Reservation in Promotion Case: Jarnail Singh Vs Lachhmi Narain Gupta

 

Reservation in Promotion Cases

 FACTS 

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj vs Union of India upheld the validity of the 85th Constitutional Amendment, which provided reservation in promotion.

However, the Court noted that the State is not bound to make reservations for SCs and STs in promotion matters. To exercise its discretion, the State has to collect quantifiable data which shows the backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment.

In 2018, a 5-judge Bench in Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta held that the condition of states giving quantifiable data with respect to inadequate representation still stands and that inadequacy of representation has to be in relation to specific cadre and not in proportion to SC/ST population in the State.

However, there were still some ambiguities regarding reservations in promotions which stalled several appointments. Thus, the Union and State governments asked the Supreme Court to give clarifications.

 WHAT DID THE COURT SAY? 

A 3 Judge Bench of the Supreme Court answered the following six questions-

• What is the yardstick one would use to arrive at quantifiable data showing an inadequate representation of SCs and STs in public employment? 

The SC held that no yardstick can be laid down for determining the adequacy of representation of SCs and STs in promotional posts for the purpose of providing reservation. The determination of whether SCs and STs have an inadequate representation in services is left to the State's discretion because it depends on various factors that the Court cannot foresee.

• What is the unit for which quantitative data showing inadequate representation is required to be collected?

The Court said that the right to be considered for an appointment can only be claimed in respect of a post in a cadre. As a consequence, the percentage of reservations has to be worked out in relation to the number of posts which form the cadre strength. The court also said that the entire service cannot be considered to be a cadre for the purpose of promotion from one post to a higher post in a different grade. Promotion is made from one grade to the next higher grade, in relation to which cadres are constituted.

• Whether the proportion of the population of SCs and STs to the population of India should be taken to be the test for determining the adequacy of representation in promotional posts for the purposes of Article 16(4-A)?

The Supreme Court reiterated that it is for the State to assess the inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs in promotional posts, by taking into account relevant factors and did not express any opinion in this regard. 

• Should there be a time period for reviewing the inadequacy of representation?

The apex Court agreed that the data collected to determine the inadequacy of representation for the purpose of providing reservation in promotions need to be reviewed periodically.

• Whether the judgment in M. Nagaraj's case can be said to operate prospectively?

The judgment of M. Nagaraj was given in 2006, where the Court interpreted Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution which came into effect in 1995. The SC said that it is necessary to declare the M. Nagaraj judgement to have a prospective effect because applying the principles laid down in the case from 1995 would be detrimental to the interests of a number of civil servants and would have an effect of unsettling the seniority of individuals over a long period of time.

• Whether quantifiable data showing the inadequacy of representation can be collected on the basis of sampling methods, as held by this Court in B.K.Pavitra & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.?

The Court stated that in the BK Pavitra case, it was held that the expression ‘cadre’ has no fixed meaning in service jurisprudence and hence, the collection of data on the basis of ‘groups’ is valid. On the contrary, in M. Nagaraj's case, it was held that the unit for collection of quantifiable data is cadre and not services as has been held in B.K. Pavitra. The Court observed that for the purpose of collection of quantifiable data to assess the representation of SCs and STs for the purpose of providing reservation in promotions, cadre, which is part of a ‘group’, is the unit and the data has to be collected with respect to each cadre.

Therefore, the conclusion in B.K. Pavitra II approving the collection of data on the basis of ‘groups’ and not cadres is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in M. Nagaraj and Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, (2018).