Mukesh Kumar vs The State of Uttarakhand

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.