Last Updated on June 20, 2024 by Satish Mishra
Now that Supreme Court has refused centre’s appeal to reconsider its own order of 2006 on SC/ST job promotion to 7-judge bench, there is hardly any confusion left.
Supreme Court has made it clear that reservation in promotions is discretionary not compulsory/mandatory. But the judgment has left away with the need of states to collect quantifiable data on backwardness of SCs and STs for reserving quota in job promotions.
Same 5-judge bench of equal strength as that of 2006 was hearing the plea of referring the matter to larger bench. The judgment did not hinder anything else as that of 2006 regarding adequate representation of SCs /STs in job promotions.
Also Read- REINSTATEMENT IN JOB ON ACQUITTAL IN CRIMINAL CASE
The major reason was not to disturb the administrative efficiency of the government.
The 2006 M Nagraj judgment laid down three golden rules:
1 States bound to give quantifiable data on backwardness of SC & ST
2 Facts on their inadequate representation.
3 Administrative efficiency of entire department.
One opposing view of reservation in promotion of government jobs is that presumption of backwardness of SC & ST goes once they join the government department.
Also Read- APPOINTMENT AGAINST SANCTIONED POSTS ONLY
The states continue to give promotions viz reservation in Class III and IV but not to higher class.
The judgment of SC was well founded on the principles of creamy lawyer who excludes affluent SC/STs making above 8 lakhs per annum from making into group A list.
Creamy layer was till then applicable to OBCs only. The community though touts for affirmative action policy on the issue.Every year many complaints are filed in category A and B government jobs regarding discrimination in promotions. Thus this decision will hinder them from making it to the A list. The Ashok Thakur case in 2008 was in negation to the present where no opinion was given on the exclusion of ST /SCs from creamy layer.
Also Read- INTERDEPARTMENTAL POLICY OF UT IN CAT CHANDIGARH
The court opined that government policy should be in sync with Article 14 & 16 while granting promotions in reservation. The bench held that backward classes should march with other citizens on equal basis.
In the judgment of Jarnail Singh vs Lachhmi Narain Gupta on 26th September, 2018 has held the government to exercise reservation in promotion must show inadequate representation of SC/ST in the cadre.
Reservation in Promotions emanated from the Mandal case -1992 that lead to government introducing clause (4A) in Article 16.
Also Read- SENIORITY OF DIRECT RECRUITS VERSUS PROMOTEES IN INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT
Conclusion- Finally this judgment has cleared the roadblock for SC/STs to get reservation in promotions in government jobs. The decision came from the bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, J Kurian Joseph , H RF Nariman , SK Kaul and Indu Malhotra.
The judgment has now left it to the states to implement reservation in promotions in whatever form suitable keeping in mind of constitutional principles.
If in case, you find the principles are not adopted in your government institution or department, you can always approach Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Chandigarh for reservation in promotion.
Also Read- SERVICE MATTERS OF PGI IN CAT CHANDIGARH
For more info on the subject, please dial 99888-17966.
