Adrija Guhathakurta
National Law University, Odisha
Case Note:
Citation: 2020 SCC OnLine SC 148
Decided on: 7 February 2020
Court: Supreme Court of India
Quorum: L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta
Facts:
Recently, the Supreme Court was hearing the matter where a certain decision of the Uttarakhand government had become the subject of heated discussion. The government of Uttarakhand had decided that all the posts belonging to the Public Services were to be satiated without the provision of any reservations in Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes in case of promotions granted in posts of Assistant Civil Engineer, in the Public Works Department, Government of Uttarakhand. As the matter reached the grounds of High Court, it was established in the court that the State does not owe any obligation to provide for reservations to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in case of promotions in public services as the existing Article 16 (4A) of the Indian Constitution is an “enabling provision.”
Article 16:
The State Government was, however, directed to collect required data in regards to the insufficiency of the representation of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in government services so that it’s more convenient for the State to decide whether to provide or not to provide reservation in case of these promotions.
Article 16 of the Indian Constitution states that there should exist equality or right of equal opportunity in the grounds of employment.
Article 16 (4):
“Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State.
(4A) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for reservation in matters of promotion, with consequential seniority, to any class] or classes of posts in the services under the State in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes which, in the opinion of the State, are not adequately represented in the services under the State.
(4B) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from considering any unfilled vacancies of a year which are reserved for being filled up in that year in accordance with any provision for reservation made under clause (4) or clause (4A) as a separate class of vacancies to be filled up in any succeeding year or years and such class of vacancies shall not be considered together with the vacancies of the year in which they are being filled up for determining the ceiling of fifty per cent. reservation on total number of vacancies of that year.”
Supreme Court Verdict:
The bench, consisting of L. Nageshwar Rao and Hemant Gupta, held that the court cannot issue any writ of mandamus to the State where the State is directed to collect “quatifiable” data in relation to the adequate representation of the Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes in the public services. The Court Further held that:
“The State Government is not bound to make reservations. There is no fundamental right which inheres in an individual to claim reservation in promotions. No mandamus can be issued by the Court directing the State Government to provide reservations.”
Important cases that were found relevant in the case:
The Court clarified the matter of issuing the writ of mandamus by taking precedence of the Supreme Court judgements, C.A. Rajendran v. Union of India, (1968) 1 SCR 721 and Suresh Chand Gautam v. State of UP, (2016) 11 SCC 113.
1. C.A. Rajendran v. Union of India, (1968) 1 SCR 721:
It was held in this case that the government is under no constitutional duty, whatsoever, to provide reservations to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes neither during the primary period of recruitment nor during the period of promotion.
2. Suresh Chand Gautam v. State of UP, (2016) 11 SCC 113:
In the said case it was opined that, vide Art 16 (4), Backward Classes were to be given reservation at the time of recruitment, however, the same is not permissible at the time of promotion.
Hence the court in the case of Mukesh Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand stated that:
“The direction given by the High Court that the State Government should first collect data regarding the adequacy or inadequacy of representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in government services on the basis of which the State Government should take a decision whether or not to provide reservation in promotion is contrary to the law laid down by this Court and is accordingly set aside.”
