MUKESH KUMAR vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 2020 SCC Online SC 148

RELEVANT FACTS:

The state of Uttarakhand was formed in the year 2001. On 05.09.2012 the State Government decided that all the public services in the State shall be filled up without providing any reservation to the reserved category (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes). Mr. Gyan Chand who was working as Assistant Commissioner and belonging to the Scheduled Caste community filed a writ petition in High Court of Uttarakhand for quashing the said order of State Government. The High Court relying on Indra Sawhney v. Union of India & Ors. and Jarnail Singh & Ors v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Ors. said that this order contrary to settled law and needs to struck down. Later an appeal was filed by Vinod Kumar and three others, belonging to Scheduled Caste working in PWD, filed a writ petition High Court to seeking a direction to State Government to prepare a separate list of eligible candidates according to the Public Service Commission Rules, 2003 and also to prepare a separate list for each category of eligible candidates of General, Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes for promotion to the post of Assistant (civil) Engineer in PWD. A direction was given to State Government to form a department promotion Committee for promotion of posts of Assistant Engineer after providing reservation to Schedule Tribes and Schedule Castes. The High Court sought a direction to the State Government to implement reservation in promotion to only members of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes for upcoming vacancies. Later a review petition was filed by Respondent i.e., State Government of Uttarakhand, and the High Court issued a direction to State Government to collect quantifiable data regarding the inadequate representation of the Scheduled Tribes and Castes in Public Services which would enable the State Government to provide reservation or not providing reservation. Aggrieved by the impugned order of High Court the present S.L.P. was filed by the Respondent i.e., State of Government.

ISSUE:

• Whether the State Government is bound to make reservations in public posts.
• Whether the decision by the State Government not to provide reservations can be only on the basis of quantifiable data relating to the adequacy of representation of persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

CONTENTIONS:

Appellant’s Contention:

The representative for State Government contended that the state is not duty-bound to provide reservation in promotion in public services. There is no need to collect quantifiable data after the state has decided to not provide reservations. They argued that there is no fundamental right to claim reservation in promotion. Article 16 (4) and Article 16 (4) (a) are merely enabling provisions. In Suresh Chand Gautam v. the State of UP, no direction can be given to State Government to collect quantifiable data based on which a decision to provide reservation in promotion should be taken, and also State is not bound to make reservations.

Respondent’s Contention:

The representative for reserved category employees submitted that State can’t refuse to collect quantifiable data regarding adequacy or inadequacy of representation of SC/ST in public services. Further, they argued that the state has a duty to provide reservation in promotion for the upliftment of members of Scheduled Tribes and Schedule Caste as provided in Article 16 (4) and Article 16 (4)
(A) of the Constitution of India. They argued that State can’t provide reservation only after when there is an adequate representation of SC/STs members in public services and for the same, a committee was formed by the Government of Uttarakhand. The Committee submitted its report which says that there is an inadequate representation of SC/STs members in government services. The representative contended that the state has a duty to provide reservation on the basis of the data collected by the committee.

JUDGEMENT:

The Judgement, in this case, came in the favor of appellants. The observation was that Article 16(4) and Article 16 (4) (a) are enabling provisions. The state is not bound to make reservations in the promotion of public services. It was said that even if the state government agrees to provide reservation in promotion in public posts then it has to show that there is an inadequate representation of SC/STs members in public services but if the state government has already been decided that it’s not going to provide reservation then no mandamus (to produce the quantifiable data) can be issued from this court.

The post Is the state duty-bound to provide reservation in promotion in public services? appeared first on LexForti .

Mrs Valsamma Paul Vs Cochin University And Others

FACTS:

In this case, the petitioner- Mrs. Valsamma Paul, a Syrian catholic of forward caste who had married a Latin catholic of backward caste and had applied for the vacant post in the Legal department of Cochin University which were reserved for the Latin Catholics. She was selected for the vacant post at first, but later a writ petition was filed against her appointment with the purview that a person of forward caste should not be allowed to claim benefits which are reserved for the members of backward caste as they have not faced the same adversaries that backward caste’s have faced and it would be unfair to them. After this writ judgement by the single bench the petitioner appealed in the supreme court.

ISSUE:

Whether under article 15(4) and 16(4) of the Indian Constitution, equal opportunities are given to the social and educational backward classes in the society?

PETITIONER CONTENTION:

The petitioner contended that birth should not be the only factor to be able to gain reservation and also other factors like social and natural disabilities should also be taken under consideration and as now she is the member of the Latin Catholic Community who are fisherman by tradition, as she would face social disadvantageous, she should be treated at par when receiving the benefits of reservation as well. As she was from a forward caste before and now after marrying a Latin catholic, she is subjected to the same treatment that they receive so to not provide her with the benefit of reservation would be discrimination under article 16(4) of the Indian constitution.

RESPONDENT CONTENTION:

The respondent countered the petitioner’s argument by saying that the petitioner has lived as an individual of forward caste community and had enjoyed all the privileges. Thus, a voluntary marriage into a backward caste family does not make her eligible for the benefits of reservation. The respondent mentioned if the petitioner can prove that she had faced discrimination in the past, only then she will be considered to receive the benefits of reservation. The respondent further mentioned that Articles 15(4) and 16(4) are for the benefit of backward class citizens due to social and natural backwardness e.g. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and so the criteria for which this is considered is only birth and no other means like conversion or marriage will be considered.

JUDGEMENT:

The bench of Justice K.Ramaswamy and B.Hansari gave the judgement after observing that the earlier judgement which was passed by the single bench proceeded only on the basis of canon law and several other factors like acceptance in the community were overlooked. So the court gave the final judgement that petitioner is not entitled to reservation under article 15(4) and 16(4) of the Indian constitution.

The post A person is not entitled to the benefit of reservation by marrying someone from the backward caste appeared first on LexForti .