State government is not bound to provide reservation in promotion.

By ROMA SINGH

On the day of 7 february 2020 the supreme court decision came against the uttrakhand government 5 September 2012 decisions describes about the fill all post in public services in the state without giving reservation  schedule caste and schedule tribes.

This decision of the government was challenged in the uttrakhand High court .Which  was rejected. Supreme court said that Reservation is not a fundamental right.
Need for reservation

1-Reservation was arranged for those castes of society who were viewed as inferior in spirit and were considered socially and economically weak so that people of this caste should come forward in society and people should not look at them with inferiority complex.
2-Therefore, some of the government jobs were reserved for them so that their social and economic development could be done.
3-Due to caste system, people of lower caste were hated, so it was necessary to bring reservation.
4-Reservation was necessary to bring the level of lower casts up. Schedule caste and schedule tribe in indian constitution
Article 341 & Article 342 defines about the schedule castes and schedule tribes
Article 341 – Schedule castes—–
The President [may with respect to any State [or Union territory], and where it is a State [***], after consultation with the Governor [***] thereof,] by public notification specify the castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within castes, races or tribes which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Castes in relation to that State [or Union territory, as the case may be].
(2) Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Castes specified in a notification issued under clause (1) any caste, race or tribe or part of or group within any caste, race or tribe, but save as aforesaid a notification issued under the said clause shall not be varied by any subsequent notification.
Article 342 Schedule Tribes
The President [may with respect to any State [or Union territory], and where it is a State [***], after consultation with the Governor [***] thereof,] by public notification  specify the tribes or tribal communities or part of or groups within tribes or tribal communities which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State [or Union territory, as the case may be].
(2) Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Tribes specified in a notification issued under clause (1) any tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe or tribal community, but save as aforesaid a notification issued under the said clause shall not be varied by any subsequent notification.
.….The facts of the case …
Vinod Prakash Nautiyal & Others v. State of Uttarakhand & Others
In that famous judgment, the Uttarakhand High Court today declared unconstitutional the provision of caste-based promotion in government services.
*Caste-based promotion cannot be validated without following the Supreme Court’s decision on this issue.
*A division bench of Chief Justice Barin Ghosh and Justice UC Dhyani told the government that it could enact a new law regarding promotion only on the basis of caste.
*After collecting relevant data regarding the exact status of the benefits provided under caste-based promotion to people belonging to SC / ST.  On the plea of ​​Junior Engineer Vinod Prakash Nautiyal of PWD, the court further said that the government can give employment on the basis of caste, but it cannot be the basis of promotion.
* In his petition, Nautiyal said that he was being denied promotion during the last 30 years, while his juniors were being promoted on the basis of caste.  The court also rejected the state government’s argument that it was free to take decisions regarding promotion on the basis of caste.
* The government’s counsel had argued that the court cannot interfere in the promotion process that the government takes independently. The court also rejected the state government’s argument that it should take decisions regarding promotion on the basis of caste  Was free.
*The government’s counsel had argued that the court cannot interfere in the promotion process that the government takes independently.
*The court also rejected the state government’s argument that it should take decisions regarding promotion on the basis of caste  Was free.
*The government’s counsel had argued that the court cannot interfere with the promotion process that the government takes independently.
When promotion added in indian constitution In 77nd Amendment Act 1995 it added in Article 16  clause(4-A) It provides that—
    “Nothing in this Article shall prevent the state from making Any provision for reservation in matters of promotion to any class or classes of post of service of the state in favour of the schedule castes and schedule Tribes which in the opinion of the state are not adequately  represented in the service under the state”
In indira sawhney v. Union of india AIR 1993 SC 477
It was popularly known as MANDAL case In 1979 prime minister morarji desai established a commission for finding the total socially and  backward classes. Then in 1980 the total number of the socially and exotically backward was 3743 then it  was said that government will provide them reservation for progress. So it was also held that that the reservation will be only in Appointment not in promotion. Then parliament said that it was wrong then parliament passed  the 77th Amendment for reservation in promotion..
Main keynotes of this indira sawhney’s case
1 Reservation shall not exceed 50 percent.
2.Backward class of citizens in Article 16(4) can be identified on the basic of caste and not only on economic basic but caste alone cannot be the basis for consideration.
3.backward  classes in Article 16(4) are not similar to as socially and educationally backward in article 15(4)
4.Reservation shall not exceed 50 percent.
5. No Reservation in promotion.
No fundamental Right to claim quota in promotion so state is not bound to give reservation
:-Supreme court of india said that state is not bound to give reservations on Appointment and there is no fundamental right to claim quota in promotion.
:- So no one can claim that it is fundamental Right.State governments can provide reservations to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes at their discretion,
:-but they must collect quantitative data that reflects their inadequate representation in public services.
:-The Supreme Court has said that states can give reservations to certain classes, but “there must be some material on the basis of which opinion is formed”.
Reservation is not permanent
In famous judgement balaji v. State of mysoor AIR 1963 SC 649
Supreme court held this case that  Reservation should not be permanently.when state found that  the  caste progress very well so it should be end.
M .Nagaraj v. Union of india AIR 2007 SC71
A bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra said that it has come to the conclusion in this case that states have to collect quantitative data showing the backwardness of SCs and STs, a judgment of the nine-judge bench in the Indira Sawhney judgment of 1992.  Was “opposite”.  The Mandal Commission is popular as a case.
Need For ending reservation in promotion
1-The general caste workers who used to do well and were eligible for promotion, but they could not get reservation due to normal caste.
2- In order to bring equality, reservation was necessary to end from promotion so that talented people get a chance to come forward.
3 such people who were entitled to promotion, they were not able to proceed due to reservation.
4 It was necessary to abolish reservation from promotion for natural  justice.
Source- LINK

07 Jun 2020 392 18