By Kashish Agarwal
---
Citation: 2020 SCC Online SC 148
Act:
Principle: The court cannot direct states to provide for reservations in promotions in public offices
Reservation, which has been one of the most contentious issues in the legal and political strata of the nation since independence, was accorded with a new dimension by the Supreme Court of India in Mukesh Sharma v. The State of Uttarakhand. The two-judge bench, consisting of L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta, JJ held that the courts cannot direct, by way of the writ of Mandamus, the states to collect quantifiable data regarding the adequacy of representation of Scheduled Castes and Tribes if the state chooses to not provide for reservation in promotion to public offices.
Background
Section 3(7) of the
Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled
Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act 1994, which provided for reservation
for appointment to public posts filled up by promotion was struck down by the High
Court in Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation
v. Rajesh Kumar in light of the Supreme Court decision in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, in
which the court stated that reservations in promotions is not a fundamental
right and provided that the State needs to present quantifiable data to justify
reservations in promotions. In Vinod Prakash Nautiyal & Others v. State
of Uttarakhand & Others,
the Uttarakhand High Court finally declared Section 3(7) unconstitutional and
stated that the state government needs to present relevant data concerning the provision of reservations in promotions. In order to implement this decision,
the state government constituted a committee to collect quantifiable data on
the backwardness and inadequacy in representation of reserved communities on 6 August 2011. According to the report of this committee, the reserved castes
were backward and unrepresented in higher public posts.
On 5 September 2012, the government decided
against reservations in promotions, and issued an order for the same. This
order was challenged in the High Court by Gyan Chand. The High Court struck it down for
being against the past orders of the Supreme Court. This decision is being
challenged by the state in the instant case.
Further, officers in the public works
department, including the appellant, Vinod Kumar, and three others, filed a writ
petition in the High Court demanding that the state government provide
reservation for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the
Public Works Department. They also sought a direction to create a departmental
promotion committee for promotion for Scheduled Castes and Tribes. The High
Court decided in favour of the petitioners and directed the government to
implement such reservations by promoting only the members of reserved
communities in future vacancies to fulfil the earmarked quota. This was
challenged in the High Court itself, which reviewed its judgement and directed
the government to collect quantifiable data regarding the inadequacy of
representation of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes in government service, and
take a decision on reservations after due consideration of the same. This
decision was challenged in the Supreme Court by the state, and is being
undertaken in the present case.
The counsel for the appellants contended that
the respondents cannot claim reservation in promotions as a fundamental right since Articles 16(4) and 16(4-A) of the constitution, which deal with
reservations in promotions, are enabling provisions. According to the judgement
in the Nagaraj case, the state has discretion in the provision of such
reservations and since, in the instant case, the state decided not to provide
reservations, they do not have to collect quantifiable data. Such data is
necessary as a source of justification for said reservations only when the
state chooses to provide for reservation in promotions.
The counsel for the respondents contended that the
state has an obligation to provide reservations in promotions if the reserved
communities are inadequately represented, and therefore, the state cannot
refuse to collect data in furtherance of the same. The state had constituted a
committee which reported that the reserved communities suffer from inadequate
representation. Thus, the state, on the basis of this data, is mandated to
provide reservation for their upliftment.
Issues
- Whether the state is bound to make reservations in promotions to public posts
- Whether the decision by the State Government not to provide reservations can be only on the basis of quantifiable data relating to adequacy of representation of persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
Ratio Decidendi (Rationale)
Articles 16(4) and 16(4-A) are only enabling provisions, and do not confer a right to
claim reservations in promotions. As per the decision in Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, the state has discretion in
providing such reservations and it cannot be directed to do the same. However,
if it uses this discretion to reserve seats in promotion to public offices, it
needs to collect quantifiable data justifying its position in case the reservation
is challenged. The articles empower the state to provide reservation, and the
matter of inadequacy in representation is within the subjective satisfaction of
the state. The state is to form its opinion on the basis of any data within its
possession or by collection of the same. The state is not beyond judicial
scrutiny if it chooses to provide said reservations. If however, the state
chooses to not provide reservations, it does not need to collect data to
justify its decision because Articles 16(4) and 16(4-A) only enable the state to
provide for reservation in promotions and do not mandate the provision of the
same.
Decision
The Supreme Court struck down the directions of the High
Court, upholding the discretion of the state in matter of reservation in
promotion. The direction to collect quantifiable data was also struck down
because such data is only used as a justification when reservations are
provided and is not a necessity when the state chooses to not provide for such
reservation. Therefore, even if the
underrepresentation of Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes in public services
is brought to the notice of this Court, no mandamus (Judicial Command) can be
issued by this Court to the State Government to provide reservation. Also, no
mandamus can be issued by the Court to the State to collect quantifiable data
relating to adequacy of representation of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes in public services.
---
Kashish Agarwal is a second year student at National Law University, Delhi. Being a law student, she loves to keep up with the legal affairs in the country and abroad. Apart from this, she spends her time adding to the seemingly endless list of movies she has watched.
No comments:
Post a Comment