Mukesh
Kumar vs The State of Uttarakhand
Citation:
(2020) 3 SCC 1
Court:
Supreme Court of India
Bench:
L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta
Date
of Judgement: 07/02/2020
Facts
of the Case:
On
September 5, 2012, the state government of Uttarakhand decided that all public
servicepositions in the state would be filled without any reservations for
Scheduled Castes andScheduled Tribes in promotions for the positions of
Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the PublicWorks Department of the Government of
Uttarakhand.
The
state government's actions were overturned when a petition was filed with the
High Court.The High Court, however, recognised errors in its review ruling and
changed it to require thestate to collect quantifiable data on the inadequacy
of representation of Scheduled Castes andScheduled Tribes in public services
and to instruct the state government to make decisionsbased on the data.
The
Hon’ble Supreme Court included a group of appeals with the same subject matter
anddecided to dispose of them altogether.
Issues:
• Whether
the state government is bound to give reservations to the Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled
tribes?
• 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 inadequacy of representation?
Laws
Applied:
·
Article 16(1) of The
Constitution of India 1949
·
Article 16(4) of The
Constitution of India 1949
·
Article 16(4A) of The
Constitution of India 1949
·
Section 3(1) of The
National Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993
Contentions
made by the Petitioners:
The
petitioners asserted reservation as a fundamental right under Articles 16(4)
and 16(4A) ofthe Indian Constitution, and argued in favour of it by advocating
for the upliftment of ScheduledCaste and Scheduled Tribe members. They argued
that if the reservation is notmade, eachresident's right to uniformity is
violated. The guideline further argued that the State cannotrefuse to provide a
reservation until it fulfils its commitment to collect measurable data on
thesufficiency or inadequacy of portrayal in public positions. The state failed
to follow the cyclealong these lines, which is a violation of Article 16 of the
Constitution. According toinformation acquired by the council following the
Supreme Court's verdict in M. Nagaraj andOrs. v. Association of India and Ors
(2006) 8 SCC 212, there was inadequacy in the portrayalsof Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribes in taxpayer-funded organisations. The publicauthority is
constrained by the report's judgement; it must make the booking.
Contentions
made by the Respondents:
The
respondents' counsel argued that the State is under no obligation to offer reservationbecause
Articles 16(4) and 16(4-A) of the Constitution are merely enabling provisions,
and thedecision not to grant reservation was made after careful study. They
argued that, in light of theM. Nagaraj case, there was no need to offer the
reservation if the state refused to do so. If theState has to grant reservation,
the amount of the equivalent could be chosen by establishing aboard, and the
State might choose the match based on that report, and similarly stated, the
Courtcannot guide the State to give reservation.
Judgement
of the Court
The
Court brought up the main matter of disagreement. It was limited to the
question of whetherthe State Government will surely reserve a slot for a
publicly posted position and whether theState Government's decision not to
provide reservations may be solely based on quantitativeevidence. The Court
clarified its position on the fundamental right to reservation overpromotion
under Article 16 (4) and 16 (4-A) by relying on the judgement in Ajit Singh
(II) v.the State of Punjab, (1999) 7 SCC 209, and added that the previously
mentioned arrangementsare empowering and optional in relation to the State. The
Court added by alluding to the M.Nagaraj judgment that the prudence has the
State to give reservation openly posts and couldn'tbe guided by the Court to
provide reservation in this perspective anyway the choice of givingthe booking
out in the open positions and advancements can be tested over the quantum
ofseats saved and must be defended on the premise of the quantifiable
information of portrayalof Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
The
data collected by the State government is only to justify providing reservation
to thoseclasses of people and not otherwise. Not being bound to give
reservations in promotions, theState is not required to justify its decision
based on quantifiable data, showing an adequaterepresentation of members of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in State services. Itadditionally put
aside the course given by the High Court on 15.07.2019 that all future
openingsthat are to be topped off by advancement in the posts of Assistant
Engineer should be from theindividuals from Scheduled Casts and tribes are
entirely unjustified.
The
Court also held that the High Court's most recent decision, which struck down
the 2012notification based on the Indra Sawhney and Jarnail Singh judgments,
was flawed because thenotification was only for promotions and based on the
recommendations of the committee thatrepresented Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes. The bench went on to say that the casesof Indra Sawhney, Ajit Singh
(II), M. Nagaraj, and Jarnail Singh only dealt with the need toshow
quantifiable data to justify the quantum of reservation provided by the state,
not with theneed to show quantifiable data in cases where the state denies the
reservation, becausereservation is not a fundamental right when it comes to
promotions.
0 Comments