Mukesh Kumar V. State Of Uttarakhand(2020) 3 SCC 1

Mukesh Kumar V. State Of Uttarakhand (2020) 3 SCC 1

INTRODUCTION: 

In India since ancient times, the people have been divided or discriminated against on the basis of their caste. At the initial stage, the caste or class system was made in respect of their work as Brahmins were considered priests, Kshatriyas were considered rulers or warriors, Vaishyas were considered merchants, skilled workers, and craftsmen and the Shudras were considered farmers, unskilled workers and servants. But as time passed it became rigid and according to their caste, they have been granted respect and social status in society, which lead to several problems In society. So, the framers of the Indian constitution have identified these problems and embodied certain provisions with respect to reservation. The policy regarding reservation is not a new concept. It has been accepted by Indian citizens and government for a long time to bring all the community on an equal footing and abolish the concept of inequality. For the purpose of this resolution, the Constitution of India has provided some special provisions for the advancement of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, further, the abolished untouchability and several other judgments were pronounced by Indian Judiciary. The motive behind the policy of the reservation was to upgrade the educational and social status of the deprived communities and with that, they will improve their lives. And the final aim of the provisions is to form a society in which all the people have been provided similar kind of respect and dignity as a part of natural rights without any discrimination based on caste or class.

FACTS OF THE CASE: 

This case has been disposed before the supreme court of India as an appeal regarding the promotion of the reservation in public services of SCs or STs for the post of Assistant Civil Engineer in public service, Department, Government of Uttrakhand. The Bench pronounced judgment in a similar case of appeals challenging the verdicts of the High Court on the matter of reservation for SCs or STs candidates in the public services to the department of Uttrakhand. The Uttarakhand Government, on 5th September 2012, resolved that all posts related to public services in the State shall be seated without providing any reservation to SCs or STs candidates. This decision of the State government has been objected to before the High Court and the court pronounced the judgment in April 2019. The High Court through review, acknowledged that it has made a misinterpretation. It also proposed that Article 16 (4A) was only an enabling provision. The meaning of the enabling provision is that it is a mandatory provision that enables or permits something to be fulfilled through a number of approaches. The state government is also directed to gather quantitative data regarding the deficiency of the representation of SCs or STs candidates in government services. The High Court further stated that this data would empower the State Government to examine and take decisions on the matter related to reservation. An appeal on this verdict, and other High Court verdicts in a similar matter, were disposed before the Supreme Court together.

ISSUES OF THE CASE: 

1. Whether the state government has obligation to provide reservations to STs and SCs or not?

 2. Whether the State government has obligation to promote the provisions related to the reservations of SCs and STs or not?

 3. Whether the right to claim reservation falls under the ambit of a fundamental right or not?

CONTENTION OF PETITIONER:

Arguments contended that there is no fundamental right to claim reservations in appointments or promotions to public posts and were made by Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar for some of the appellants. Learned counsel showing up for the held competitors fought that the state, first and foremost, shouldn’t, whenever, decline to gather the necessary information to reserve the spot openly benefits. Second, they emphasized that, in accordance with Articles 16(4) and 16(4A) of the Indian Constitution, the state is obligated to grant reservations for public services in order to facilitate social advancement. The right to equality and Article 14 would be violated if this were not done.

CONTENTION OF RESPONDENT:

 Arguments made by Senior Counsel Mukul Rohatgi and PS Narsimha for the Uttarakhand government. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that, in accordance with the provisions of the constitution, neither the state nor the applicant has a right to claim the reservation through a writ petition. It was additionally battled that the appealing party state has previously referenced that they will have no booking in the advancements. There was no extent of the M Nagaraj case as the equivalent was not similar for this situation.

JUDGEMENT: 

 The Hon’ble Supreme Court has stated that the Authorities of the State Government are not required to promote public appointments or positions to the individuals belonging to the SCs or STs and to generate a reservation for that purpose. The promotion of reservation does not fall under the ambit of the fundamental rights which can be maintained and hence no writ petition of mandamus can be issued for this purpose. The court further held that no fundamental right has been provided for an individual to move forward to claim reservation in promotions and the constitution. The court further stated that Articles 16 (4) and 16(4-A) are enabling provisions, providing the State Government the leeway to take into account and to grant reservations if the situation requires it. The particulars which have been assembled by the government authorities are being used only for the reasoning for the reservation of those groups of people. The state government does have not an obligation to promote the provisions related to reservation and it cannot be required to justify the decision with quantifiable data demonstrating the adequacy of representation of SCs and STs for the position of State Government services. The Hon’ble Supreme Court through this reasoning overturned the High Court’s directive in regards to all the upcoming vacancies for the position of Assistant Engineer shall be occupied by the SCs and STs only. And also stated that the pronounced judgment was entirely unjustified and is a violation of the provisions of the Constitution.

CONCLUSION: 

As we know that the Supreme Court of India is also known as the guardian of the Indian constitution because it has been handed over the responsibility of protector and interpreter of the constitution. In the parliamentary form of government, even the constitution can be amended several times. The judgment of the supreme court states that the state government will also have to provide reasoning behind its decision on reservations if it is challenged in a court of law. But the state government is also required to collect the imperial data while legislating the provisions related to reservation. If the central government observed that there is a necessity for provision regarding the reservation in public services then he will amend the provisions related to it. The state government has an obligation to fulfill all the conditions of the provisions that have been provided as the fundamental right in the Indian constitution. In this leading case, the court has interpreted that Articles 16 (4) and 16(4A) are considered enabling provisions which means that these provisions empower or permit the state government to legislate and grant reservations at a certain level to certain communities in not favorable for the society and to the people.

Rishu Anand, Law College Dehradun, Dehradun (VIII) Semester

Admin