Karnataka Law Providing ‘Consequential Seniority’ to SC/STs on Promotion Unconstitutional

Must Read

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration,...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be...

Follow us

Case:

B.K. Pavitra v. Union of India,

2017 SCC Online SC 109, decided on 09.02.2017.

 

Facts:

The Assistant Engineers of Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes category recruited in the year 1987 were promoted to the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineers whereas the Assistant Engineers recruited in 1976, who were considered according to general merit, for promotion to the said cadre, did not get promoted on account of consequential seniority under Karnataka Determination of Seniority of the Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservation (To the Posts in the Civil Services of the State) Act, 2002. High court upheld the validity of the Act and the Appellants appealed to Supreme Court.

 

Issues:

The issues raised were:

  1. Whether the State Government has shown the compelling reasons, before making provision for reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in matters of promotion?
  2. Whether the extent of reservation provided for promotion in favour of the persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes at 15% and 3% respectively, in Karnataka is justified?

 

Arguments:

The appellants argued that the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes category candidates got early promotion and because of the consequential seniority, percentage of Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes category candidates was much higher than the permitted percentage. This would lead to filling up of all the top positions by the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes category students without general merit candidates getting to higher positions.

As a result of this consequential seniority, the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes category candidate would reach the third level by the age of 45 and fourth, fifth and sixth level in a few years after that, but the general merit candidate would reach the third level  at 56 years of age and retire before reaching the fourth level.

 

Held:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court declared the provisions of the impugned Act, to be ultra vires of the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, to the extent of doing away with the ‘catch up’ rule and providing for consequential seniority to persons belonging to the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes category candidates. However, the court also stated that this judgment will not affect those who have already retired and for financial benefits already taken.

 

Learning outcome:

Mere fact that there is no proportionate representation in promotional posts for the population of the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes category is not by itself enough to grant consequential seniority to candidates who are otherwise junior. If the State wants to exercise its power under Article 16(4A), it has to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the class and there has to be inadequacy of representation of that class in public. The State will have to make sure that its reservation policy does not go above the ceiling limit of 50%.

 

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of the Central Government. Any reasonable...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be interpreted to also apply to...

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Challenging Allahabad High Court Order Granting Interim Bail on Medical Grounds

An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the Judgment & Order of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of State of U.P...

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -