2305-06/1991, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 20.3.1998.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.