The latest Supreme Court Judgment should be a source of joy to all open category people

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has enunciated provisions regarding reservation in promotion. In a case arising out of reservations in promotion of Assistant Engineers in the State of Uttarakhand, the Supreme Court has ruled that the provisions of Article 16 (4) are merely enabling. They confer no right whatsoever on candidates. If the State decides as a policy not to provide promotion in reservation, the Courts cannot issue orders to the effect that it should be so provided.

Click here for a version of this article in Marathi  

In this context it is good to note that after formation of the State of Uttarakhand, which was carved out of Uttar Pradesh, the then existent laws and rules were adapted by the new State. Policies regarding reservations too, were continued. Yet, some pleasant changes were made. Amongst them was that the percentage of OBC reservation was reduced from 21% to 14%.  Another major decision was taken by the Uttarakhand Government on 05.09.2012, when it was decided that all posts in public services in the State shall be filled up without providing any reservations to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. In the proceeding of that date, all the Government orders in contravention of this policy were superseded.

The said decision was challenged by an employee belonging to the Scheduled Castes. The High Court of Uttarakhand allowed the writ petition and decided that the proceeding Dt. 05.09.2012 was contrary to law. The respondent in this petition i.e. the State of Uttarakhand sought a review of the judgment. On review, the High Court decided that the State should gather quantifiable data to assess the adequacy or otherwise of representation of SC and ST employees in services of the State, and after considering the same decide whether to provide reservations in promotion.

What is the percentage of open category people?

On the other hand, some other employees filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking directions to the effect that the government prepare separate lists of candidates belonging to General, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes category in order to consider them for promotions. The writ petition also sought further directions to the effect that the government appoint a committee for promotion to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates after applying reservation as per the rules existent at the time of their appointment. The rules provided reservations in promotion. The High Court ruled that the government should implement reservations in promotion. Further, it was directed that only candidates belonging to SC and ST category should be promoted so that the quota as provided for the said categories was fulfilled.  

The Supreme Court, by its order Dt 07.02.2020 decided that the State can as a policy decide not to provide reservations in promotion. The decision of Uttarakhand High Court directing the State to gather quantifiable data was set aside in view of the fact that the government already had collected the same. The Supreme Court has in this judgment clarified the position of reservations in promotions, constitutionality of policy of reservations and collection of quantifiable data.  

The points that were considered while hearing matters arising out of the above two matters were

1)       Whether the State Government is bound to make reservations in public posts?

2)       Whether the State Government is bound to consider adequacy of representation of persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes on the basis of quantifiable data before deciding not to provide reservations?

Ultimately, both the questions were answered in the negative. The decision of Uttarakhand government not to provide reservations in promotion to the employees of SC and ST categories was adjudged to be perfectly valid.

Following are the highlights of the Supreme Court judgment:

1)       The State is not bound to make reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in matters of promotions.              

2)       Inadequacy of representation of SC and ST categories in public employment is a matter within the subjective satisfaction of the State. Whether to provide reservation or not is solely within the discretion of the State, but the decision should be supported by quantifiable data.

3)       All decisions regarding reservation on the basis of lack of adequate representation asre open to judicial scrutiny.

4)       Collection of data regarding reservations is necessary only when reservations are to be provided. Because the State is not bound to provide reservations, there is no need for the State to provide data to show that there is adequate representation of SC and ST category candidates.

5)       Courts cannot direct that all vacancies should be filled from the SC and ST categories only.

The judgment of the Supreme Court should be welcome news for all open category candidates and people against the excesses of reservation. It is good in itself that somewhere in India there has been reduction in percentage of reservation. It is great to know that a State decides not to provide reservations in promotion at all. And it should be a source of profound joy for all right thinking people that the Supreme Court has sided with the prudence exercised by the State of Uttarakhand.

Tailpiece: Search of the entire 23 page document gave a heartening result. There is no mention of the word “merit” anywhere.

                                                                             © Adv. Shrirang Choudhary