Image Courtesy: deccanherald.com
Hearing a petition against the quashing of a 2002 resolution of the Orissa Government, the Supreme court followed the principle that reservations in promotions cannot be granted without examining adequacy of representation in promotional posts. The resolution passed in 2002 provided reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in promotional posts in Orissa Administrative Service with consequential seniority.
The resolution was quashed by the Orissa High Court and this decision was upheld by the Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Mohan M Shantana Goudar and R Subhash Reddy. The Orissa High Court had quashed the resolution for not having any legal basis and mainly on the ground that it can neither be termed as a law in exercise of enabling power of the State under Article 16(4A) of the Constitution nor does it satisfy the parameter laid down by the Supreme Court.
Reliance was placed on M Nagaraj v Union of India in which the validity of Article 16(4A) which was inserted by the 85th Amendment to the Constitution, was upheld. The Court held that the State is not bound to make reservation for SC/STs in matters of promotion but if it wishes to exercise this discretion, it is bound to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment. This is to be done while keeping in mind the maintenance of efficiency as indicated by Article 335 of the Indian Constitution.
The Bench held that since the resolution was issued merely by referring to the instructions of the Union of India without examining the adequacy of representation in promotional posts, there is no reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the Orissa High Court. The bench further held that since the resolution was not passed basis any legislation or any executive order to that effect, the resolution cannot be termed as law made in exercise of enabling power of the State and nor does it satisfy the parameters laid down in the various precedents set by the previous judgments of the Supreme Court.
The complete judgment can be read here.
Related: