Is the state obliged to have reservations in regards to the promotion of public providers? – –

Tap to follow:

Is the state obliged to have reservations about the promotion of public services? written by Avdhesh Parashar student at Maharashtra National Law University Aurangabad

MUKESH KUMAR vs. STAAT UTTARAKHAND 2020 SCC Online SC 148

RELEVANT FACTS:

The state of Uttarakhand was established in 2001. On September 5, 2012, the state government decided that all public services in the state should be filled without reservation of the reserved category (planned castes and planned tribes). Mr. Gyan Chand, who served as the deputy commissioner and was a member of the community of planned castes, filed a written petition with the High Court of Uttarakhand for the above-mentioned state government order to be lifted. The High Court relies on Indra Sawhney v Union of India & Ors. and Jarnail Singh & Ors v Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Ors. said this order is against the established law and must be struck down. Later, Vinod Kumar and three other members of the Scheduled Caste active in PWD appealed and filed a written petition with the High Court for an instruction to the state government, a separate list of eligible candidates under the rules of the commission for the civil service from 2003 and also a separate list for each category of eligible candidates of the General, Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes for promotion to Assistant (Civil) Engineer in PWD. The state government was directed to form a departmental promotion committee for the promotion of assistant engineer posts after reserving Schedule Tribes and Schedule Castes. The High Court asked the state government for an instruction to have reservations about future vacancies for members of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes only. Later the Respondent, i.e. the Uttarakhand state government, filed a petition for review and the High Court ordered the state government to collect quantifiable data on the inadequate public service representation of the proposed tribes and castes that would allow the state government to do so provide reservation or no reservation. Concerned by the contested order of the High Court, the present SLP was filed by the Respondent, ie the State of the Government.

PROBLEM:

  • Whether the state government is obliged to make reservations in public offices.
  • Whether the state government’s decision not to have reservations can only be made on the basis of quantifiable data on the adequacy of representation of individuals belonging to planned castes and planned tribes.

CONTENT:

Allegation of the complainant:

The representative of the state government asserted that the state was not obliged to raise reservations about the promotion of public services. There is no need to collect quantifiable data after the state decides not to make reservations. They argued that there is no fundamental right to make a reservation on carriage. Article 16 (4) and Article 16 (4) (a) only allow provisions. In the Suresh Chand Gautam v. UP State, no instruction can be given to the state government to collect quantifiable data on the basis of which a decision on a reservation on carriage should be made, nor is the state required to make reservations.

Statement of the respondent:

The representative for employees in the reserved category argued that the state could not refuse to collect quantifiable data on the adequacy or inadequacy of SC / ST representation in the public service. They also argued that the state had a duty to raise reservations to encourage the uprising of members of the proposed tribes and the proposed caste under Articles 16 (4) and 16 (4).
(A) the Constitution of India. They argued that the state could only raise reservations if there was adequate representation of SC / ST members in the public service and a committee had been set up by the Uttarakhand government to do this. The committee presented its report which found SC / ST members to be underrepresented in government services. The representative alleged that the state had a duty to enter a reservation based on the data collected by the committee.

EVALUATION:

The judgment in this case came in favor of the appellant. The observation was that Articles 16 (4) and 16 (4) (a) allow provisions. The state is not obliged to make reservations about the promotion of public services. It has been said that even if the state government agrees to have reservations about promotion in public office, it must prove that the SC / ST members are not adequately represented in the public service, but the state government has already decided that so is not the case. In order to make a reservation, this court cannot issue a mandamus (for creating the quantifiable data).

Comments are closed.