| Headnote |
Constitution of India, 1950 – Arts. 16(4), 16(4-A), 16(4-B) and 335 – Reservation in promotion – Collection of quantifiable data regarding inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs – Yardstick for arriving at quantifiable data – In M. Nagaraj case the key issue that was identified and decided by the Supreme Court was whether any constitutional limitation mentioned in Art. 16(4) and Art. 335 stood obliterated by the constitutional amendments resulting in Arts. 16(4-A) and 16(4-B) – The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional amendments – The amendments were held to be enabling provisions – It was observed that the State is not bound to make reservation for SCs and STs in matters of promotion, however, if it wishes to exercise its discretion, the State has to collect quantifiable data showing the backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment, in addition to compliance with Art. 335 of the Constitution – What is the yardstick by which, according to M. Nagaraj case, one would arrive at quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs in public employment – Held: Laying down of criteria for determining the inadequacy of representation would result in curtailing the discretion given to the State Governments – In addition, the prevailing local conditions, which may require to be factored in, might not be uniform – Moreover, in M. Nagaraj case, the Court made it clear that the validity of law made by the State Governments providing reservation in promotions shall be decided on a case-to-case basis for the purpose of establishing whether the inadequacy of representation is supported by quantifiable data – Therefore, no yardstick can be laid down by the court for determining the adequacy of representation of SCs and STs in promotional posts for the purpose of providing reservation – Reservation.Constitution of India, 1950 – Arts. 16(4), 16(4-A), 16(4-B) and 335 – Reservation in promotion – Collection of quantifiable data regarding inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs – Unit for collecting quantifiable data – In M. Nagaraj case the key issue that was identified and decided by the Supreme Court was whether any constitutional limitation mentioned in Art. 16(4) and Art.335 stood obliterated by the constitutional amendments resulting in Arts. 16(4-A) and 16(4-B) – The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional amendments – The amendments were held to be enabling provisions – It was observed that the State is not bound to make reservation for SCs and STs in matters of promotion, however, if it wishes to exercise its discretion, the State has to collect quantifiable data showing the backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment, in addition to compliance with Art.335 of the Constitution – What is the unit with respect to which quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation is required to be collected – Held: In M. Nagaraj case, the Supreme Court approved that the percentage of reservation in promotions was to be applied to the entire cadre strength, as held in R.K. Sabharwal case – While doing so, the court in M. Nagaraj made it clear that the unit for operation of the roster would be the cadre strength – Before providing for reservation in promotions to a cadre, the State is obligated to collect quantifiable data regarding inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs – Collection of information regarding inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs cannot be with reference to the entire service or ‘class’/‘group’ but it should be relatable to the grade/category of posts to which promotion is sought – Cadre, which should be the unit for the purpose of collection of quantifiable data in relation to the promotional post(s), would be meaningless if data pertaining to representation of SCs and STs is with reference to the entire service – Reservation.Constitution of India, 1950 – Arts. 16(4), 16(4-A), 16(4-B) and 335 – Reservation in promotion – Quantifiable data regarding representation of SCs and STs – Proportionate representation as test of adequacy – In M. Nagaraj case the key issue that was identified and decided by the Supreme Court was whether any constitutional limitation mentioned in Art. 16(4) and Art.335 stood obliterated by the constitutional amendments resulting in Arts. 16(4-A) and 16(4- B) – The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional amendments – The amendments were held to be enabling provisions – It was observed that the State is not bound to make reservation for SCs and STs in matters of promotion, however, if it wishes to exercise its discretion, the State has to collect quantifiable data showing the backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment, in addition to compliance with Art.335 of the Constitution – Whether proportion of the population of SCs and STs to the population of India should be taken to be the test for determining adequacy of representation in promotional posts for the purposes of Art. 16(4-A) – Held: In M. Nagaraj case, the Court was of the considered view that the exercise of collecting quantifiable data depends on numerous factors, with conflicting claims to be optimised by the administration in the context of local prevailing conditions in public employment – As equity, justice and efficiency are variable factors and are context-specific, how these factors should be identified and counter-balanced will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case – The Court in Jarnail Singh found no fault with M. Nagaraj case regarding the test for determining the adequacy of representation in promotional posts in the State – It is for the State to assess the inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs in promotional posts, by taking into account relevant factors – Reservation.Constitution of India, 1950 – Arts. 16(4), 16(4-A), 16(4-B) and 335 – Reservation in promotion – Quantifiable data regarding inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs – Review of – Period for review – In M. Nagaraj case the key issue that was identified and decided by the Supreme Court was whether any constitutional limitation mentioned in Art. 16(4) and Art.335 stood obliterated by the constitutional amendments resulting in Arts. 16(4-A) and 16(4- B) – The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional amendments – The amendments were held to be enabling provisions – It was observed that the State is not bound to make reservation for SCs and STs in matters of promotion, however, if it wishes to exercise its discretion, the State has to collect quantifiable data showing the backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment, in addition to compliance with Art.335 of the Constitution – Should there be a time period for reviewing inadequacy of representation – Held: Data collected to determine inadequacy of representation for the purpose of providing reservation in promotions needs to be reviewed periodically – The period for review should be reasonable and is left to the Government to set out – Reservation.Constitution of India, 1950 – Arts. 16(4), 16(4-A), 16(4-B), 142 and 335 – Reservation in promotion – Prospective operation of the judgment in M. Nagaraj case – In M. Nagaraj case the key issue that was identified and decided by the Supreme Court was whether any constitutional limitation mentioned in Art. 16(4) and Art. 335 stood obliterated by the constitutional amendments resulting in Arts. 16(4-A) and 16(4-B) – The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional amendments – The amendments were held to be enabling provisions – It was observed that the State is not bound to make reservation for SCs and STs in matters of promotion, however, if it wishes to exercise its discretion, the State has to collect quantifiable data showing the backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment, in addition to compliance with Art.335 of the Constitution – Whether the judgment in M. Nagaraj case can be said to operate prospectively – Held: In Golak Nath and Ashok Kumar cases, it was laid down that Art. 142 of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to mould the relief to do complete justice – The purpose of holding that M. Nagaraj would have prospective effect is only to avoid chaos and confusion that would ensue from its retrospective operation, as it would have a debilitating effect on a very large number of employees, who may have availed of reservation in promotions without there being strict compliance of the conditions prescribed in M. Nagaraj case – Most of them would have already retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation – The judgment of M. Nagaraj was delivered in 2006, interpreting Art. 16(4-A) of the Constitution which came into force in 1995 – As making the principles laid down in M. Nagaraj effective from the year 1995 would be detrimental to the interests of a number of civil servants and would have an effect of unsettling the seniority of individuals over a long period of time, the judgment of M. Nagaraj should be declared to have prospective effect – Reservation.Constitution of India, 1950 – Arts. 16(4), 16(4-A), 16(4-B) and 335 – Reservation in promotion – Quantifiable data regarding inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs – In M. Nagaraj case the key issue that was identified and decided by the Supreme Court was whether any constitutional limitation mentioned in Art. 16(4) and Art. 335 stood obliterated by the constitutional amendments resulting in Arts. 16(4-A) and 16(4-B) – The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional amendments – The amendments were held to be enabling provisions – It was observed that the State is not bound to make reservation for SCs and STs in matters of promotion, however, if it wishes to exercise its discretion, the State has to collect quantifiable data showing the backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment, in addition to compliance with Art. 335 of the Constitution – Whether quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation can be collected on the basis of sampling methods, as held by the court in B.K. Pavitra II case – Held: The State should justify reservation in promotions with respect to the cadre to which promotion is made – Taking into account the data pertaining to a ‘group’, which would be an amalgamation of certain cadres in a service, would not give the correct picture of the inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs in the cadre in relation to which reservation in promotions is sought to be made – For collection of quantifiable data to assess representation of SCs and STs for providing reservation in promotions, cadre, which is a part of a ‘group’, is the unit and the data has to be collected with respect to each cadre – Therefore, the conclusion of the court in B.K. Pavitra II case approving the collection of data on the basis of ‘groups’ and not cadres is contrary to the law laid down in M. Nagaraj and Jarnail Singh cases.Constitution of India, 1950 – Art. 142 – Art. 142 of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to mould the relief to do complete justice.Doctrines / Principles – Doctrine of Prospective Overruling – Discussed.Administrative action – Judicial review of – Scope – Held: It is neither legal nor proper for the Courts to issue directions or advisory sermons to the executive in respect of the sphere which is exclusively within their domain under the Constitution.Service Jurisprudence – Term “cadre” – Meaning and legal connotation of – Discussed – Words and Phrases. |
