http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  6559 of 2002

PETITIONER: K.JAYASEKHAR

RESPONDENT: SECY. TO GOVT. AGRI. & COOP.DEPTT. & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/05/2008

BENCH: H.K. SEMA & MARKANDEY KATJU

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT O R D E R        

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  6559    OF 2002                  Application for intervention is dismissed.         Heard the parties.         Briefly stated the facts are as follows:         The appellant belongs to Scheduled Castes.   He was appointed as an  Engineering Supervisor in the Agricultural Market Committee.  The service  condition of the respondent was then governed by the Andhra Pradesh  (Agricultural Produce and livestock) Market Service Rules 1969.  On  23.9.1994 the respondent was transferred to the Central Market Fund  Service.  Central Market Fund Service was governed by the Service Rules  of 1984.   Clause 3 of Rule 6 inter alia states that the provisions of Andhra  Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, Andhra Ministerial Service  Rules on matter not covered by these rules shall be applicable to the  members of the service.  Rule 22 of the General Rules, provides  for  reservation.  Rule 22(a) provides that the unit of appointment for the  purpose of this rule shall be one hundred of which fifteen shall be  reserved for the Scheduled Castes, six shall be reserved for the  Scheduled Tribes, twenty-five shall be reserved for the backward classes  and the remaining fifty-four appointments shall be on the basis of open  competition.

-2-

       It is urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Division  Bench of the High Court has allowed the writ petition by upsetting the  findings of the Tribunal erroneously.   

       We have considered the provisions of Rule 6 which deals with  application of the general Rules.  It is contended that Rule 6 should be  considered in perspective along with Rule 22 of the general Rules. The  appellant belonged to Scheduled Castes and hence it s alleged that he is  entitled to be considered from the 15% reservation as contained in Rule  22(a) of the Rules.

       We have gone through the entire judgment of the High Court impugned  herein.  The question of  application of Rule 6 read with Rule 22 of the  general Rules has not been considered by the High Court.  On this short  question we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and the  matter is remanded to the High Court to consider the application of Rule 6

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

of the Central Service Rules along with Rule 22(a) of the general Rules as  referred to above. Since the matter is quite old we request the High Court  to consider the matter afresh expeditiously and pass appropriate orders in  accordance with law.

       The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.