| CITATION | (2014) 8 SCC |
| DATE | 15TH JULY, 2014 |
| COURT | Supreme Court of India. |
| CASE TYPE | Civil Appellate Jurisdiction. |
| CASE NO. | 6046 – 6047 of 2004 |
| APPELLANT | ROHTAS BHANKHAR & OTHERS |
| RESPONDENT | ROHTAS BHANKHAR & OTHERS |
| BENCH | Chief Justice, Jagdish Singh Khehar, J. Chelameswar, A.K. Sikri, Rohinton Fali Nariman |
| REFERRED | Article 16, Article 16(4), article 16(4-A), Article 335, Kuldeep Singh case, Indra Sawhney. |
BACKGROUND
In this caste the main issue concerns the “Extent of Reservation”. The State concerned reasons such as backwardness, inadequacy of representation and overall administrative efficiency (before making provision for reservation). As the State is not bound to make reservation for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in matters of promotions and if they exercise their discretion and make such provision, the State has to collect quantitative data showing backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment in addition to compliance with Article 335. Thus is makes clear that, even if the State has compelling reasons, the State will have to look that, the reservation provision does not lead to breach the ceiling limit of 50% or erase the creamy layer or extend the reservation indefinitely.
FACTS
In the year 1970, an office memorandum was issued by the Department of Personnel for the purpose of bringing a lightening in the standards of Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes (in cases of departmental competitive examinations and also in the confirmation examinations). As reported, the said Office memorandum was in force for around 17 years, and the same was withdrawn by the department through the issuance of a new memorandum in the year 1997. Thus the said withdrawal led to the amendment of ‘Central Secretariat Service Officers Grade or Stenographers grade (Limited departmental examination) regulations, 1964, resulting in Central Secretariat Service Officers Grade or Stenographers grade (Limited departmental examination) regulations, 1998 and the result of this amendment was omitted on and from 1997.
ISSUES
- Does the impugned amendments restricts only the Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes?
- Whether the 1997 office memorandum is illegal?
- Whether the authorities (The central government and others) were permitted to maintain a lesser number of marks for the qualification when it comes to the promotion of Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes or not?
ARGUMENT
- The observation of the case of Kuldeep Singh ( Introduction of Article 16(4A) of the Constitution of India along with the duties levied on the state under Article 46 of the Constitution of India which fall under Directive Principles of State Policy (The State shall promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people, and, in particular, of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation).
- The laws laid down in the case of Indira Sawhney which stated that any laws given at the time of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court shall over rule the previous laws due to which the proviso to the Rule 8 was deleted when the limited departmental examination regulation was introduced.
- The appellant also questioned the reduction of the marks by 55 percent.
JUDGMENT
The question on the extent of reservation was been answered by citing the decision of the Kuldeep Singh case, where the power of the state to provide the reservation in the cases of promotions was not made mandatory. Thus the state should use such a discretionary power only when the need arises, there are engrossing reasons to make the reservations in the aspect of promotions. Therefore they should also make sure that the limit fixed in the case of Indra Sawhney which was 50% shall not exceed and also the creamy layer. The court looked upon the importance of Article 16(4A). It was also noted that there is no obligation vested on the state to ensure such reservation in favour of these Schedules Castes and Scheduled Tribes in matters of the concept of creamy layer, limit of 50% and so on. Looking into it, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the present case has held that equality under article 16 shall collapse if the requirements such as the 50% limit and the compelling reason to make the reservations are omitted. The impugned order of 1997 was set off and the decision of the Administrative tribunal was also held void.
REFERENCE
- https://indiankanoon.org
- https://main.sci.gov
- Documents.doptcircular.nic.in
- Lawfaculty.du.ac.in
- Frontline.thehindu.com
This Article is written by Sakshi A Mirgal of B.C.Thakur college of Law, New Panvel (University of Mumbai), Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
