IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 R BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NOS.27757-27758/2015 (S-RES) BETWEEN 1) SMT. A. S. VIMALAKSHI W/O LATE M. S. MALLESHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, WORKING AS SENIOR ASSISTANT, KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SECRETARIAT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU, RESIDING AT NO.45, 4TH MAIN ROAD, SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU-560 020.
2) SRI. R. SHIVAKUMAR, S/O RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, WORKING AS SENIOR ASSISTANT, KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SECRETARIAT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU, RESIDING AT NO.737, 1ST ‘F’ CROSS, 3RD STAGE, 4TH BLOCK, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 079.
…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. P. S. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. YOGESH NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND 1) THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, KARNATAKA GOVT. SECRETARIAT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE- 560 001.
2) THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPT. OF PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, KARNATAKA GOVT. SECRETARIAT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU- 560 001.
3) THE SECRETARY KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SECRETARIAT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
4) SMT. P. LALITHA SENIOR ASSISTANT/ RESEARCH ASSISTANT, KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SECRETARIAT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560 001.
(BY SRI. NITIN RAMESH, A. A.G. A/W …RESPONDENTS SRI. SRIDHAR N HEGDE, HCGP, FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. M. S. PARTHASARATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING QUASH THE PARAGRAPH 13 (B) OF THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT (RESERVATION IN APPOINTMENT FOR HYDERABAD-KARNATAKA REGION) ORDER, 2013 PUBLISHED UNDER NOTIFICATION NO. DPAR 06, PLX 2012, DATED 16.11.2013 (ANNEXURE-C) ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 BY WHICH, SECRETARIAT OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY HAS BEEN INCLUDED FOR RESERVATION OF 8% OF THE POSTS FOR LOCAL PERSONS OF HYDERABAD KARNATAKA REGION AND ALSO THE NOTIFICATION DATED 16.01.2014, BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 (ANNEXURE-D) BY WHICH 8% OF THE POSTS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AND RESERVED IN THE SECRETARIAT OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY FOR PERSONS BELONING TO THE HYDERABAD KARNATAKA REGION.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 08.02.2019 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R These petitions raise an important question as to whether Article 371J of the Constitution of India empowers the Governor to pass an Order providing for reservation in employment and promotion in Government services, in favour of persons belonging to the Hyderabad-Karnataka local cadre, beyond the geographical limits of Hyderabad-Karnataka area?
2. The fact and circumstances under which this petition is filed is that the petitioners and the fourth respondent are working as Senior Assistants/Research Assistants in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly Secretariat. The petitioners are placed above the fourth respondent in the seniority list, prepared as on 01.01.2015. The next promotional avenue is that of Section Officer/Assistant Director. It is not in dispute that the contesting parties herein are eligible for promotion having minimum service of two years in the cadre of Senior Assistant, with a minimum combined service of twelve years in the feeder cadre thereto and there is no adverse remarks and thereby fulfilling all the requirements under the Karnataka Government Secretariat Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1992.
3. Reservation is provided for posts in the Secretariat of the Legislative Assembly in the Order of the Governor in The Karnataka Public Employment (Reservation In Appointment for Hyderabad-Karnataka Region) Order, 2013, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Reservation Order’ for short) which has come into effect from 06.11.2013. The Order provides reservation for posts in State level offices/cadre in favour of persons belonging to Hyderabad-Karnataka region, inter alia in the Secretariat of the Legislative Assembly. In pursuance of the provision made under the Reservation Order, an Official Memorandum dated 13.03.2015 was issued by the Governor reserving 8% of the total cadre strength of Karnataka Legislative Assembly, as per the Recruitment Rules of the Secretariat and the posts so reserved were identified as Local Cadre and the remaining posts were retained as Parent Cadre. In furtherance of the same, the willingness of the employees was obtained in writing and those willing, were transferred to the Local Cadre. The fourth respondent was accordingly transferred to the Local Cadre, since she belongs to the Hyderabad-Karnataka region. Consequent thereto, it was proposed to promote the fourth respondent to the post of Section Officer/Assistant Director, to the vacant post available in the Local Cadre.
4. The petitioners are therefore before this Court seeking a writ of certiorari quashing paragraph-13(b) of the Reservation Order, inter alia contending that Article 371J provides for reservation for posts or class of posts in the Hyderabad-Karnataka region only and reservation of 8% at State level Offices or State Level Institutions or Apex Institutions, as is provided in Reservation Order is impermissible and is in excess of power conferred under Article 371J.
5. Article 371J received the assent of the President of India on 1st January 2013 and was published in the Official Gazette on 2nd January 2013. Article 371J reads as follows:
“371J. (1) The President may, by order made with respect to the State of Karnataka, provide for any special responsibility of the Governor for – (a) establishment of a separate development board for Hyderabad-Karnataka region with the provision that a report on the working of the board will be placed each year before the State Legislative Assembly;
(b) equitable allocation of funds for developmental expenditure over the said region, subject to the requirements of the State as a whole; and (c) equitable opportunities and facilities for the people belonging to the said region, in matters of public employment, education and vocational training, subject to the requirements of the State as a whole.
(2) An order made under sub-clause (c) of clause (1) may provide for – (a) reservation of a proportion of seats in educational and vocational training institutions in the Hyderabad-Karnataka region for students who belong to that region by birth or by domicile; and (b) identification of posts or classes of posts under the State Government and in any body or organisation under the control of the State Government in the Hyderabad-Karnataka region and reservation of a proportion of such posts for persons who belong to that region by birth or by domicile and for appointment thereto by direct recruitment or by promotion or in any other manner as may be specified in the order.”
6. Clause(1) of Article 371J provides that the President may, by order made with respect to the State of Karnataka, provide for any special responsibility of the Governor for making provisions as provided in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c). Accordingly, a Notification dated 24.10.2013 was issued by the President, which is known as The State of Karnataka (Special Responsibility Of Governor For Hyderabad-Karnataka Region) Order, 2013. Clause (2) provides as follows:
2.Special Responsibility of Governor - (1) The Governor of Karnataka shall have the special responsibility for the establishment of a separate development board for Hyderabad-Karnataka region and for other matters referred to in clause (1) and clause (2) of article 371J of the Constitution in respect of that region.
(2) The Governor shall, for the purposes of sub- clause (1) have power to issue such orders as may be necessary.
7. Further, in pursuance of the Notification dated 24.10.2013, the Governor of Karnataka, issued a Notification dated 06.11.2013 notifying The Karnataka Public Employment (Reservation in Appointment for Hyderabad- Karnataka Region) Order, 2013, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Reservation Order’ for short). The bone of contention is paragraph-13, which reads as follows:
13. State level Offices of Institutions or Apex Institutions:-
8% of the posts in the following State level Offices or State Level Institutions or Apex Institutions reflecting population percentage of the Region in total population of Karnataka in all departments, body or organization and at upto levels of Group A (Junior Scale) post shall be reserved for Local persons of the region, namely:-
(a) Secretariat of the State Government (b) Secretariat of the Legislative Assembly (c) Secretariat of the Legislative Council (d) Karnataka High Court: Officers and servants appointed as per article 229 of the constitution (e) The Karnataka Public Service Commission (f) An office of the Head of a Department (g) A Special Office or Establishment (h) Any State-level office or Institution (i) All corporations/ bodies outside the Region (j) The Bangalore Development Authority/ Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike/Similar Institutions serving the capital city of the state, Bangalore.
(k) Any other new office, which may be created at a later date to serve purposes similar to all above-
mentioned institutions or such other office or body notified by the State Government.
(l) All the Karnataka State Government funded Universities in the State.
8. Learned Senior Counsel Shri. P. S. Rajagopal, appearing for the petitioners submits that unlike the other provisions in Articles 371 to 371-I, which commence with non-obstante clause “not withstanding anything contained in this Constitution”, Article 371J has no non-obstante clause. Article 371D contains non-obstante clause at clause (10). However, since the petitioners are not challenging Article 371J, paragraph-13 of the Reservation Order has to be tested on the anvil of provisions of Part-III of the Constitution.
9. It is submitted that the language of Article 371J is plain and unambiguous. It speaks of identification of posts in the Hyderabad-Karnataka region and reservation of a proportion of such posts for persons belonging to that region. While referring to the objects and reasons for bringing in Article 371J, it was submitted, it is clear that the intention is to promote employment from the region by providing for Local Cadres in service and provide reservation in public employment through the constitution of Local Cadres for domiciles of the region.
10. Placing reliance on Patangrao Kadam Vs. Prithviraj Sayajirao Yadav Deshmukh and Others reported in (2001) 3 SCC 594, it was submitted that when there is no ambiguity in terms of a provision, one must look at well settled principles of construction but it is not open to first create an ambiguity which does not exist and then try to resolve the same by taking recourse to some general principle.
11. It was submitted at the hands of the petitioners that the Reservation Order being a delegated or subordinate legislation, it cannot go beyond the provisions of the Parent law viz., Article 371J. Emphasis is laid on clause (2) of Article 371J, enabling the Governor to pass an order which may provide for identification of posts or classes of posts under the State Government, in any body or organisation under the control of the State Government in the Hyderabad- Karnataka region and reservation of a proportion of such posts for persons who belong to that region by birth or by domicile and for appointment thereto by direct recruitment or by promotion or in any manner as may be specified in the order. Emphasis is laid on the words ‘in the Hyderabad- Karnataka region’, to drive home the point that the Article provides for reservation for persons who belong to Hyderabad- Karnataka region, in that region only.
12. Similarly, it was submitted that the special responsibility conferred on the Governor, by the President in The State of Karnataka Special Responsibility of Governor For Hyderabad-Karnataka Region) Order, 2013, confers power on the Governor for establishment of separate development board for Hyderabad-Karnataka region and other matters referred to in clause (1) and (2) of Article 371J, in respect of that region only. Therefore, it was submitted that a conjoint reading of Article 371J and clause (2) of the Special Responsibility Order, would only enable the Governor to make provision for persons in respect of that region only.
13. Reliance is placed on Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd. And Others Vs. Union of India and Others reported in (1985) 1 SCC 641, wherein it was held that a piece of subordinate legislation does not carry the same degree of immunity which is enjoyed by a statute passed by a competent Legislature. Subordinate legislation may be questioned on any of the grounds on which plenary legislation is questioned. In addition, it may also be questioned on the ground that it does not conform to the statute under which it is made. It may further be questioned on the ground that it is contrary to some other statute. It may also be questioned on the ground that it is manifestly arbitrary. The general Rule is that subordinate legislation, to be valid, must be shown to be within the powers conferred by the statute. Having regard to the decision in Union of India And Another Vs. Vijay Chand Jain reported in (1977) 2 SCC 405, it was submitted that the widest meaning of the words ‘in respect of’ would mean ‘connected with’, ‘relating to’ or ‘with reference to’. Further, it was submitted that the Apex Court, in the case of Clariant International Ltd. And Another Vs. Securities & Exchange Board of India reported in (2004) 8 SCC 524, has held that a discretionary jurisdiction should be exercised within the four corners of the statute. Similarly, in The State of Kerala Vs. K.M.Charia Abdulla and Co. reported in AIR 1965 SC 1585, it was held that if in making a Rule, the State transcends its authority conferred by the Act, the Rule will be invalid.
14. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that Article 13(2) voids any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution by declaring that any law made in contravention of this clause shall to the extent of the contravention be void. It was submitted that while Article 371J is law made by Parliament, the Reservation Order is made by the Governor. Provisions of Article 371J and the Reservation Order are to be interpreted and tested on these constitutional principles. It is stated that Article 371J restricts the reservation to the posts in the Hyderabad- Karnataka region. It does not extend the reservation to posts situated outside the Hyderabad-Karnataka region. It is therefore submitted that as long as the Reservation Order is within the four corners of Article 371J, it may be protected. The moment it exceeds Article 371J, it falls foul of the parent statute and becomes ultra vires and also becomes incompetent since law stipulating residential requirement in a State as a condition for employment can be made only by Parliament under Article 16(3). In this regard, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kailash Chand Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan And Others reported in (2002) 6 SCC 562 was relied upon. It was held therein that reservation or weightage in favour of rural candidates on the ground of nativity/residence for purposes of public employment is impermissible in law. The difference in approach in relation to Articles 15 and 16 was indicated, that in the matter of admissions of Professional Colleges the considerations were different. As far as public employment is concerned, the classification on the basis of residence in a region or locality was broadly held to be constitutionally impermissible.
15. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that Article 371J(2)(b) enables reservation for persons belonging to Hyderabad-Karnataka region by birth or by domicile, only in posts or classes of posts under the State Government in the Hyderabad-Karnataka region, which corresponds to Local Cadre as organized in para-3 of the reservation order. Any reservation in respect of posts or classes of posts outside the Hyderabad-Karnataka region in favour of persons born or domiciled in Hyderabad-Karnataka region would fall foul of Article 16(3) which stipulates residence within the State as a unit and not districts or region or taluks within the State as also Article 15(1) which prohibits discrimination on place of birth. In this regard, it was submitted that in A.V.S.Narasimha Rao Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh And Another reported in 1969 (1) SCC 839, the Apex Court has held that the fact that Article 16(3) is an exception and came as an amendment must dictate that a narrow construction upon the exception should be placed as indeed debates in the Constituent Assembly also seem to indicate.
16. Lastly, it was submitted that paragraph-13 of the Reservation Order being separable from the rest, it can be struck down without affecting Chapter-I of the Reservation Order. Reliance was placed on Sub-Inspector Rooplal And Another Vs. Lt. Governor Through Chief Secretary, Delhi And Others reported in (2000) 1 SCC 644.
17. Per contra, Shri Nithin Ramesh, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent-State submits that Article 371J confers vide power on the Governor, both general and specific power to ensure equality for the people belonging to the Hyderabad-Karnataka region. While Article 371J (1) refers to such powers in its generality, Article 371J(2) illustrates specific provisions for the people belonging to the Hyderabad-Karnataka region, for opportunities to be created in that region.
18. It was submitted at the hands of the State that there is nothing either in the plain language of Article 371J or from the Parliamentary intentment to contend that clause (2) of the Article restricts or curtails the general powers of the Governor conferred under clause (1) of the Article. Artificial imposition of such a limitation on a beneficiary provision violates the Constitution, the principles of interpretation of Constitution and the purpose and expression of the Article. In this regard, reliance was placed on Jagannath Baksh Singh Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh And Ors. reported in AIR 1962 SC 1563. It was held therein that it is an elementary cardinal rule of interpretation that the words used in constitution which confer legislative power must receive the most liberal construction and if they are words of wide amplitude, they must be interpreted so as to give effect to that amplitude. It would be out of place to put a narrow or restricted construction on words of wide amplitude in a Constitution. A general word used in an entry must be construed to extend to all ancillary or subsidiary matters which can fairly and reasonably be held to be included in it.
19. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the contention of the petitioners that the use of expression ‘in respect of that region’ occurring in paragraph-2 of the Reservation Order means that a restricted application of reservation should be done in the Hyderabad-Karnataka region for the posts that arise only in that region but not outside that region at the State level public appointments, cannot be sustained. Firstly, it was submitted, that ‘in respect of that region’ does not indicate to posts in public employment in that region. Secondly, the term ‘in respect to that region’ has to be read in the context of the parent legislation i.e., Article 371J(1)(c) which is a beneficial provision made by the Parliament for ‘the people belonging to that region’. No other interpretation is possible or permissible for the petitioners by way of introducing meanings and words not found in the plain language of the law.
20. It was further submitted that Reservation Order passed by the Governor stands the test of equality clause enshrined in the Constitution of India and forming part of the basic structure. When the parent legislation itself provides the powers and special responsibility to the Governor to ensure equitable opportunities for the people who are by birth or domicile belonging to the Hyderabad-Karnataka region, the subordinate legislation which is in sync both in letter and spirit with Article 371J, cannot be faulted. Paragraph-13 of the Reservation Order draws its power to extend reservation in appointment and promotion in the State Level Offices/institutions from the general powers available under Article 371J(1). Whereas paragraph-3 of the Reservation Order draws its power from Article 371J(2).
21. The Governor’s Reservation Order itself re-affirms the availability of both general and specific powers at the State Level as well as the regional level to create equitable opportunities for people belonging to Hyderabad-Karnataka region in terms of Article 371J read as a whole. Furthermore, it was submitted that the use of the expression ‘the State as a whole’ is found in clause (1) of Article 371J thereby clearly indicating that even in State level positions reservation in appointment and promotion can be made. As regards reservations for posts arising in Hyderabad-Karnataka region, the power could be traced to clause (2) of Article 371J.
22. Lastly, it was submitted that Article 16(3) of the Constitution cannot be argued to be a bar on the impugned Reservation Order, since the Reservation Order traces its power to a special provision of the Constitution, made by the Parliament, while the special provisions viz., Article 371J is not challenged. While concluding it was urged that reservation or any form of affirmative action for the benefit of people from a part or region of a State has been made possible in Part XXI of the Constitution of India in the form of Articles 370 to 371J.
23. Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for respondent-State and Shri M.P.Srikanth, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4.
24. At the Outset, it is necessary to have a look at the statement of objects and reasons for enactment of Article 371J. The statement of objects and reasons reads as follows:
“The Legislative Assembly of Karnataka passed a resolution on 17-3-2010 and the Legislative Council of the State also passed a similar resolution on 18-03-2010, to make special provisions for the Hyderabad-Karnataka areas of the State of Karnataka. The Government of Karnataka has also endorsed the need for special provisions for the region. The resolutions seek to accelerate development of the most backward region of the State and promote inclusive growth with a view to reducing inter-district and inter-regional disparities in the State.
2. The special provisions aim to establish an institutional mechanism for equitable allocation of funds to meet the development needs over the said region, as well as to enhance human resources and promote development from the region by providing for local cadres in service and reservation in educational and vocational training institutions by an amendment to the Constitution of India.
3. It is accordingly proposed to insert a new Article 371J in the Constitution to provide for special provisions for the erstwhile Hyderabad- Karnataka areas of the State of Karnataka which consists of the districts of Gulbarga, Bidar, Raichur, Koppal and Yadgir and additionally include the Bellary District. The article in the form of a special provision seeks to provide for :-
(a) establishment of a separate Development Board for the aforesaid region mentioned above;
(b) provide for equitable allocation of funds for development over the said region subject to the requirements of the State as a whole;
(c) provide reservation in public employment through the constitution of local cadres for domiciles of the region; and (d) provide for reservation in education and vocational training institutions for domiciles of the region.
4. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objectives.”
25. The important aspects to be noticed are that it seeks to accelerate development of the most backward region of the state and promote inclusive growth with a view to reduce inter-district and inter-regional disparities in the state. It seeks for enhancement of human resources and promote development from the region by providing for local cadres in service and reservation in public employment through the constitution of local cadres for domiciles of the region. (emphasis supplied) 26. Accordingly Article 371J(1)(c) seeks to provide for equitable opportunities and facilities for the people belonging to the said region, in matters of public employment, subject to the requirements of the state as a whole. While clause (1) empowers the President to confer special responsibility on the Governor of the State of Karnataka to pass an Order, sub-clause(c) of clause (1) would indicate that the President confers the responsibility on the Governor to provide for equitable opportunities and facilities for the people belonging to the said region, in matters of public employment, subject to the requirements of the state as a whole.
27. Clause (2) of the Article further specifies that an order made under sub-clause (c) of the clause (1) may provide for: (b) identification of posts or classes of post under the State Government in any body or organization under the control of the State Government ‘in’ the Hyderabad Karnataka Region and reservation of a proportion of such posts for persons who belong to that region by birth or by domicile and for appointment thereto by direct recruitment or by promotion or in any other manner as may be specified in the order.
28. Since the word ‘in’ the Hyderabad Karnataka Region has been used, it is contended by the petitioners that the Governor could provide for reservation in appointment, by direct recruitment or by promotion, only within the Hyderabad Karnataka Region.
29. Both the learned counsels, arguing for the petitioners as well as the respondents submit that there is no ambiguity in the provision, but both hold a diametrically opposite view on the meaning and intendment of the provision. If there is no ambiguity, what is required to be analysed is which of the view is correct and for what reason.
30. If the view of the petitioners’ is correct, we will have to analyse as to whether the intendment of the provision could be fulfilled, if reservation in recruitment and promotion is restricted to the Hyderabad Karnataka Region. In other words, whether Article 371J would be workable by restricting the reservation only to Hyderabad Karnataka Region.
31. In the opinion of this Court, Article 371J could be workable even if reservation is restricted within Hyderabad Karnataka Region, insofar as Taluk level and District level cadres are concerned. When it comes to State level cadre, the provision will not remain workable, if the reservation is restricted to a region. Obviously because, an officer of State level cadre may be posted in any district, by way of transfer, in public interest. If a ‘local cadre’ is formed and established in a particular region and a local cadre is not available in the other region, the officer cannot be transferred to a place where there is no ‘local cadre’. Similarly if local cadre is identified and formed only in a particular region and if a person is directly recruited to the local cadre, he cannot be transferred to a place outside the region, since there is no local cadre available outside the region. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that Article 371J becomes unworkable, if reservation is restricted only to Hyderabad Karnataka Region.
32. The words ‘in the Hyderabad-Karnataka Region’ as found in sub-clause (b) of Clause( 2), therefore requires a purposive interpretation. As observed earlier, the objects and reasons would clearly indicate that the intention of the legislature is to promote ‘inclusive growth’ with a view to reduce inter-district and inter-
regional disparities in the State. The special provision aims to enhance human resources and promote development from the region by providing for local cadres in service and reservation in public employment for domiciles of the region. Therefore, the emphasis is on upliftment and promotion of betterment of the people of Hyderabad Karnataka Region. It cannot be disputed that the domiciles of the region are sparsely represented in the State level. The domiciles of backward region were therefore to be provided for and promoted at the State level in order to reduce inter-district and inter-regional disparities in the State (emphasis supplied).
33. It is also necessary to observe that the words ‘for the Hyderabad Karnataka Areas’ ‘domiciles of the region’ ‘people belonging to said region’ ‘in the Hyderabad Karnataka Region’ ‘for the people of Hyderabad Karnataka Region’, have been used inter-changeably to mean ‘for the benefit of the people of the said region’.
The emphasis is therefore on the people of Hyderabad Karnataka Region and Article 371J intends to make special provisions for the development, upliftment and promotion of the people of that area which is the most backward region of the State, to promote their inclusive growth and thereby remove or reduce inter-district and inter-regional disparities in the State. With that in mind, if the provision is analysed, there remains no doubt that reservation in recruitment and promotion for the Local Cadre cannot be restricted to Hyderabad Karnataka Region.
34. This view is fortified by the decision in Kanhaiyalal Vishiondas Gidwani Vs. Arun Dattatrey Mehta, reported in (2001)1 SCC 78, where it is held that while it is true that when the same statute uses two different words then prima facie one has to construe that these different words must have been used to mean differently, but then context in which the words are used are also to be considered.
35. In Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay reported in (2002) 4 SCC 297, it is held that no words or expression used in any statute can be said to be redundant or superfluous. In matters of interpretation one should not concentrate too much on one word and pay too little attention to other words. Every provision and every word must be looked generally and in the context in which it is used and not in isolation. The elementary principle of interpreting any word while considering a statute is to gather mens or sentential legis of the legislature.
36. In that view of the matter, if the Reservation Order seeks to provide reservation in the Secretariats of the State Government, Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council, in the High Court of the State and all the State level institution serving the capital of the State-
Bengaluru, then, it is to fulfill and relealize the avowed objective and intendment of the Legislature viz., promote inclusive growth, reduce inter-district and inter-regional disparities, by providing for equitable opportunities and facilities ‘for the people of the most backward region’. If reservation is not provided in the State Capital where there is concentration of all powers, be it political, economic or executive, then the very purpose and intendment of the Legislature will be defeated. The whole idea is to allow the ‘people of the most backward region’ to participate at the ‘State level’, in all spheres. That is the real meaning of inclusive growth. Therefore, a narrow interpretation in this regard is not called for.
37. Moreover, the Governor has paid attention to the mandate of the President, in as much as providing for reservation to the domiciles of Hyderabad Karnataka region and at the same time, keeping in mind the requirements of the State as a whole. The reservation order, in paragraph 3, provides for reservation of 75% of the posts in the region in Group-A and B posts, in each department of the State Civil Service or in local authority or body or organization, while 80% of the posts in the region belonging to the category of Group-C and 85% in Group-D are reserved. On the other hand, in paragraph 13, where reservation in State level offices or institutions or Apex institutions is to be provided, reservation is restricted to 8% only. Sufficient care is taken in reflecting population percentage of Hyderabad Karnataka region in comparison to total population of Karnataka.
38. In that view of the matter, the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General, that the words “in respect of that region” has to be read in the context of the parent legislation i.e., Article 371J (1)(c), which is a beneficial provision made by the parliament for “the people belonging to that region”, has to be accepted.
39. The petitioners have not raised a challenge to Article 371J. Therefore, the question as to whether the legislature could provide for reservation to a class of people on the basis of domicile and the consequence of non-obstante clause being conspicuously absent in Article 371J, therefore, whether the provision would be subject to fundamental rights guaranteed by part III of the Constitution, do not arise for decision making in these writ petitions.
40. The Reservation Order issued by the Governor, providing for reservation beyond the territorial jurisdiction of Hyderabad Karnataka region, in terms of paragraph 13 cannot be termed as contrary to or in excess of the parent enactment.
The petitions are accordingly dismissed.
JT/KLY/DL SD/- JUDGE