New Delhi: Supreme court On Friday it refused to “set any criteria” for granting reservation in promotion to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in government jobs.
A three-judge bench headed by Justice Nageswara Rao states that states are obliged to collect data on the inadequacy of representation SC/ST,
“Based on the arguments, we have divided into six points. There is a criterion. In the light of Jarnail Singh and Nagraj, we have said that we cannot have any criterion.
“With respect to the unit for collecting quantitative data, we have said that the state is bound to collect quantitative data,” said the bench, also comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and BR Gavai.
The apex court said that the collection of information regarding the inadequacy of representation of SC/ST cannot be with reference to the entire service or class, but it should pertain to the grade/category of the posts to which promotion is sought. Has been.
“The cadre, which should be the unit for collection of quantitative data in respect of promotional posts, shall be meaningless if the data relating to representation of SC/ST is with reference to the entire service,” the bench said.
With regard to proportional representation and testing of adequacy, the apex court said that it has not gone into this aspect and left it to the states to assess the inadequacy of representation of SCs/STs in the promotion of the post, taking into account the relevant factors. Have given.
The top court had reserved its decision on 26 October 2021.
The Center had earlier asked the court to lay down a definite and conclusive basis for the Union of India and the states to implement reservation in promotions to SCs and STs in government jobs.
attorney general KK VenugopaliAppearing for the Centre, had submitted that SC/STs have been alienated from the mainstream over the years and “we have to bring an equalizer (in the form of reservation) in the interest of the country to give them equal opportunity”.
“If you do not create a definite conclusive ground that the states and the union will follow, there will be a lot of litigation. There will never be an end to the issue on which principle reservation should be made..,” the AG had said. The bench had earlier mentioned that it would not reopen its decision on the issue of giving reservation in promotion to SCs and STs and said it was for the states to decide how they were going to implement it.
Venugopal had cited the decisions of the apex court from the 1992 Indra Sawhney judgment to the 2018 Jarnail Singh judgment, known as the Mandal Commission case.
Mandal’s decision had ruled out the possibility of quota in promotion.
Venugopal had said that till 1975, 3.5 per cent SCs and 0.62 per cent STs were in government employment and this is an average figure.
He had said that the SC and ST figures in government employment rose to 17.5 and 6.8 per cent respectively in 2008, which are still low and justify such quotas.
In 2018, a five-judge constitution bench had refused to refer the 2006 judgment in the M Nagaraj case, which extended the concept of creamy layer for SCs and STs, to a larger seven-judge bench for reconsideration. went.
It paved the way for quotas for promotion in government jobs to SCs and STs and modified the 2006 judgment to such an extent that states would not be required to “collect quantitative data” reflecting backwardness among these communities. . To justify reservation in promotion.
A three-judge bench headed by Justice Nageswara Rao states that states are obliged to collect data on the inadequacy of representation SC/ST,
“Based on the arguments, we have divided into six points. There is a criterion. In the light of Jarnail Singh and Nagraj, we have said that we cannot have any criterion.
“With respect to the unit for collecting quantitative data, we have said that the state is bound to collect quantitative data,” said the bench, also comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and BR Gavai.
The apex court said that the collection of information regarding the inadequacy of representation of SC/ST cannot be with reference to the entire service or class, but it should pertain to the grade/category of the posts to which promotion is sought. Has been.
“The cadre, which should be the unit for collection of quantitative data in respect of promotional posts, shall be meaningless if the data relating to representation of SC/ST is with reference to the entire service,” the bench said.
With regard to proportional representation and testing of adequacy, the apex court said that it has not gone into this aspect and left it to the states to assess the inadequacy of representation of SCs/STs in the promotion of the post, taking into account the relevant factors. Have given.
The top court had reserved its decision on 26 October 2021.
The Center had earlier asked the court to lay down a definite and conclusive basis for the Union of India and the states to implement reservation in promotions to SCs and STs in government jobs.
attorney general KK VenugopaliAppearing for the Centre, had submitted that SC/STs have been alienated from the mainstream over the years and “we have to bring an equalizer (in the form of reservation) in the interest of the country to give them equal opportunity”.
“If you do not create a definite conclusive ground that the states and the union will follow, there will be a lot of litigation. There will never be an end to the issue on which principle reservation should be made..,” the AG had said. The bench had earlier mentioned that it would not reopen its decision on the issue of giving reservation in promotion to SCs and STs and said it was for the states to decide how they were going to implement it.
Venugopal had cited the decisions of the apex court from the 1992 Indra Sawhney judgment to the 2018 Jarnail Singh judgment, known as the Mandal Commission case.
Mandal’s decision had ruled out the possibility of quota in promotion.
Venugopal had said that till 1975, 3.5 per cent SCs and 0.62 per cent STs were in government employment and this is an average figure.
He had said that the SC and ST figures in government employment rose to 17.5 and 6.8 per cent respectively in 2008, which are still low and justify such quotas.
In 2018, a five-judge constitution bench had refused to refer the 2006 judgment in the M Nagaraj case, which extended the concept of creamy layer for SCs and STs, to a larger seven-judge bench for reconsideration. went.
It paved the way for quotas for promotion in government jobs to SCs and STs and modified the 2006 judgment to such an extent that states would not be required to “collect quantitative data” reflecting backwardness among these communities. . To justify reservation in promotion.
,