case laws

Reservation In Promotion – B.K. Pavitra Vs. U.O.I.

Reservation In Promotion - B.K. Pavitra Vs. U.O.I.

Here 3 cases and the name of these cases are the same i.e. B.K. Pavitra Vs. U.O.I. And all of these 3 cases deal with the same matter, i.e. Reservation In Promotion. B.K. Pavitra Vs. Union of India 2017, 2019, 2020. These three cases deal with the Reservation in promotion means seniority of promotion in government jobs.

Introduction of Reservation In Promotion – B.K. Pavitra Vs. U.O.I.

Article 16 of the Indian Constitution enables states to make laws regarding the reservation of SC / STS in central and state jobs. Talking about reservations there have been imperative judgments laid out in the matter, such as Indra Sawhney vs. U.O.I in which it was upheld by a nine judges bench that the reservation contemplated under Article 16 ( 4 ) must be only to the extent of fifty percent and is applicable only for appointments and not promotions.

Next, the important case with this respect is M. Nagaraj vs. U.O.I wherein it was held that in order to bring promotions made within the purview of Article 16 ( 4 ), it is mandatory for the state to collect quantifiable data on three facts – inadequate representation of that class in public employment; backwardness of the class; and the overall impact on the efficiency as per Article 335 of the constitution.

Art 335 – Claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to services and posts.

Jarnail Singh vs Lachhmi Narain Gupta

In this case, the bench held that Nagaraj’s insistence on the collection of quantifiable data on backwardness in relation to the SCs and STs was contrary to Indra Sawhney, and therefore, bad in law. But the bench approved Nagaraj’s insistence on the proof for inadequate representation of classes for whom promotional posts are reserved, and on submission of additional proof that efficiency would not be impacted by such reservation (Reservation in promotion), because of Article 335.

BK Pavitra v UOI, 2017

The case arises when the State of Karnataka implemented a Karnataka 2002 Act [ the Karnataka Determination of Seniority of the Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of the Reservation ( to the Posts in the Civil Services of the State ) Act ] after getting assent from the President.

This Act was declared invalid by the Supreme Court’s two judges bench (Js. AK Goel and UU Lalit) on the ground that such Act was made with inadequate quantifiable data that didn’t take into consideration the appropriate representation of the backward classes in the employment sector, the backwardness of those classes and the overall impact of such provision on the efficiency of administration as per Article 335.

The court further held that this is a mandate condition that has to be in order to formulate any provisions in regards to promotions of SC / STs in the government employment under article 16 (4A) of the Indian Constitution. The Court was of the firm view that a fresh exercise in the light of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in M. Nagaraj is categorically imperative.

After the 2017 judgment Court views for Reservation In Promotion

Consequently, after this judgment, the Karnataka Government made a committee namely Ratna Prabha Committee that was assigned to work on the data in an efficient and quantifiable manner. The Committee has to determine the proper representation of the class, its backwardness, and the overall impact of such provisions over the particular class.

Based on the report and the findings of the Committee, the legislature of Karnataka passed the Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservation ( To the Posts in the Civil Services of the State ) Bill 2017, which got the President’s assent in 2018 and became an Act ( hereinafter called as The Reservation Act, 2018 ).

BK Pavitra v UOI, 2019 Subsequently, the Reservation Act, 2018 was challenged before the Supreme Court in the case of B.K. Pavitra II. In the said case the Petitioner challenged the legality and constitutional validity of the said Act, calling it ultra-vires the Constitution.

Also argued violation of the separation of powers as the legislature and judiciary are distinct bodies The Court declared the Reservations Bill, 2018 to be constitutional. On the 10th of May, 2019, the Supreme Court bench of Justices Dr. D.Y Chandrachud and Justice U.U. Lalit held that the legislature is vested with plenary powers as per the Constitution of India.

Curative legislation is constitutionally permissible and is not an encroachment on judicial power, the bench held. Such a law is valid because it removes the basis of the Supreme Court’s decision. The legislature of Karnataka duly exercised the power within its right by appointing Ratna Prabha Committee for the collection, analysis of quantifiable data on the mandatory factors as laid in the M. Nagaraj case which was missing in the previous case of B.K. Pavitra.

BK Pavitra v UOI, 2019

The adequacy of representation has to be assessed with reference to a benchmark on adequacy. Relying on Indra Sawhney, the bench held that the opinion of the government on the adequacy of representation of the SCs and STs in the public services of the state is a matter which forms a part of the subjective satisfaction of the state.

The bench held that the Ratna Prabha Committee cannot be held to have acted arbitrarily in adopting recourse to sampling methodologies or to have based its conclusions on any extraneous or irrelevant material. The data which was collected pertained to 31 departments that are representative in character. The state has analyzed the data which is both relevant and representative, before drawing its conclusions.

Even if there were to be some errors in data collection, that will not justify the invalidation of law which the competent legislature was within its power to enact, the bench further clarified.

A “meritorious” candidate is not merely one who is “talented” or “successful” but also one whose appointment fulfills the constitutional goals of uplifting the members of the SCs and STS and ensuring a diverse and representative administration.

The efficiency of administration in the affairs of the Union or of a State must be defined in an inclusive sense, where diverse segments of society Find representation as a true aspiration of governance by and for the people. The Court in B.K. Pavitra II observed that the Karnataka government had worked on the underlying cause for declaring the act invalid in 2017.

The government rem died and removed the basis of the decision given previously by the court, which is constitutional as the government has plenary powers to exercise its duty. BK Pavitra v UOI, 2020 The Petitioners argued that the present Miscellaneous Application is for directions and not for review of the recent judgment of this Court in B K Pavitra II; and the directions which have been sought emanate from the judgment of this Court in B K Pavitra II.

– Direct the State of Karnataka to apply a ‘ creamy layer ‘ and to exclude individuals belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes who no longer require a reservation in Promotion.

– Retrain the State and its instrumentalities from taking any action where no exercise is undertaken for that service or cadre on the adequacy or where there is the adequacy of representation particular when every specific application of order in relation to each cadre must be Nagaraj compliant.

The present MAs are, in effect, a substantive challenge to the actions of the state government in implementing the Reservation Act 2018. If the applicants are aggrieved by the steps which have been taken by the State government, it is open to them to pursue a substantive remedy for challenging the steps taken by the State government in independent proceedings.

Conclusion about Reservation In Promotion – B.K. Pavitra Vs. U.O.I.

The Supreme Court has upheld the Constitutional validity of the Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservation ( To the Posts in the Civil Services of the State ) Act 2018. The said enactment provided for consequential seniority to persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes promoted under the reservation policy of the State of Karnataka.

Click to comment

Most Popular

To Top