What did the Supreme Court say on reservation in promotion, understand in 5 points

83
- Advertisement -

New Delhi : (ii) refused to fix any criteria for promotion in the promotion of SC/ST. The Supreme Court has observed that it is the duty of the State to collect data on the inadequate representation of SC/STs for reservation in promotions for SC/STs in government jobs. The Supreme Court said that the states are bound to collect quantitative data. Quantitative data in respect of inadequate representation of SCs and STs cannot be seen in relation to the entire service or group, but insufficient representation should be seen with reference to the cadre or grade of the posts for which promotion is sought. In such a situation, quantitative data will be collected in view of the cadre in which promotion is required.

It is the job of the state to collect data for reservation in promotion.
It is clear from the judgment of the Supreme Court that it is the job of the state to look into the issue of inadequate representation and it is also the job of the state to prepare the data for that. In such a situation, the state government will have to prepare the data of inadequate representation on grade basis as per the judgment of the Supreme Court and then give reservation in promotion to SC/ST. The state and the Center argued that there should be no compulsion to collect insufficient data as the issue of reservation in promotion is stuck. Governments argued that according to their roster, reservation in promotion should be allowed. But the Supreme Court has made it clear that in the light of its earlier judgment in the case involving Nagraj and Janrail Singh, it wants to say that it will not set the criteria for collecting data for inadequate representation, but it is the duty of the state to Prepare data of inadequate representation. In such a situation, for the reservation in the promotion of AC and ST, the states will have to prepare the data of inadequate representation and after that they will be able to give reservation in the promotion.

Quantitative data will not be seen with reference to the entire service or group but with respect to the cadre
A bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao, Sanjiv Khanna and BR Gavai observed that as far as collection of quantitative data for the unit is concerned, it is the duty of the State to collect the data to ascertain the inadequate representation. This quantitative data may not refer to the entire class or group or service, but only to the grade or category in which promotion is required. Here the unit cadre will be seen in the context and there will be inadequate representation for the same. If the data is collected in respect of the whole service then all this will become meaningless. The Supreme Court said that in this case the judgments given in the case related to Nagraj and Jarnail Singh will be applicable. In the case related to BK Pavitra, the Supreme Court had concluded that the data should be collected on the basis of group and not on the basis of cadre. The Supreme Court on Friday said that the judgment and conclusion of the Supreme Court in the case related to BK Pavitra is against the judgment of five judges in the Nagraj Judgment and Jarnail Singh case. The Supreme Court said that we leave it to the State Government in the light of the Jarnail Singh Judgment to collect the data of inadequate representation and that data is in respect of the cadre in which promotion is sought.

- Advertisement -

The constitution states that there is insufficient representation for reservation in promotion.
The Supreme Court said that the basic requirement for reservation in promotion is to detect insufficient representation and collect quantitative data for the same. In the case related to M Nagaraj and Jarnail Singh, the Supreme Court had made it clear that the quantitative data would be based on the unit i.e. cadre. The data collection will not be aggregated in view of inadequate representation of the entire service but in view of the cadre. At the same time, in the case related to BK Pavitra, the Supreme Court had concluded that the quantitative data would be in relation to the unit and the unit meant the service and not the cadre. The Supreme Court in its 68-page judgment on Friday made it clear that Article 16(4)(a) of the Constitution states that there will be reservation in promotion, but for this the state will have to see that there is insufficient representation. Promotion takes place in the class of service. In such a situation, if the quantitative data for inadequate representation is according to the group or service, then it will be against the decision of Nagraj and Jarnail Singh related suit.

The state has to justify in view of the cadre that there is insufficient representation
The state has to justify the inadequate representation in view of the cadre for giving reservation in promotion. Collecting data on group and service basis will not reveal how inadequately represented the cadre is. The roster is prepared according to the cadre. The court clarified that quantitative data is collected to ascertain the representation of SC/STs so that the reservation in promotion is cadre wise and the need for promotion where there is insufficient representation. The same arrangement was given in the Nagraj and Jarnail Singh Judgments and contrary to that in the BK Pavitra case, the Supreme Court had ruled that the data would not be cadre wise. The Supreme Court has termed the arrangement given in the BK Pavitra case as contrary to law. The Supreme Court said that we are not giving any opinion in a case-wise manner, but we have just answered the common question in the whole application and the next hearing will be done on February 24.

Nagraj Judgment
In the matter of giving reservation in promotion to SC/ST, the Supreme Court gave the order in Nagraj case in 2006. In the 2006 Nagaraj Judgment, the Supreme Court had said that the ceiling limit of 50 per cent would be applicable in case of reservation in promotions, applying the principle of creamy layer, collecting data to detect backwardness and insufficient representation of the state. . The government will see inadequate representation and administrative efficiency.

Jarnail Singh Judgment
After this the matter came up again in the Supreme Court and the question was whether the arrangement given in the Nagraj Judgment regarding reservation in promotion needs to be reconsidered or not? Whether that judgment should be sent before a seven-judge Constitutional Bench for review or not. In the case related to Jarnail Singh, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court refused to refer the decision given in 2018 to 7 judges but rejected an arrangement given in the Nagraj Judgment, which said that reservation in promotion should be given. Before that the state will have to collect the data of backwardness. That is, there is no need to collect data of backwardness before reservation in SC ST promotion, but only data of inadequate representation will have to be collected.

Center and state arguments
Many applications have been filed in this matter in the Supreme Court on behalf of the Central Government and the states. It has been said in the petition that there is still ambiguity in the matter of reservation in promotion, due to which all the appointments have been stopped. It was told by the state governments and the center that there are many issues which are still open and due to this many posts are lying vacant due to lack of reservation in promotion. During the hearing, the Attorney General told the Supreme Court that even after 75 years, the people of SC/ST category have not been brought to the level of merit of the forward class. The government’s argument was that according to the roster, they should be allowed to give reservation in promotion. During the hearing, the Supreme Court had said that it is not ready to reconsider the judgment given in the case related to Nagraj Judgment and Jarnail Singh. The Supreme Court had asked the Central Government to state what exercises it has done to provide reservation in promotion to SCs and STs and whether it has been found that they are inadequately represented in the job and that giving reservation has any adverse effect on the whole. Will not done. The Supreme Court had said that the government has to give a justification that there is insufficient representation in a particular cadre and that giving reservation will not adversely affect the efficiency of any administration.

[Attribution to NBT]

- Advertisement -