Satya Prakash
Tribune News Service
New Delhi, June 5
Giving some leeway to the government on the contentious issue of reservation in promotions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes employees, the Supreme Court on Tuesday said it was not debarred from making promotions “in accordance with law”.
The interim order came from a Vacation Bench headed by Justice AK Goel after Additional Solicitor General Maninder Singh who the entire process of promotion has come to a "standstill" due to the orders passed by various high courts. The Supreme Court too had ordered "status quo" in a similar matter in 2015, he said.
"It is made clear that the Union of India is not debarred from making promotions in accordance with law, subject to further orders, pending further consideration of the matter," the Bench clarified.
However, despite this seemingly favourable order it would be an uphill task for any government to give reservation in promotions “in accordance with law”, for the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court in M Nagraj’s case in 2006 prescribes certain pre-conditions for it.
While upholding the validity of four Constitutional Amendments in 2006, the top court had ruled State will have to show existence of "compelling reasons", including "backwardness", "inadequacy of representation" and overall "administrative efficiency” before making provisions for reservation in promotions for SCs and STs. The state concerned has to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that class, it had said.
Citing top court’s ruling in Nagraj’s case, several high courts, including Delhi and Bombay, have struck down decisions for reservation in promotions and most of such cases have reached the Supreme Court which has referred the entire issue to a Constitution Bench.
The Bench was hearing the Centre's petition against an August 2017 verdict of the Delhi High Court. which quashing government's order extending reservation in promotion to SC/ST employees beyond five years from November 16, 1992, when the Supreme Court declared reservation in promotions unconstitutional but allowed it to continue for five years. The high court had restrained the Centre from granting reservation in promotion without first collecting data on inadequacy of representation.
During the hearing, the ASG referred to a May 17 order passed by a Bench headed by Justice Kurian Joseph, which said pendency of petition before it shall not come in the way of taking steps for the purpose of promotion.
As the Bench sought to know how promotions were taking place, Singh said: "They are not. It is all standstill (sic). This is the problem… I am the government and I want to give promotion as per constitutional mandate." He said there were a large number of vacancies that needed to be filled through promotions.
The issue of quota in promotions has been coming to the top court for several years now. A three-judge Bench of the top court had in November 2017 agreed to consider if its ruling the Nagaraj case was needed to be re-visited.
Earlier, while hearing petitions against a Bombay High Court verdict quashing two state government notifications on quota in promotions terming them beyond the purview of Article 16(4A) of the Constitution, which enables the State to give quota in promotions to any backward class of citizens (read SC and ST employees). It had referred the matter to a Constitution Bench.
The precendents
1
3
6
7