This article is written by Shenbaga Seeralan S. This case articulates the topic of reservations in promotions. In addition to that, the judicial decorum and precedential value of the judgements are also discussed. The article enunciates the case in detail, thereby critically analysing the intricate expressions of the judgement.

This article has been published by Shashwat Kaushik.

Introduction

The tower of Indian democracy stands over the bedrock of the ideals of equality and freedom. Articles 14 – 22 of the Indian Constitution guarantee every citizen equality and freedom in different spheres as their fundamental rights. However, it is the obligation of the state to provide special privileges to certain sections of society, keeping in mind their social and educational backwardness over a prolonged period of time. Thus, the makers of the Constitution took a socialist, egalitarian approach to framing the magna carta of the nation. To ensure equivalent opportunities for underprivileged communities, the concept of reservation was introduced. Reservation can be portrayed as a mechanism to provide protective discrimination, adopted by the state based on the principles enshrined in the Constitution, to the marginalised sections of society. Reservations are provided by means of quotas in employment, education, and electoral processes. 

Download Now

Granville Seward Austin, an American historian, speaks in his book The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation (1966) about the nature of the Indian Constitution and how it is aimed at improving social disparity. In a society engraved with caste and economic imbalances, special protection is needed to augment relative equality and achieve social excellence. Despite having novel intentions, the concept of reservation does not escape criticism. Andre’ Beteille, an Indian sociologist, in his book Caste, Class and Power (1965), describes discrimination created out of special privileges as a dangerous instrument, in spite of having revolutionary intentions. The protective discrimination in the mode of reservation has made society ever more dependent on the government and created a scaffolding to assimilate social feelings. On certain occasions, reservations are also wielded as a contraption to enhance vote-bank politics. This article aims to explain the crusts and troughs of the case and delve deep into the ideas that emerged.

Details of the case

Case name: Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited. v. Rajesh Kumar and Others (2012), herein referred to as ‘the case’

Appellant: U.P. Power Corporation Limited

Respondents: Rajesh Kumar and Others

Case no: Civil Appeal No. 2608 of 2011

Equivalent Citation: (2012) 7 SCC

Bench: Justice Dr. Dalveer Bhandari and Justice Dipak Mishra

Acts involved:

Important provisions

Facts of the case

This case is an agglomerated version of various civil appeals related to the juncture of reservations. The State Government of Uttar Pradesh enacted an Act called the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994, to ensure reservation in employment for the oppressed community. In particular, Section 3(7) of the Act shall approve the reservation that was in force during the enactment of the Act for the appointments that are to be filled by promotion, unless modified by the legislature. Similarly, Rule 8-A of the Uttar Pradesh Government Services Seniority Rules, 1991, ensured the consequential seniority of a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe on his promotion. This is achieved through a reservation or roster scheme. Some of the appeals in this case were against the order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad in Mukund Kumar Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010). The above case deals with multiple writ petitions filed by Group A, Group B, and Group C officers of various government departments, all challenging Rule 8-A of the U.P. Government Services Seniority Rules, 1991, and Section 3(7) of the Act. 

It was contended that the provisions of the Rules, which enabled the creation of a separate list of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe for promotion, unlike the merit list under the Uttar Pradesh Promotion by Selection (on posts outside the purview of the Public Service Commission) Eligibility Test Rules, 1986, mandated for other categories. This addition to the eligibility list also accounts for the general list if there is no vacancy in the reserved quota. It was argued that this addition to the promotion list provides accelerated seniority, apart from the reservation already provided. The Division Bench, after hearing the arguments from both parties, held the validity of the provisions contained in the Act and the 1991 Rules. Some other appeals in the case are the appeals against the judgement of the Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad, the Lucknow Bench in Prem Kumar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2011), and other connected petitions. In the above case, there was the same contention challenging the validity of Section 3(7) of the Act and Rule 8-A of the 1991 Rules. 

The respondents to the case, one Mr. Rajesh Kumar and two others, filed a Writ Petition at the Lucknow Bench of the High Court of Allahabad in 2009. They pleaded to declare Section 3(7) of the Act and Rule 8-A of the 1991 Rules unconstitutional. It was contended that the State Government and the U.P. Power Corporation Limited (herein referred to as the corporation) did not abide by the procedures postulated by the Supreme Court in the M. Nagaraj and Others v. Union of India (2006) case, thereby causing hindrance to the constitutional provisions. The Corporation, in reply to the pleadings, suggested that there is a disparity in representation of the Scheduled community in higher designations, which urged the government to create rules to provide accelerated seniority in promotion to the Scheduled community. The corporation placed its reliance on the judgement of the High Court of Allahabad in the Mukund Kumar Srivastava case. The Division Bench of the High Court, Lucknow, had two factors to decide, the former being the validity of rules created by the government and the latter being the validity of the judgement of the Division Bench of Allahabad. 

The Allahabad High Court was of the view that, without giving the respondents the opportunity to file the counter-affidavit, the writ petitions cannot be decided. Further, on deciding the validatory nature of the provisions of the Act, the court placed its credence on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992). Section 3(7) of the Act is not ultra vires to the Article 16(4-A) and Article 16(4-B) of the Constitution, since the consequential seniority and the catch-up rule are not constitutional snippets but rather have evolved out of judicial pronouncements. The Allahabad High Court was of the opinion that Rule 8-A of the 1991 Rules has added gravity to the provisions contained in Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution, thus upholding the constitutionality of the provisions.  

The Bench in Lucknow, after circumspection, was of the opinion that the decision of the Division Bench at Allahabad did not follow the judicial footprint as laid by the precedent in the M. Nagaraj case, nor did the State Government discharge its constitutional duty. The relief provided by the Division Bench at Allahabad did not address the main issue of accelerated seniority that is the cause for filing the petition, but rather held the validity of Rule 8-A of the 1991 Rules. After scrutinising all the necessary pleadings, the Division Bench at Lucknow rejected the claims of accelerated seniority through the catch-up rule and also denied accepting the decision of the Allahabad Bench as a reliable precedent. The Division Bench in Lucknow ruled in favour of the petitioners and declared Section 3(7) of the and Rule 8-A of the 1991 Rules as unconstitutional. Challenging this decision, the corporation filed a civil appeal in the Supreme Court of India challenging the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court at Lucknow, where along with the respondent, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, there are many other private respondents. The Supreme Court in this case deals with various civil appeals related to the Mukund Kumar Srivastava case and the Prem Kumar Singh case, involving numerous appellants and respondents. 

Issues raised

The major issues that are raised before the Honourable Supreme Court pertaining to this case are

  • Whether Section 3(7) of the Act and Rule 8-A of the 1991 Rules abide by Article 16, Article 16(4-A), and Article 16(4-B) of the Constitution?
  • Whether judicial decorum, propriety, and tradition are followed in criticising the judgements and relying on precedents?

Arguments of the parties

This case, owing to its complexity and importance, had detailed arguments arising from the counsels of the appellant as well as the respondents. Multiple learned counsels appeared for various parties at this juncture. 

Appellant

The senior counsels, Mr. Andhyarujina and Mr. Raju Ramachandran, appearing for the corporation in some appeals, argued that the High Court did not properly scrutinise the document provided by the government. The government was of the view that the Scheduled community was not adequately represented in the senior designations, keeping in mind their population size. The counsels also shed light on the fact that the decision made by the government is for a social cause, despite lacking mathematical accuracy in population size and corresponding representation. Through various constitutional amendments that brought Article 16(4-A) and Article 16(4-B), the issue of social backwardness has been addressed by the Union Government by granting protective discrimination to the Scheduled Community. It was argued that the rule passed by the government of the U.P. is of a similar view. The factual data provided by the government, highlighted the backwardness of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, correlating it with their poor representation in promotions. It was also argued on the basis of the judgement in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) that the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe belonged to separate classes and the test of backwardness cannot be applied to them. 

It was also held by the judgement in Avinash Singh Bagri v. IIT Delhi (2009) that the creamy layer concept cannot be applied to the Scheduled Community. The counsels backed the claim by showcasing the report of the Social Justice Committee dated 28-06-2001, which corroborated the backwardness of the Scheduled community and stressed the need for reservations in promotions. It was also noted that, in spite of providing sufficient data, the Division Bench of the High Court at Lucknow disregarded it in arriving at a fallacious opinion. Another issue promptly addressed by the counsel was regarding the efficiency of administration as pictured under Article 335 of the Constitution. The counsel argued that when the reservation is under 50%, then there is no question of unfair advantage to one particular community, as the 50% reservation encompasses a bulk of the population. Thus, the claim of reservation being a factor hampering efficiency in administration was vehemently objected to by the counsels. 

The learned senior counsel, Mr. P.S. Patwalia, appearing for the corporation in some appeals, argued that the backwardness of the Scheduled Community is not a subjective concept but rather an objective one. Keeping in mind the historical subjugation, certain classes of community have been placed under the Scheduled category of the President’s list under the virtue of Article 341 and Article 342 of the Indian Constitution. In this canopy, the data to check the backwardness is just a formality and not a compulsion. The reliance was placed on the judgement of E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2005), which ensured the fact that the backwardness of the community is reiterated by placing it on the Scheduled List, which cannot be reclassified by the state. The counsel also ensured that, prior to the Act, data collection was carried out to identify the representation of the Scheduled community in higher posts and in promotions, which formed the basis for enacting such a provision that favoured accelerated seniority.

Respondents

Mr. P.P. Rao, the senior counsel who appeared for some private respondents, condemned the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court at Lucknow. According to him, producing quantifiable data is not necessary when the order of reservation in promotion is issued prior to the amendment. Thus, Section 3(7) of the Act was only giving recognition to the statutory precedent. It was contended that the High Court took a wrong interpretation of the judgement in the M. Nagaraj case by considering the reservation in promotion as excessive. The counsel reiterated that Article 16 of the Constitution demarcates classes that are under privileged but not the backwardness of individuals. Therefore, a special assessment of the backwardness of the Scheduled Community is not required. In addition to these arguments, the learned counsel pleaded for the matter to be referred to a larger bench. 

Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, the senior counsel appearing for some of the petitioners, argued that the Division Bench of the High Court at Lucknow misunderstood the quantification suggested by the judgement in the M. Nagaraj case. The backwardness of the Scheduled Community is an objective concept recognised by the Constitution. It was put forward that other parties have not presented any document showcasing the removal of the backwardness of the Scheduled Community in granting reservations in promotion. The concept of catch-up rule brought into existence by the judgement of Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab (1999) has been nullified by the 77th Constitutional Amendment by adding Article 16(4-A) to the Constitution, thereby giving predominance to the decision of Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India (1996). The counsel stated that the maintenance of efficiency in administration, administered under Article 335 of the Constitution, is the subject of the state; therefore, it is the subjective call of the state to identify inadequate representation of different classes. The introduction of Rule 8-A of the 1991 Rules falls well under the purview of the state in granting reservations, thereby providing a socially efficient administration. The senior counsel highlighted various judgements to ascertain the fact that granting reservations does not affect the right to equality provided under Article 14 of the Constitution. 

Mr. Shanthi Bhushan, the senior counsel appearing for the respondents, had a conflicting view in relation to former counsels. The learned counsel argued that the decision of the Constitutional Bench in the M. Nagaraj case has not been adhered to in framing Rule 8-A of the 1991 Rules. The judgement mandated the state to collect relevant and reliable data before providing any additional reservation that was not in force, especially in the case of a reservation in promotion. It was vehemently stated that the state has not made a sensible decision in amending the provisions of the Act to grant reservation in promotion to the Scheduled Community. It was avowed by the learned counsel that by granting an accelerated seniority to the candidates of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in promotion, the very concept of efficient administration sanctified by Article 335 of the Constitution has been disregarded. It was also claimed that the enabling provisions, Section 3(7) of the Act and Rule 8-A of the 1991 Rules, have gained the dissent of the efficient general category officers, who lost their rightful spot in promotion. 

The learned senior counsels, Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Mr. Vinod Bobde, and Mr. Ranjit Kumar, appearing for other respondents, argued in favour of the decision of the Lucknow Division Bench. As argued by the senior counsels, the judgement in the M. Nagaraj case has to be interpreted differently. The decision of the Constitutional Bench was claimed to have quoted social justice as a transcending phenomenon that needed proper restricting parameters to maintain balance. Section 3(7) of the Act and Rule 8-A of the 1991 Rules have exceeded the extent of reservation by granting accelerated seniority to candidates from Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in promotion. It was argued that it was neither in terms of the constitutional proposition nor with the principles laid out by the judgement in the M. Nagaraj case. It was also contended by the learned counsels that the data and charts provided by the state highlight the numbers in seniority but not the core issue of accelerated seniority and its repercussions on the efficiency of the administration. 

The counsels earnestly put forward that the accelerated seniority along with the roster system can create a momentous impact. To support the argument, the counsels cited that a candidate from Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes would reach the highest level of designation at the age of 50 with this accelerated seniority, whereas a candidate from the general category, even at the age of retirement, would not reach the third or fourth level out of the assumed six levels. This unfair advantage would stand ultra vires to the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution and would also affect the efficient functioning of the state envisioned by Article 335 of the Constitution. The senior counsels argued that Article 16(4A) and Article 16(4B) of the Constitution are mere enabling provisions rather than absolute fundamental rights. The counsels highlighted the judgement of General Categories Welfare Federation v. Union of India (2012), which ensured that when a challenge is made against the reservation in promotion, it should be decided based on the principles laid by the judgement of the M. Nagaraj case. It was also urged, under the reliance of the judgement of Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008), that by providing reservations to a particular class, the efficiency of the entire administration should not be hampered. 

Judgement in U.P. Power Corpn. Ltd. vs. Rajesh Kumar (2012)

The Honourable Supreme Court, after thorough inspection of all the facts and diligent observation of arguments, came to the following conclusion:

  • The Court held that Section 3(7) of the Act and Rule 8-A of the 1991 Rules are ultra vires to the Constitution. It was also noted that these provisions contradict the ruling  of the Constitutional Bench in M. Nagaraj and Others v. Union of India (2006).
  • The Court permitted any reservation that was enabled based on the judgement in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), but not with the assistance of Section 3(7) of the Act and Rule 8-A of the 1991 Rules. 
  • The Court condemned the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court at Lucknow for treating the verdict of the Allahabad Bench as a non-binding precedent. It is the judicial discipline to treat a decision made by the Bench of similar strength to refer to a larger Bench in case of disagreement. However, the Lucknow Bench termed the judgement of the Allahabad Bench as incuriam, which was highly not appreciated.
  • The Court allowed the appeals against the judgement of the Allahabad Bench, setting aside the impugned order. The judgement of the Lucknow Bench was held valid, subject to modification. All the appeals are therefore disposed of, making the parties bear the respective costs.

Rationale behind 

The cornerstone of this case lies in the interpretation of the judgement of the M. Nagaraj case and the importance of Article 16, Article 16(4A), Article 16(4B), and Article 335 of the Constitution in dealing with reservation in promotion. In spite of Article 16(4A) of the Constitution granting authority to the state to provide consequential seniority in promotion to any classes of posts concerning Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. This is an enabling provision empowering the state to provide privilege based on the inadequate representation of the Scheduled Community in higher grades of state services. 

However, Article 16(1) of the Constitution guarantees equal opportunities to all citizens in matters of state employment. Both of these provisions are contrasting to each other, as consequential seniority brawls with the right to equality granted by Article 14 read with Article 16(1) of the Constitution. At various instances, the two judge panel in this case reinstated statements from the M. Nagaraj case. Firstly, to deal with the concept of consequential seniority, the bench relied on various judgements by the Supreme Court, including Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan (1995) and Ajit Singh Januja v. State of Punjab (1996), to reestablish the fact that catch-up rule and consequential seniority are judicially evolved concepts to provide equitable justice. The court did not oppose the fact that reservation is a necessary prerequisite to furnishing a socially equitable society, keeping in mind the historical oppressions of the Scheduled Community. 

The Court was on the hook to keep the concepts of backwardness, representation, and efficiency in proper balance. The Bench referred to the article by William Darity titled Affirmative Action in Comparative Perspective: Strategies to Combat Racial and Ethnic Exclusion, where the author highlights how affirmative action reciprocates. The notable point in the article that was taken into consideration by the Court was that when an affirmative action like reservation is implemented, it should be based on the class but not on race or ethnicity. The Court was obligated to use its guiding power to examine individual cases in accordance with the law. As guided by the judgement in the M. Nagaraj case, the court took the view that mere enabling provision is not an impediment to the efficiency or to the constitutional provisions, but an erratic implementation of those provisions without any backing data is a dangerous facet. 

The sustainability of the government is determined by the efficiency of its administration. Thus, to facilitate efficiency, the makers of the Constitution inscribed the concept of efficiency in administration through Article 335 of the Constitution. However, according to Article 46 of the Constitution, it is the duty of the state to provide care and support to the weaker sections of society, especially the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, by enhancing their educational and employment opportunities. This in turn will ensure social justice for them, which was long denied. It is imperative that the government should univocally facilitate both provisions without any disparity. To achieve this, there should be proper backing data to show the status of weaker sections of society; this would make the plan devised more target specific. That is why the percentage of reservations provided to each section of society is based on their demography, economic condition, historical discrimination, and constitutional ponderance. Through various sources and citations, the Court came to the determination that any socially protective discrimination scheme initiated by the government should be carried out after proper statistical analysis. 

The Court then came to the point of testing the validity of Section 3(7) of the Act and Rule 8-A of the 1991 Rules. As discussed in various pronouncements, the guiding factors for any reservation would be the backwardness of the community, inadequate representation, socially equitable administration, definite data, and the proposed ceiling limit. When any of these guiding factors is controverted by the state’s action, then such action is nullified by the house of law. It is mandatory for the state to follow the procedures as held by the previous pronouncements in making reservation norms. Thus, it is imperative for the state to present quantifiable data that supports the backwardness of the community for whom the reservation is intended. Even with the necessary quantifiable data, the state is not allowed to cross the permissible limit of reservation, i.e., 50% of the total vacancy available. If excessiveness is noted in the extent of reservation, then such reservation should hamper the efficiency of administration. 

In light of all these considerations, the Court held the 77th, 81st, 82nd, and 85th Constitutional Amendments as valid. These amendments were enabling provisions aimed at reservation to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in promotions to any classes of posts. The Court also highlighted the judgement of Suraj Bhan Meena v. State of Rajasthan (2011), which reinstated the pronouncement of the M. Nagaraj case, necessitating the need for quantifiable data in determining the backwardness of the community. The Court in this issue came to the final conclusion that no fresh exercise has been taken by the government to collect quantifiable data before granting accelerated seniority to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in promotions to any classes of posts. 

The Bench held reliance on the judgement of Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhatija v. Collector (1989) for propounding the precedential value of a judgement. The two-judge Bench in this case postulated a valuable insight that in a multi-judge court, the judges are bound by the precedents. When there is no declared principle, only then the judges can decide based on their discretion. It is an uncodified rule and a principle of judicial decorum that when there is a disagreement between the decision of a Bench and the decision of another Bench or even a single judge, then the decision should be referred to a larger Bench. Any contradiction to this principle, however noble the cause, is against judicial discipline. The Court expressed its dissent on the judicial culture followed by the Lucknow Division Bench in terming the decision of the Allahabad Bench as a non-binding precedent. The Court urged the judges to follow this basic level of judicial discipline and zeal to maintain the trust of society. 

Concepts in contention

  • Consequential Seniority: The method adopted in the course of promotion, where a person belonging to a reserved category gains seniority over a general candidate by the means of reservation in promotion. This accelerated seniority is applied to the roster system of management. Thus, with relatively less experience, a candidate gains seniority by means of a reservation to a particular cadre. 
  • Catch-up rule: In this method, a person with higher experience belonging to the general category holds high seniority, irrespective of seniority acquired by the reserved candidate. 
Illustration

Let us assume that person ‘X’ belongs to the reserved category and person ‘Y’ belongs to the general category. Now, person ‘X’ is appointed in a post of Group D services through reservation in employment, and person ‘Y’ is appointed in the same post of Group D services one year before person ‘X’. After ten years of service, both are entitled to promotion to Group C services. Now, let us suppose the vacancy in Group C services that is to be filled by promotion is reserved for the Scheduled Community. In this instance, by means of consequential seniority, the person ‘X’ gets entitled to promotion, even though he has less experience compared to the person ‘Y’. This system is called the consequential seniority mechanism. If the person ‘Y’, through the means of seniority and experience, gets entitled to promotion before the person ‘X’, in spite of the presence of a reservation, then that system is called the catch-up rule.

Precedents referred

The Court relied on various precedents in deciding the question of reservation in promotion to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in relation to the general concept of equality. Among all the cases cited in the judgement, certain cases have notable importance owing to the decision made and the size of the Bench. Those cases are as follows:

M. Nagaraj and Others v. Union of India (2006)

This case is one of the landmarks in deciding the core concept of reservation. The judgement of this case remains as a guiding light in matters of reservation, even to this date. The five judge Bench comprising Justice Y.K. Sabharwal CJI, Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, Justice S.H. Kapadia, Justice C.K. Thakker, and Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan, gave hard-bound principles to the state for deciding the reservation parameters to deal with the backwardness of a particular section of society. The petitioner in this case filed a writ petition of certiorari under Article 32 of the Constitution to quash the 85th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2001, which inserted the enabling clause of Article 16(4A) of the Constitution. This undue insertion, as claimed by the petitioners, overwhelmingly benefited the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in promotions by providing them with consequential seniority. The petitioners claimed that this unfair advantage is against the fundamental right of equality for all and thus pleaded with the Supreme Court to declare this amendment unconstitutional. This case dealt with multiple writ petitions filed at this juncture. 

The petitioners strongly opposed the addition of consequential seniority to facilitate accelerated promotion. It was contested on the following three grounds: 

  • Validity of the provision in relation to the basic structure of the Constitution
  • Interpretation of the provision with clarity and 
  • Implementation through government orders related to reservation in promotion

The efficiency of administration was also brought into the picture, as excessive reservations would definitely unwove the fabric of efficient administration as mandated under Article 335 of the Constitution. 

The Court held the view that it is the innate constituent power of the government to make amendments to the Constitution as empowered by Article 368 of the Constitution. However, the Court was of the firm opinion that the basic structure of the Constitution cannot be altered. 

The court took the judgement of Minerva Mills Limited and others v. Union of India and others (1980) as a precedent in claiming that the government should not try to alter the fundamental rights to implement provisions of Directive Principles of State Policy. It was also noted that a balance between basic structure and social schemes is required to maintain the equitable status of the rule of law. In this regard, based on the judgement of R.K. Sabharwal and Others v. State of Punjab (1995), 50% of the reservation was fixed. Even in case of carry-forward vacancies, the number of posts exceeding 50% cannot be allotted. The Bench provided a set of valuable principles to deal with the issue of reservation and equality.

  • The enabling provisions under Article 16(4A) and Article 16(4B) of the Constitution are constitutionally valid. However, the state needs reliable data to formulate legislation empowering the provisions.
  • Article 16(4) of the Constitution enables protective discrimination by the state, whereas Article 16(1) of the Constitution  grants equality in employment opportunities to all citizens of the country. These are complementary in nature, upholding fundamental rights.
  • In the system of reservation, every post is designated to one candidate from a particular community or class. In case of subsequent vacancy, the post has to be filled by a candidate from that particular community or class.
  • Cadre strength is an important parameter of the roaster system, which highlights the adequacy of representation in a community. Also, the factor of cadre strength is used to superintend the reservation without exceeding the ceiling limit of 50% of vacancies. The roster system should be post-specific and not vacancy specific. 
  • Backwardness and inadequate representation are the two factors that are to be verified by the state to grant consequential seniority in promotion to the Scheduled Community under Article 16(4A) of the Constitution. 
  • When a post remains vacant for an excessive time frame, it will definitely affect its effectiveness in administration. Therefore, the state has to determine a specific time frame to fill the vacancy for a particular class or community. When the duration exceeds the time frame, the post has to be allotted to candidates from other classes. 
  • When the government grants a reservation without abiding by the parameters as mentioned in Article 16(4) of the Constitution, such enactment shall be held invalid and ultra vires to the Constitution. 
  • The relationship between efficiency in administration mandated under Article 335 of the Constitution and reservation envisaged by Article 16(4) of the Constitution is case-specific and not a generic step.
  • The data collection regarding the backwardness of a community is a case specific event conduced under indigenous conditions. Due importance and adherence should be shown by the government in this regard.

The Constitutional Bench thus held the validity of the 77th, 81st, 82nd, and 85th Constitutional Amendment Acts and settled the writ petition. Individual petitions concerning state Acts were referred to appropriate benches.

Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)

This case deals with reservations in central government jobs. The petitioner of the case, advocate Indra Sawhney, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging the government’s decision to implement the recommendations of the Mandal Commission, which were formulated under Article 340 of the Constitution. The case was brought before the Nine Judge Constitutional Bench comprising Justice M.H. Kania, Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah, Justice S. Ranavel Pandian, Justice T.K. Thommen, Justice A.M. Ahmadi, Justice Kuldip Singh, Justice P.B. Singh, Justice R.M. Sahai, and Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy. The snippet of the case is the challenge against the reservation given to Other Backward Classes (OBC) in public employment and the extent of such a reservation. The Government of India in 1979 formulated a second commission to quantify the social and educational backwardness in India under B.P. Mandal, who is a Member of Parliament. The Commission, after a year of retrospection, submitted the report in 1980, recommending 27% reservation to Other Backward Classes in public employment. The general category of society protested against this recommendation and argued that implementation of this recommendation would be a gross violation of the provision of the right to equality enshrined in Article 14 and Article 16(1) of the Constitution. The contentions before the Court were:

  • Whether an economic criterion is enough to declare the backwardness of a community?
  • Does Article 16(4) of the Constitution stand as an exception to Article 16(1) of the Constitution granting equal opportunities in public employment?

The petitioner, who collectively represented the general category of candidates for public employment, claimed that reservation based on caste widens the gap in Indian society and deepens the disparity. The act of granting additional reservations to one particular section of society, irrespective of their meritorious contest, is a clear act of discrimination against general candidates, which violates the right to equality granted by Article 14 of the Constitution. It was also contended that any extension in reservation based on caste would lacerate the efficiency of administration contemplated by Article 335 of the Constitution. The judgement of B. Venkataraman v. State of Tamil Nadu (1951) was highlighted as a precedent to reiterate that caste cannot be taken as a parameter to provide reservation in public employment. The judgement of M.R. Balaji & Ors. v. State of Mysore (1963) was also showcased to stress the same fact and also to inscribe the facet that the total reservation should not exceed the permissible limit of 50%. 

A stern argument was placed against the reservation in promotion to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, as it would lead to double reservation and thereby make the system of public employment dysfunctional. However, the respondents contended that reservation is a protective discrimination pattern followed to maintain social justice in a society. The Commission to analyse the social backwardness of society was arranged in accordance with Article 340 of the Constitution. The Commission carried out extensive research and provided recommendations to the state based on that research, so it was argued by the respondents that the intention of the state to provide reservations is backed by proper data. The data regarding the backwardness of OBC was collected by the commission for the purpose of granting them special privileges.

The claim made by the petitioner that the data was outdated was not agreed upon by the respondents. Apart from this, the enabling provision in Article 16(4) of the Constitution allows the reservation on the condition that the backwardness is supported by the proper data and the maximum ceiling limit is not exceeded. It was argued that efficiency in administration can be attained only when equitable development is achieved among all sections of society; the purpose of reservation is to provide adequate representation, thereby improving the standard of living of that particular community. Hence, a protective action carried out by the government cannot be termed ultra vires to Article 335 of the Constitution. After hearing the arguments of both parties, the Court came to the conclusion that

  • Article 16(4) is an enabling provision of Article 16(1) of the Constitution and not an exception.
  • Backwardness can be attributed to both socio-economic factors as well as historical subjugation. So, caste is also taken as a parameter to define backwardness.
  • However, the Bench agreed to the fact that a high income group of a particular backward community called the Creamy Layer is left out of reservation.
  • The total reservation should not exceed the permissible threshold of 50%.
  • The Bench did not allow reservations in promotion (which was later added in the form of an amendment).
  • The Nine Judge Bench favoured the reservation adopted based on the Mandal Commission report by a 6:3 majority.

Critical analysis of U.P. Power Corpn. Ltd. vs. Rajesh Kumar (2012)

Reservation is a social welfare policy action taken by the government to compensate for the present condition of backwardness as well as keeping in mind the historically inflicted atrocities. There is a saying in the famous Tamil literature, Thirukkural, that goes by 

“Pirappokkum ella Uyirkum Sirappovva 

Seitholil Vertrummai yaan”

which means everyone born in this world is equal to each other; they become upper or lower class by the principles they follow and the actions they adopt. An earlier part of human civilization had an intertwined approach, where every section of society contributed towards the development of the so-called nation without seeing disparities. When the work became a clan business, the evil system of caste started percolating its roots into society. The caste system has caused innumerable miseries to society, especially to the people who are identified as belonging to the lower class by other sections of society. They were denied basic amenities like hygienic shelter, proper clothing, and adequate food. 

In conjunction with the above disparities, they were even denied basic human dignity and opportunity. In extreme cases, they were also subjected to inhumane punishments and brutalities. In the Indian context, through the efforts of various social reformers and activists, the pain and sufferings of the oppressed community were brought out to the world. Various reform movements were started by the reformists to carry forward the fight against caste inequalities. The notable ones are Satnami Samaj, founded by Ghasidas in 1820, to improve the social status of lower caste people; Brahmo Samaj, founded by Raja Ram Mohan Roy in 1828, criticised caste-based discrimination; Prarthana Samaj, founded by Atmaram Pandurang in 1867, believed in spiritual equality of all castes; Sathyasodhak Samaj, founded by Jyothirao Phule in 1873, propagated caste equality; the self-respect movement initiated by E.V. Ramasamy Naicker, stood against caste discrimination. These reform initiatives were organised across the country and across all religions. However, despite all these movements, the only path to obliterating all the sufferings of oppressed classes is by handing over authority to them by means of proper representation. 

In 1882, Sir William Hunter, an Indian Civil Service officer, and Jyotirao Phule jointly conceived the idea of caste-based reservation. The Hunter Commission was formulated by Lord Ripon to revamp the educational setup of British India and provide proper representation to all sections of society. Chatrapathi Sahuji Maharaj, Maharaj of Kolhapur, Maharashtra, introduced reservation in services to backward classes in 1902 with the aim of eradicating poverty and improving their livelihood. Based on the recommendations of the South Borough Committee, the Government of India Act, 1919, was enacted by the British Parliament, which granted communal representation for the first time to the people of the depressed class. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, along with Rao Bahadur Srinivasan, participated in the All India Depressed Class Conference held in Nagpur in 1930, demanding reservations in public services for the depressed class. The first major reservation came in the form of a communal award introduced by British Prime Minister Ramsay Macdonald in 1933. This award granted a separate electorate to Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Anglo-Indians, Europeans, and Dalits. Gandhiji took an opposing stand to this move by the British Government, saying that it would deepen communalism within the Hindu community. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar initially opposed Gandhiji’s claim; however, later they both came to consensus by signing the Poona Pact, assuring a single Hindu electorate with reservations in it. After independence, reservations were provided only to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in public services, which were fixed at 22.5%. Later, reservation was extended to OBC after the report of the Mandal Commission in 1980, which was fixed at 27%. A reservation of 10% was provided to the Economically Weaker Section of the General category in the year 2019 through the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act. The percentages and criteria keep varying from domain to domain and across demographics. 

Metrics of Reservation in India

In order to analyse the consequences of the judgement, it is imperative to understand the metrics of reservation and the impact it has made on society. 

Central Reservation for Government jobs in India
S.NoCategoryPercentage
1Scheduled Castes (SC)15%
2Scheduled Tribes (ST)7.5%
3Other Backward Classes (OBC)27%
4Economically Weaker Section (EWS)10%
5Persons with Benchmark Disabilities*    4%**

* Not less than 40% of the relevant disability

** Introduced after the Right of Persons with Disability Act, 2016

Percentage of reservation – State wise
S.NoState/UTSCSTOBCEWSOthersTotal
1Andhra Pradesh156291060
2Andaman and Nicobar Islands123850
3Arunachal Pradesh8080
4Assam715271059
5Bihar202431075
6Chandigarh2727
7Chhattisgarh1332141069
8Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu392739
9Delhi157271059
10Goa212271051
11Gujarat714271058
12Haryana20231053
13Himachal Pradesh254201059
14Jharkhand1026141060
15Karnataka177321066
16Kerala82401060
17Lakshadweep100100
18Madhya Pradesh1620141060
19Maharashtra137321010(Maratha)1(Orphan)73
20Manipur3341754
21Meghalaya8080
22Mizoram8080
23Nagaland8080
24Odisha1622111059
25Puducherry163450
26Punjab29121051
27Rajasthan161221105(MBC)64
28Sikkim718402085
29Tamil Nadu1815069
30Telangana1510291064
31Tripura173121060
32Uttar Pradesh212271060
33Uttarakhand194141047
34West Bengal226171055

It can be noted that many states have breached the 50% limit as mandated by the judgement in the Indra Sawhney case. This is done by means of a Constitutional Amendment and placing the law in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution. For example, in the State of Tamil Nadu, 69% reservation in education and employment is guaranteed through the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and of Appointments or Posts in the Services under the State) Act, 1994. This Act is placed in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution, which, under Article 31B of the Constitution, is shielded from declaring as void. The reservation provided for every class has an inner reservation within the class, thereby empowering individual sects. 69% of reservation in Tamil Nadu include 26.5% for backward classes, 3.5% for backward classes (Muslim), 20% for most backward classes (MBC) and denotified communities, 15% for scheduled castes, 3% for scheduled caste (Arunthathiyars), 1% for scheduled tribes. Many states, like Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh, Bihar, etc., have a similar type of complex reservation structure. This was achieved through a long judicial and political battle. 

The concept of “creamy layer” was first propounded in the judgement of State of Kerala v. N.M Thomas (1974).  The creamy layer means the higher-income or highly benefited group of people within the category of Other Backward Class. In 1992, the judgement in the Indra Sawhney case ensured the exclusion of the creamy layer category of candidates from reaping the benefits of reservation. A committee headed by R.N. Prasad was constituted to formulate the criteria for determining the creamy layer. The present conditions to qualify as a creamy layer are

  • If the parents of the candidate belong to Group A or Group B service before the age of 40.
  • If the annual income of the family exceeds 8 Lakh, not including income from salaries and agricultural land.

The creamy layer concept is a limiting factor in guaranteeing that the benefits of the reservation policy reach real and eligible beneficiaries. 

Impact of reservation

Reservation is a social engineering technique adopted by the state to alleviate the oppressive status of backward communities. However, merely fabricating a plan is not important, and proper implementation and review are necessary to identify the impact as well as the areas of concern. The representation of the Scheduled community was highlighted by the data provided in the brochure released by the Department of Public Enterprises, Government of India, in 2016 (DPE-GM-15/001/2016-GM-FTS-5921). The data are as follows:

YearGroup AGroup BGroup CGroup DTotal
SCSTSCSTSCSTSCSTSCST
19651.640.272.820.348.881.1417.753.3913.172.25
200812.54.914.95.715.77.019.66.917.516.82

The above table shows a clear improvement in the representation of the scheduled community in public services. In fact, the representation in Group A services has grown higher than other services, if the percentage of rise is considered. When OBC is considered, they represent 8.37% of Group A services, 10.01% of Group B services, and 17.98% of Group C services after the implementation of Mandal Commission recommendations. The aim of reservation is to bring about a socio-economic paradigm shift, which is why it is provided in various strata, including public services, promotions, education, state-owned accommodation facilities, scholarships, training, etc. The effect of these schemes can be witnessed in the enrollment percentage of students from underdeveloped areas, both in primary and higher education. The major aim of reservation is to cure the scars of historical injustice. The injustice was in the form of disrespect, which is achieved by administering the responsibility of menial jobs to the depressed community. So, in order to facilitate them regaining their dignity, the affected community has to be brought out of the low-grade job. The panacea for this ailment is providing them with quality education and alternate employment opportunities. Reservations are an enabling mechanism to provide them with education and employment, which were long denied. As envisaged by the framers of the Constitution, equality does not mean quantitative equilibrium but also qualitative equilibrium. Thus, being cognizant of the historical hardships, a strategic advantage is provided to the backward community by means of reservation. 

A research study on the effect of caste-based reservation in India on employment of the non-reserved category was conducted by Shubhangi Singh, a professor of economics at the University of Houston, USA. The data on employment in India is obtained from the repository of the World Values Survey. A comparison between employment data from 2001 (Wave 4) and 2012 (Wave 6) is made using STATA software. Various parameters used for comparison are educational level, employment, and ownership of businesses. The results were surprising, proving the fact that the reservation of backward communities has not affected the employment of open-category candidates. The percentage of people in the general category who have surpassed the highest level of degree has increased from 10.3% in 2001 to 12.2% in 2012. The entrepreneurial ventures taken up by the general category have increased from 4.1% to a whopping 23.9%. There is an increase in the percentage of candidates from SC, ST, or OBC who received a degree from a university, but that has not withered the percentage in the general category. There is an overall decrease in the unemployment percentage in all categories of society. The ratio between preference for private jobs and preference for public jobs has not changed much in the decade, highlighting that opportunities for general category candidates have not been affected due to reservations. This analysis provides a clear indication that caste-based reservations did not negatively impact the employment or educational status of general category candidates. 

A hypothesis-testing study was conducted by the Centre of Development Studies, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, under the aegis of the Indian Council of Social Science Research in June, 2021. The study was aimed at testing whether reservations in higher education changed the prospects of OBC candidates for securing better jobs. The Difference in Difference method, is a quantitative, econometric experimental approach where two population samples with positive and negative conditions are compared to find the difference in result. The data for analysis is taken from Periodic Labour Force Survey, 2018 conducted by the National Sample Survey Organisation, Government of India. The data encompasses the socio-economic and demographic information of 1,02,113 households from rural as well as urban areas of different parts of India. Intensity of reservation is one of the parameters, which is defined as the ratio of the percentage of reservation in a community to the percentage of community in the total population. The result of this analysis was that reservation policy positively impacted the welfare of backward communities in terms of employment opportunities. Reservations in education have positively impacted employment in government services, especially in administrative, executive, and managerial services. However, a higher intensity of reservation does not yield any improvement in employment status. In fact, an increase in reservation intensity negatively impacts employment status. There is a slight impact on low status government jobs, which may be attributed to the low skill requirements of such jobs. 

According to the Socio-Economic Caste Census of 2011, out of the total population, 18.46% are from Scheduled Castes and 10.97% are from Scheduled Tribes. Roughly, this amounts to 15.88 crore and 9.27 crore, respectively. According to the Census of Central Government Employees, 2011 conducted by the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, the total number of employees in Group A, Group B, Group C, and Group D posts is 93853, 380044, 2127752, and 485629, respectively. Based on the table above, let us assume the employment percentage for various services remains the same (definitely, it would have increased in percentage) for calculation purposes. Let us try to calculate the intensity of representation in each class of posts. So, out of total Group A employees, approximately 12.5% are from Scheduled Castes; this accounts for nearly 11,731. Calculating the intensity of representation by dividing the total strength of Scheduled Caste candidates in Group A services by the total strength of Scheduled Caste people in the total population, results in 0.00000738. This shows that even after reservation, the representation figure has a low value. 

Arguments against reservation

The reservation system in India is criticised by various experts and general category candidates on multiple grounds. The reservation policy in India is criticised as a biased methodology that grants nothing but discrimination to a huge section. The critics claim that in spite of general category candidates plagued by economic and social vulnerabilities, they do not receive the same opportunities that are available to backward or scheduled communities. It is also contested that even the backward community has a limiting factor in the form of creamy layer separation, but the scheduled community enjoys the benefits of excessive reservation without any limitation. It is always claimed by people from non-backward communities that the policies of reservation are against the fundamental right of equality, which is considered the basic principle of the Indian Constitution. Enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution, discrimination is not permissible on any grounds, but in the name of reservation to one section, the rights of other communities have been stripped away. Identification of beneficiaries is the most critical part of providing reservations. 

Though the entire system of reservation is criticised at multiple junctures, it is also highlighted that people from backward communities, who are so unprivileged, are not even aware of the system of reservation. In such cases, they do not claim the benefits of reservation, thereby maintaining their unprivileged status without representation. As advocated by many experts, India is highly communalised by the presence of multiple castes and sub-castes. The system of caste-based reservation stokes the fire of communalism. The reservation system has sub-reservations allotted for individual communities within the larger class; this fuels rifts between communities. In turn, the consequent category will ask for a higher percentage of reservations, quoting their backwardness. This is a never ending claim that has resulted in chaos and violence in many parts of the country. 

Another bigger issue is that each community is being represented by a political sub group. This political clan plays a vital role during elections by mobilising resources and providing door to door campaigns. The major parties get the good will of these sub clans by contesting a person belonging to their community in that constituency. Except for general constituencies, candidates for all other constituencies are selected based on the major caste of that region. These secondary caste-based parties work for the welfare of their own communities and urge the major parties to push for schemes benefiting them. One such obligation is to provide a fresh reservation or an existing reservation. Obligated by the support and foreseeing prospects in the next election, the party in power will legislate enactments based on the promise. This happens both in the centre and in the states. Thus, reservation has become a politically activated phenomenon, as claimed by the experts. 

Another major argument against reservations is the time frame of the reservation. This point was also discussed in the case of this article and also in the M. Nagaraj case. In the case of Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022), while pronouncing the judgement, one of the judges of the five judge Constitutional panel, Justice Bela M. Trivedi, noted that reservation should be created with a time frame. The judge stressed the dire need to reconceive the concept of reservation. It was noted that reservation should only be one of the means to attain equality, but it should not be a permanent solution. The Justice also termed a word called transformative constitutionalism, by which the need for an egalitarian, classless society is stressed. Without a relative time frame, the privileges vested in one community will become the burden of another. It is also vehemently opposed that the reservation pattern is based on old and outdated data. The most recent data used for determining the percentage of reservations is the Socio-Economic Caste Census (SECC) of 2011. Apart from this, it was also contended that the metrics collected in the census were not relevant to determine the beneficial quotient of reservations. Hence, with outdated data, an unlimited time frame, and irrelevant metrics, the policy of reservation will become a hammer blow to Indian democracy.

Instead of providing excessive reservation, which aggravates demand and drift, the state should look to implement policies that are aimed at creating a Casteless society. There are instances of violence between various sects in relation to reservations. In addition to this, the category of people who are not entitled to enjoy the privileges of reservation is dejected at various levels. In spite of having the skill and delivering the necessary effort, many are deprived of their rightful chances. This compels them to look for opportunities elsewhere, across borders. Apart from denying a skilled candidate the opportunity he or she deserves, reservation also results in brain drain, which is harmful to the economy as well as to the harmony of the nation. Reservation, as commented by the critics, has started to spread across paradigms, starting from the Scheduled Community to the Economically Weaker Section, from education to promotion, and is growing like Wolffia. A definitive system of checks and balances has to be introduced to maintain constitutional foresight.

How do we provide a balanced reservation?

Reservation is a simple yet significant mechanism that literally changes the lives of beneficiaries. Taking the significance into consideration, meticulous planning and strategic formulation are required for effective implementation. On this note, it is mandatory to wither out certain impediments to achieve efficiency in administration as well as to grant privileges to backward communities.

  • Avoid excessive reservation: The major reason for the denial of appeal in Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited. v. Rajesh Kumar and Others (2012) is double reservation. When the employees of Power Corporation were entitled to reservation during employment, reservation in promotion by means of consequential seniority to actuate accelerated promotion was considered as a double benefit scheme. This was termed as ultra vires to the Constitution by the Supreme Court. The analysis results of the Centre for Developmental Studies, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, also reveal a similar fact. When the intensity of reservations is increased, it negatively impacts employment status. When departmental exams are available to check meritocracy and the roster system is available to regulate the allotment of vacancies, reservations in promotions through the catch-up rule or consequential seniority will definitely affect the efficiency of administration as enshrined in Article 335 of the Constitution. It will demotivate the performers by giving predominance to the class rather than the performance. 
  • Time frame: Efficiency can be tested only over a period of time. When the effectiveness of a policy is measured over an infinite period of time, it will always result in a null outcome. The framers of the Constitution initially fixed the time limit to grant reservations at 10 years; later, it was extended after multiple amendments. It has been 74 years since India has become a Republic nation yet the reservation continues with an increased number. Before providing an extension, an extensive analysis of the effect of the reservation for a period of 10 years has to be determined. This should include the status of the beneficiary, educational prowess, family livelihood, occupational set-up, and other standards of living. This information will assist in the next phase of the reservation. The time frame rule is one of the solid principles laid out in the judgement of M. Nagaraj and Others v. Union of India (2006). 
  • Fixation of ceiling limit: The ceiling limit of 50% of total reservation was fixed by the apex court through Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992). It was also reiterated by the judgement of Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. The Chief Minister (2021), which upheld the ceiling limit unless there is an extraordinary situation. This case was based on the issue of a separate Maratha reservation. The need for fixing a ceiling limit is predominant, especially when the question of reservation is raised by every community. If there is no permanent fixation of limits, then reservations will become a contraption for political parties to secure votes. Recently, an enactment offering a 10.5% sub quota to a community out of the MBC reservation in Tamil Nadu was quashed by the High Court of Madras. If this step were implemented, it would mean that out of the 20% reservation for MBC, 1 caste would get 10.5%, and the remaining 107 castes in the class would get 9.5%. This would have turned into a dire injustice to other communities. When relaxations are allowed by the judiciary for every legislative action, then the day of 100% reservation is not far off.
  • Data-driven approach: Any policy adopted by the state arises out of the needs of society. Not every need in society is addressed by the government. It is the role of the government to decide where priority lies and what actions can be postponed. The priorities of the government are decided by the degree of urgency or through data. In present-day administration, data plays a vital role in determining beneficiaries, fixing targets, identifying mechanisms, and analysing results. When reservations are considered, data should play a primordial role. The M. Nagaraj case also upholds the same principle that the government should provide reservations to backward communities only after analysing the supporting data. A new survey of every household should be conducted, or open-ended questions can be added to already existing surveys like SECC. The survey should be both quantitative and qualitative in nature. Quantitative metrics can be used as inputs for regression analysis, which will yield many secondary parameters to determine the level of backwardness, whereas qualitative indicators can be used in hypothesis testing to determine the nature of backwardness.
  • Widening the scope of reservation: There are no second thoughts on caste being the primary factor in reservation. But why should caste be a primary factor as of now?. Let us assume the economy is the only factor in providing reservations. There would be little to no inhibition shown by the individuals to register them as low-income and receive the benefits of reservation. However, even in this neo-age, a person from the general category would not represent himself as a scheduled category to receive a reservation. The stigma around castes and historical hierarchies is still prevalent in many parts of the country. It is unfortunate to note caste-based violence in day-to-day happenings, and it creates more despair when observing caste pride among students of educational institutions. That is why policies like reservation for candidates who have performed intercaste marriages are more likely to achieve a casteless society. 10% reservation in the EWS category is also a time-frame-based policy. So, after the time limit, new beneficiaries should be brought into the system rather than providing reservations to the same candidate. In the judgement of K.C. Vasant Kumar and Anr. v. State of Karnataka (1985), it was noted that while considering economic condition as the criteria for providing reservation, a “means test” should be conducted to verify the condition. This test should be a limiting factor before deciding eligibility for a reservation. Recently, through the 106th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2023, 33% reservation was provided for women in Parliament and Legislative Assemblies, including the seats of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. This is the first gender-based reservation in India.  
  • Awareness and Activism: Reservation is not an elixir to the differences and imbalances in the nation; rather, it is a lens to a myopic eye. The size of the lens can increase, but only if the eyes are open, one can see the picture in detail. No matter how much the reservation percentage is increased, backwardness cannot be eradicated; it can only be transformed. When caste backwardness recedes, economic backwardness emerges; later, when economic backwardness diminishes, educational backwardness arises; consequently, when educational backwardness fades, technological backwardness emerges. Reservations cannot be provided for each instance. Social engineering techniques have to be adopted to remove real caste-based discrimination. Caste acts as a fuel for violence, sectarianism, and communalism. The political parties that form the government, instead of bringing down the differences, ignite the fire and enjoy the warmth. A society-driven activism has to be initiated to weed out the differences among classes. Rather than making the backward community entirely dependent on the government, their true potential should be brought out through affirmative actions.

These actions, combined with proper monitoring by experts and frequent course corrections based on feedback, would improve the efficiency of reservations and facilitate that the scheme reaches the real beneficiaries. 

Judgments for which this case was cited

S.NoCaseCourtContext
1Manish Upadhyay and Others v. State of U.P and Others (2017)Allahabad High CourtMatters concerning the selection of candidates based on the result of a written examination and the allotment of vacancies based on reservations for the post of Technical Assistant in Subordinate Agricultural Services. 
2State of Tripura and OthersV.Jayanta Chakraborty and Others(2017)Supreme Court of IndiaThe interpretation of Articles 16(4), 16(4A), and 16(4B) of the Constitution was discussed. Revisitation is denied by quoting the precedents.
3Arvind Rajvedi v.Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Others (2015)Supreme Court of IndiaDirected the High Court of Allahabad not to entertain any petition that surrounds the decision in the Rajesh Kumar case.
4B.K Pavithra and Othersv.Union of India and Others(2017)Supreme Court of IndiaThe appeal involved the validity of consequential seniority for government servants provided by the Karnataka government in 2002. The Court held the provisions of the Karnataka Determination of Seniority of the Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservation (To the Posts in the Civil Services of the State) Act, 2002 ultra vires to the Constitution.
5Anjani Kumar Soni S/O Late Sri Ram Gopal v.Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (2013)High Court of AllahabadThe petition was contested against the criterion of 50% cutoff marks in the Judicial Services Examination for candidates of all categories. The Court held the provisions to be binding.
6Ivy Gohain Dasguptav.Bhagwan Pator and Others(2023)High Court of GuwahatiThe appeal was made against granting of reservation in promotion. It was held that a reserved category candidate can acquire consequential seniority in promotion only with posts earmarked for reserved category. 
7Equality Forumv.The State of Assam and Others(2024)High Court of GuwahatiThe petition was against the implementation of recommendation of One Man Commission in Assam to determine the socio-economic status and adequate representation of the reserved category. It was held that quantifiable data was not in accordance with the principles laid out in the M. Nagaraj Case, and thus the petition was allowed.
8Shailendra Singh v.The State of U.P (2019)High Court of AllahabadPetition to mandate the state government to promote the petitioner an assistant engineer by means of consequential seniority. The petition was dismissed based on various precedents.
9Jitender Singhv.Ministry of Railways (2022)Central Administrative Tribunal – DelhiThe petition challenged the reservation for promotion to the post of passenger Loco Pilot. The original application was allowed, and the reservation list for the promotion was ordered to be withdrawn. 
10S.Panneer Selvam and Otherv.Government of T.N and Others(2015)Supreme Court of IndiaIssue of catch-up rule in the reservation of promotion to the posts of Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Highways Department. The government was ordered to revise the seniority list that was prepared based on consequential seniority.

Conclusion

The extensive analysis of the reservation system, especially reservation in promotion, is augmented to understand the impact it has created in society. Reservation is a social engineering tool that is utilised to bring equity among classes and to compensate for losses endured by generations due to discrimination. However, there has been a constant disagreement between various sections of society regarding the principles of reservation and the extent of it. The State Judicatures, until the M. Nagaraj case, found it cumbersome to deal with the petitions concerning reservation in promotion. The case discussed in this article used the judgement of the M. Nagaraj case and gave a firm pronouncement to uphold the constitutional provision of equality in employment, thereby maintaining the efficiency of administration as envisaged by the makers of the constitution. It is worth noting that no policies, enactments, or pronouncements are immutable. Based on the needs of the public and the development of society, the law governing the land keeps evolving. 

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is a roster system?

It is a point-based system that is used to determine the order of seniority. Based on the points allotted to every candidate, the vacancies are filled starting from the highest point. The points are entered in a register called the roster register. The roster register is used only if the total vacancy for one particular cadre is between 2 to 13. In the system of roster based vacancy filling, columns with different parameters are created for every candidate, and the points for the respective parameters are mentioned accordingly. The parameters include reservation nature, category, date of appointment, sub class in the reserved community, and so on. The summation of total points creates the order of the roster, and the vacancies are filled in descending order. The maximum points on the roster differ based on the department and vacancies. In the judgement of R.K. Sabharwal and Others v. State of Punjab (1995), it was noted that the reservation is based on the roster system, and the roster will be implemented based on running accounts from year to year. 

What is de-reservation?

It is a process by which the vacancies allotted for the reserved category are opened up for the unreserved category. It is a very rare event that occurs when a post in Group A services remains vacant for a long period of time. The de-reservation of a vacancy is announced by the respective department or ministry. This move is implemented on vacancies allotted to SC, ST, or OBC after consulting with the National Commission for Scheduled Castes, the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes, and the National Commission for Backward Class, respectively. This is a move done in the public interest and to maintain the efficiency of administration as described in Article 335 of the Constitution. In the judgement of S.S. Sharma and Others v. Union of India (1980), it was observed that the course of de-reservation should be taken only when, beyond all contemplations and efforts, the reserved vacancies cannot be filled. 

What are the occasions of non-applicability of reservation?

  • In the case of temporary appointments, which are usually less than 45 days in duration.
  • Seasonal jobs that are paid based on the duration of work. This includes emergency services like disaster mitigation work, relief and rehabilitation work, etc. It also includes need-based public services.
  • Promotions within the same cadre. For example, if, through a selection method, a promotion is made from one Group A post to another Group A post, then no reservation is applied.
  • Scientific and technical posts that are in the higher cadre of Group A services. The selection is purely based on merit.
  • In the event of deputation to a higher cadre or absorption from another department.
  • When the post is a single cadre post, then reservation is not applied.

References

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here