Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Another vs N. Narasimha

P.S. Mishra, C.J.—This appeal has to be allowed oil the sole ground that the impugned direction in the Writ Petition is to consider the application of the petitioner- respondent afresh seeking appointment for his second son on merits under a scheme providing for reservation for the children of the employees who retire after attaining the age of superannuation.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner retired from the service of the appellants-Corporation on 31-12-1988 after attaining the age of superannuation. Thereafter, he sought employment for his second son Sri N. Krishna, who was interviewed by the Selection Committee of the appellants on 25-5-1990, but was not selected on the ground that the scheme permitted the appellants - Corporation to appoint the son of a retired employee only when any other son of his or child of his was not in the service of the Corporation. Learned single Judge has passed the following Order:

"The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner brought it to my notice that m a similar facts-situation relating to the very Corporation, a learned Judge of this Hon''ble Court has entertained the similar writ petition and issued direction to the Corporation to appoint the second son of the petitioner therein and he placed a copy of the order dated 31-3-1992 made in W.P. No. 11623 of 1991 by the learned Judge. I have gone through the order of the learned Judge and I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by the learned Judge. Therefore, for the same reasons stated by the learned Judge in W.P. No. 11623/91, I allow this writ petition in part and direct the Corporation to consider the application of the petitioner afresh seeking appointment to his second son, namely, Sri N. Krishna on merits and pass appropriate order within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the corporation cannot decline to appoint the second son of the petitioner on the ground that his another son is already in the employment of the Corporation."

The above, in our view, is opposed to all canons of equality before law and equal protection of law, as envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and equality of opportunity of employment as envisaged under Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India. Equal protection of law cannot be ensured unless equality before law is ensured and equal opportunity of employment is obviously denied if some one is preferred on grounds which are not germane to the rule of merit and/or qualification and fitness. Subject to the reservations which are permissible on the ground of socially and educationally backwardness and/or on the ground of one being a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or otherwise strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, any preferential treatment extended to any section of persons would be violative of equal opportunity as well as equal protection of law. Reservation in the services of a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India for children of retired employees will not be permissible at all. On that ground alone, the impugned Judgment has to be set aside. It is accordingly set aside. The Writ Petition is dismissed, but, without costs.

It is, however, made clear that, in case, the son of the petitioner - respondent has been selected on merits and not on the ground that he is the child of one of the retired employees, the Corporation may consider to retain him in service.

The appeal is accordingly ordered and allowed.