Mukesh Kumar & Anr. Versus The State of Uttarakhand& Ors.

 

Mukesh Kumar & Anr. Versus The State of Uttarakhand& Ors. 2020 SCC Online SC 148

 

Name of the case - Mukesh Kumar vs The State Of Uttarakhand

Citation -(2020) 3 SCC 1

Judgment date -7 February 2020

Appellant- Mukesh Kumar & Anr

Respondent - The State of Uttarakhand & Ors.

Bench/ Judges - L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta

Acts Involved - Constitution of India – Articles 16, 16 (4) and 16(4A)

Important Section - National Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993 –  Section 3(1), Section 3 (7)

 

FACTS OF THE CASE :-

The state administration of Uttarakhand on fifth September 2012 settled on a choice that all posts in public administrations in the state will be topped off without giving any reservations to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in advancements for the posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the Public Works Department, Government of Uttarakhand. A petition was documented under the watchful eye of the High Court which struck down the procedure made by the state government. Nonetheless, the Hight Court acknowledged blemishes in its judgment on the survey and adjusted that the State was committed to gather quantifiable information in regards to the deficiency of portrayal of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in public administrations and guided the state government to choose in light of the information.The Hon'ble Supreme Court incorporated a gathering of appeals with a similar topic and chose to dispose of them altogether.

 

ISSUES OF THE CASE :-

·       Whether the state government is bound to give reservations to the Scheduled Caste and scheduled Tribe?

·       Is it applicable to reservation for those classes in promotion also?

·       Whether the right to claim reservation is a fundamental right?

·       Whether the decision by the State government not to provide reservations can be only on the basis of quantifiable data relating to the adequacy of representation?

 

 

 

JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE :-

The Hon'ble Apex court held that the state government will undoubtedly reserve a spot for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled clans advancement to public arrangement or posts.

No fundamental right can be guaranteed for reservation in promotions and no mandamus can be given for something very similar.There is no fundamental right which inheres in a person to guarantee reservation in promotions.The data gathered by the State government is just to legitimize to give reservation to those classes of individuals and not in any case.Not will undoubtedly give reservations in promotions, the State isn't expected to legitimize its choice based on quantifiable data, showing that there is a satisfactory portrayal of individuals from the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in State administrations. It likewise put away the bearing given by the High Court on 15.07.2019 that all future opportunities that are to be topped off by advancement in the posts of Assistant Engineer ought to just be from the individuals from Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as it is entirely unjustified.

ANALYSIS AND RATIONALE: -

Article 16 (4) and 16(4-A) are in the idea of empowering provisions, vesting acircumspection on the State Government to consider giving reservations, on the off chance that the conditions so warrant. It is settled law that the State Government can't be coordinated to give reservations to arrangement in public posts. The Apex court depended upon its decisions in Ajit Singh (II) v. Territory of Punjab, (1999) 7 SCC 209 and C.A. Rajendran v. Association of India, (1968) 1 SCR 721 to reach the above resolution individually.The assortment of quantifiable data showing inadequacy or adequacy of portrayal of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in public service is a sine qua non for giving reservations in promotions, which was upheld by its previous decision in M. Nagaraj and Others v Union Of India and Others (2006) 8 SCC 212 and Indra Sawhney v. Union of India and Ors. (1992) Supp.3 SCC 217. The state government depended on the judgment of the High Court of Uttarakhand in Vinod Prakash Nautiyal and Others v. Province of Uttarakhand and Others W.P. (S/B) No.45 of 2011 by what Section 3(7) of the 1994 Act, connecting with the arrangement of reservation in advancement was struck down.Regardless of whether the under-portrayal of Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes in public services is brought to the notification of this Court, no mandamus can be given by this Court to the State Government to give reservation considering the law set down by the Court in Suresh Chand Gautam v. Territory of U.P. (2016) 11 SCC 113. The collection of data with respect to the lacking portrayal of individuals from the said class is an essential for giving reservations and isn't needed when the State Government has chosen not to give reservations.