Civil Appeal no. 1226 of 2020
Hon’ble Judges/Coram:
L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta, JJ.
Decided on: 07.02.2020
Facts of the case:
• For the gathering of quantifiable data associated with the adequacy or inadequacy of the representation of backward of reserved communities, a committee was made after the high court judgment in Vinod Prakash Nautiyal case.
• It was decided by the state government that this time there will be no reservation provided for the scheduled cases or scheduled tribes in all of the public posts.
• For countermanding the decision of state government, a writ petition was filed in the high court.
• The high court stated that the act done by the government is contrary to the law.
• Gathering of quantifiable data associated with the representation of inadequacy of backward or reserved classes before offering the reservations in promotion posts was not found necessary by the high court.
• For the time being the Respondents filed an application for review of the judgement.
• The high court again stated that the state government was compelled to gather the quantifiable data associated with the inadequacy of representation of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes before giving job reservations in job promotions.
• In the case of Jarnail Singh the high court stated that gathering quantifiable data associated with the inadequacy of representation of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes is not a necessity but in this case, it was stated by the high court that gathering of quantifiable data associated with the inadequacy of representation of the schedules castes and scheduled tribes is a necessity. But later on, the state government was entreated to decide on their own that whether reservations should be provided or not to the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes of the state taking into account the quantifiable data associated with their representation.
Issues:
• Claiming reservation in promotions is a fundamental right or not?
• Is the state government is bound to make reservations or not?
• A court can issue a writ of mandamus directing the state government to make reservations or not?
Judgment-
• The high court by a formal action put an end to the proceedings of the state government by declaring it as being contrary to the law declared in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India and Ors.
• It was also held by the high court that gathering of quantifiable data associated with the inadequacy of representation of the schedules castes and scheduled tribes is not a necessity.
• When the respondents filed an application of the review of the judgment the high court noticed that it carried out an error in its first judgment and then declared that the state government was compelled to gather the quantifiable data associated with the inadequacy of representation of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes before giving job reservations in job promotions. And, it was affirmed that the state government can only give reservations after analyzing the data gathered.
• It was claimed by the state of Uttarakhand that claiming the reservations in appointment or promotions for public posts is not a fundamental right. Article 16(4) and 16(4-A) do not confer fundamental right to claim reservations in promotion.
• It was held by the honorable supreme court that the state government has the authority to decide whether to provide reservations or not by going through the gathered data arranged by the commission or committee.
• The judgment also says that no writ of mandamus could be issued by the court asking the state government to provide reservations to the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes of the state.
Impact:
As the main issue of this case was the reservations to SCs and STs in promotions. the adjudications invalidated the rights of SCs and STs of reservations strengthened the latest social disturbance against Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) created chaos in the parliament. It made a huge impact on the backward community feeling insecure about their rights.
