Menu
header photo

LegalSeva

Service in the interest of Justice

RESERVATION IN PROMOTION CAT Tribunal Chandigarh

Reservation in Promotion hinges on three factors, inadequacy of representation, backwardness and the impact on overall efficiency before making reservations in promotions.

Recently the Supreme Court (SC) settled the controversy surrounding Reservation in Promotion in Jarnail Singh & Ors vs. Lacchmi Narain Gupta & Ors , SLP (C) 30621/2011 decided on 26.09.2019.

It held:

  1. That a progression in a cadre based on promotion cannot be treated as the acquisition of many layer status.
  2. That member who reaches a higher post no longer has a taint of untouchability or backwardness (SC/ST status).
  3. The efficiency of administration in any event should not be adversely affected.

Also Read- CAT Tribunal Chandigarh

reservation in promotion lawyer legal advice

The bench cleared the nuances between ‘Efficiency’ and ‘Merit’ in this order.

  • Article 335 bench held that special measures need to be adopted for considering the claims of SC & ST to make them at par with others. The proviso nowhere restricts government to adopt special measures designed to up lift and protect the welfare of SC&ST.

The adequacy of representation for Reservation in Promotion should be proportionate to their representation in general population.

Art 16(4A) left it to the states to determine adequate representation in comparison to the promotional post is in question relying on Jarnail.

The opinion on adequacy of representation of SCs & STs cannot be challenged in courts relying on Indira Sawhney

Bench held u/s Art 200, Art 201 are not justiciable in this regards.

 

Curative legislation is punishable and cannot be considered as enactment of judicial powers- BK Pavitra II

Also Read- Service Law

FLAW IN NAGARAJ (2006)

  1. Indira Sawhney overruled. (incorrect view)
  2. SS/ST are homogeneous and can’t be sub categorised.
  3. Application of creamy layer principle to SC & ST was most contentious part of Nagaraj judgement inconsistent with Sawhney.

 

Also Read- Punjab & Haryana High Court

1. Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India (1992).

In a constitutional bench judges upheld reservations of OBC.

  1. Judgment doesn’t apply to promotions under article 16(4).
  2. Constitution of India (77th amendment) Act, 1995 was passed by inserting Art 16(4A)- state to make law regarding for SC& ST.

Art 16(4B)- reserved promotion posts for SC & ST unfilled came forward to subsequent year.

 

Art 335- Reservation to be balanced with maintenance of efficiency?

2001- During Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s regime, amendment came that article will not apply to state relaxing evaluation in matters of promotion.

Also Read- RESERVATION IN PROMOTIONS IN GOVERNMENT JOBS

                             2 .  M.NAGARAJ VS. UNION OF INDIA (2006)

5 Judge SC Bench wherein redressed reservation of SC & ST includes promotions.

  1. Proof of Backwardness of class Benefitting from reservation
  2. Inadequate representation in position service for which reservation in promotion is to be granted.
  3. To show how reservation in promotion could further impact administrative efficiency.

Also Read- TYPES OF SERVICE MATTERS IN CAT TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH

  1. Insistence on proof for inadequate representation of classes for whom promotional posts and reserved.
  2. Efficiency impact as per Article 335, exclusion of creamy layer justified in case of SC&ST.

 

Also Read- PROMOTION FROM PCS/HCS TO IAS THROUGH CAT, TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH

BK PAVITRA (1) vs. Union of India

  1. 2017, 2 JUDGE bench declared 2002 legislation invalid as state did not collected quantifiable data on
  1. Inadequacy of representation
  2. Backwardness
  3. The impact on overall efficiency
  1. 2002 Act- Consequential seniority to roster-point promoters based on the length of service in a cadre.

Also Read- LATERAL ENTRY IN GOVERNMENT JOBS

 

B K PAVITRA (1) ON MAR. 22.2017

Karnataka court set up Ratna Prabha Committee

  1. Backwardness & inadequacy of representation of SC & ST in state.
  2. Report came on May 5,2017
  3. Bill-Karnataka extension of consequential seniority to court servants promoted on the basis of reservation Bill, 2017.
  4. Bill got president assent under article 200 of constitution of India & state governor referred it for consideration. (That a state legislature cannot undo SC judgement in 2002.
  5. 2018 Act Challenged in SC in B K Pavitra (2), Date of Decision May,10, 2019).

 

Also Read- SENIORITY OF DIRECT RECRUITS VERSUS PROMOTEES IN INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

Took care to remedy the cause which led to declaration of invalidity of 2002 Act. It removes the basis of SC DECISION.

The discourse on reservations is far more than what constitution of India, 5 or 9 Judges bench could achieve. What constitutes ‘merit’ and ‘efficiency’ in society is difficult to assess where social inequalities pose a serious challenge to policy makers.

Also Read- RESERVATION IN PROMOTIONS OF SC/ST

 

Thus, Supreme Court through this judgment has made it clear that reservation in promotion is not compulsory and overall population of SC/ST be considered for granting quota for them. Also, it refused to refer the judgment to 7-judge bench and this 5-judge bench order is final.

Various other news snippets on the subject of reservation in promotion is covered below:

1. Collect data on representation of SC and ST before providing.

2. Govt plans staff promotion against SC norms

3. HC to enforce quota in promotion for ‘disabled employees’

4. SC/ST staff woes continue even a year after enactment of law

 

Also Read- CATCH UP RULE AND RESERVATION IN PROMOTIONS

Now government on its own wish can provide reservation in jobs but only backed up by data. For better understanding of your case, do consult best/top/expert service law advocate practicing in CAT Tribunal Chandigarh or Punjab Haryana High Court.

For more info, dial 99888-17966.

Go Back