H.P. SCHEDULED TRIBES EMP.FEDN Vs HIMACHAL PRADESH S.V.K.K .
Bench: SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR,PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE
Case number: SLP(C) No.-030143-030143 / 2009
Diary number: 34345 / 2009
Advocates: ANIP SACHTHEY Vs
DEBASIS MISRA
Page 1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.6 OF 2012
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C.) No. 30143 OF 2009
H.P. Scheduled Tribes Employees Federation & Anr. … Appellants
Versus
Himachal Pradesh S.V.K.K. & Ors. …Respondents With
CONTEMPT PETITION (C.) NO. 91 OF 2013 IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C.) No. 30143 OF 2009
J U D G M E N T
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.
1. This Interlocutory Application No.6 was filed on
16th March, 2012, by the appellants herein in the
S.L.P. (Civil) No. 30143 of 2009, seeking direction to the State
of Himachal Pradesh to take a decision on the issue of
reservation in promotions on basis of data already collected or
submitted to Cabinet Sub Committee on 25th April, 2011 within
1
Page 2
a period of one month. For the purpose of adjudicating the
present I.A., it would be pertinent to make a reference to facts
concerning S.L.P. (Civil) No. 30143 of 2009 that was disposed
of by this Court on 26th April, 2010.
2. SLP (Civil) No. 30143 of 2009 was filed against judgment
and order dated 18th September, 2009 passed by the High
Court of Himachal Pradesh. By the said judgment/order, the
High Court allowed the CWP-T No. 2628 of 2008 and thereby
quashed the instructions dated 7th September, 2007 issued by
the State of Himachal Pradesh. The said instructions made
provision for reservation in promotions with consequential
seniority in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
in all classes of posts in services under the State.
3. The aforesaid S.L.P. was disposed of on 26th April, 2010
by passing the following order:-
“The State of Himachal Pradesh has issued a Circular on 07.09.2007 as regards the promotion of SCs/STs in the State service. The said circular was challenged by the respondent no.1 and the circular was quashed by the High Court by the impugned judgment. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the circular issued on 07.09.2007 has
2
Page 3
since been withdrawn as the State intends to collect more details with regard to representation of SCs/STs and to pass appropriate orders within reasonable time i.e. approximately within three months after collecting necessary details and datas. The petitioner would be at liberty to take appropriate steps, if any adverse order is passed. This Special Leave Petition and the Contempt Petition are thus disposed of finally.”
4. Although the present I.A.No.6 is filed in the disposed of
SLP, it would be appropriate to notice the manner, in which the
order dated 16th April, 2010 came to be passed.
5. On 27th November, 1972, Government of India issued
instructions vide letter No. 27-2/71-Estt(SCT), whereby
provision was made for providing reservation in promotion for
the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. On
24th April, 1973, State of Himachal Pradesh issued instructions
vide Letter No. 2-11/72-DP (Appt.), whereby reservation was
provided for promotion of employees. On 9th/13th August, 1973,
State of Himachal Pradesh issued instructions vide Letter
No 2-11/72-DP (Apptt.), and thereby, followed the Reservation
policy of the Union Government relating to promotion for the
members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It may
3
Page 4
be mentioned here that the Reservation Policy of the Union
Government was set out in Letter/Order dated 2nd March, 1972,
24th March, 1972 and 11th August, 1972, 28th October 1972, 30th
January, 1973 and 12th March, 1973.
6. Meanwhile on 31st October, 1988, this Court in the case of
Karam Chand Vs. Haryana State Electricity Board & Ors. 1 ,
approved the grant of consequential seniority in promotions
given to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The State of
Himachal Pradesh, by instructions vide letter No. PER
(AP-II) F (1)-1/87 dated 31st January, 1989, introduced
Reservation Roster in both direct recruitment and promotions.
7. Later, a Constitution Bench of this Court in Indra
Sawhney & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.2 held that
reservation in promotion is not permissible under Article 16(4)
of Constitution and directed to discontinue such reservations
after 5 years. Thereafter, in R.K. Sabharwal & Ors. Vs. State
of Punjab & Ors.,3 this court held that the operation of roster
1 (1989) Supp 1 SCC 342 2 1992 (Supp) 3 SCC 217 3 1995 (2) SCC 745
4
Page 5
must stop running when the prescribed quota of posts have
been occupied by the reserved category. It was in this backdrop
that the Parliament of India enacted Constitution
(77th Amendment) Act, 1995, thereby adding Article 16(4A)
which permits the State to provide reservation in matters of
promotion to Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes. In 2001,
Parliament approved Constitution (85th Amendment) Act,
permitting promotions with consequential seniority to
government service.
8. On 7th September, 2007, with a view to give effect to the
85th Amendment to the Constitution, the State of Himachal
Pradesh issued instructions vide letter No. PER (AP)-C-F (1)-
1/2005, and thereby provided for assignment of consequential
seniority to the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes in service under the State. The policy was to take effect
from 17th June, 1995. The instructions further provided, as
under:-
“Thus as a result of this decision of State Government to implement the aforesaid amendment with effect from 17.6.1995, State Government employees belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes shall also be entitled to
5
Page 6
consequential seniority on promotion by virtue of rule of reservation. However, controlling factors or compelling reasons, namely, backwardness and inadequacy of representation which enable the State to provide for reservation keeping in mind the over all efficiency of State administration under Article 335 will continue to apply with mandatory compliance of Constitutional requirement of Ceiling limit of 50% quantitative limitation. Moreover it is made clear that in the State of Himachal Pradesh the State Government has already made provision for reservation in promotion after due consideration prior to 19.10.2006, thus, collection of data as mandated by para 124 of the judgment in M.Nagaraj case (AIR 2007 Sc.71) is not required.”
9. The instructions were challenged by respondent No.1
herein by filing Original Application No. 19 of 2008 before the
Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Shimla. Since the
Administrative Tribunal was thereafter abolished, the O.A. was
transferred to be heard and adjudicated by the High Court of
Himachal Pradesh at Shimla and was renumbered as
Civil Writ Petition –T No. 2628 of 2008. By the impugned order
dated 18th September, 2009, the High Court allowed the writ
petition, and quashed the instructions dated 7th September,
2007.
6
Page 7
10. In its judgment, the High Court inter alia relied upon the
law laid down in M. Nagaraj & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 4
The High Court noticed that the State was bound to collect data
to show that the so called backward classes are actually
backward and they are inadequately represented in the service
under the State. It was also held that the State has to provide
for reservations in such a manner that the efficiency of
administration is not adversely affected. The High Court then
proceeded to determine that whether such an exercise was
undertaken by the State while issuing instructions dated
7th September, 2007. The High Court came to the conclusion
that the State admittedly has not carried out any such exercise
to collect such data. The reason provided by the State for not
carrying out such an exercise was that since there was already
a policy for providing reservation in promotion in the State prior
to the judgment in Indra Sawhney’s case (supra), collection of
data as mandated in M. Nagaraj’s case (supra) is not
required. It was also urged on behalf of the State that the
decision for providing reservations in promotions was taken
after “due consideration”. These reasons were rejected by the
4 (2006) 8 SCC 212
7
Page 8
High Court, and it was held that:
“‘Due Consideration’ is totally different from collecting quantifiable data. This exercise has to be conducted and no reservation in promotion can be made without conducting such an exercise. Therefore, the State cannot be permitted to make reservations till such exercise is carried out and clear-cut quantifiable data is collected on the lines indicated in M.Nagaraj’s case. We may also point out that other than making vague reference to “due consideration” having been done, till date the State has not produced before us any clear-cut quantifiable data which could establish the need for reservation.
Merely because the amended provision of the Constitution enable the State to make reservation is no ground not to collect data. Therefore, the instructions have to be struck down as being violate of the law laid down in M. Nagaraj’s case by the Apex Court.”
11. In compliance with the aforesaid directions, the State of
Himachal Pradesh, vide letter No. PER (AP)-C-F (1)01/2009
dated 16th November, 2009, rescinded the instructions dated
7th September, 2007. In the letter (dated 16 th November, 2009),
the State of Himachal Pradesh also directed that all the
promotions made on or after 7th September, 2007 may be
regulated in accordance with the procedure applicable prior to
the said date. The letter also made it clear that promotion policy
has to be interpreted in the manner “as if the instructions dated
8
Page 9
7th September, 2007 and subsequent instructions thereof had
never been issued.”
12. The judgment of the High Court dated 18th September,
2009 was challenged in the Civil Appeal @ SLP (Civil)
No. 30143 of 2009, filed by Himachal Pradesh Schedules
Tribes Employees Federation, and Himachal Pradesh SC/ST
Government Employees Welfare Association. This Court, by
order dated 4th December, 2009 issued notice and granted
interim stay on the operation of the impugned judgment.
Meanwhile, the State Government withdrew the instructions
dated 16th November, 2009 and issued fresh instructions vide
letter dated 20th January, 2010, which were further amended by
letter dated 16th March, 2010. By the aforesaid two letters, the
Government Departments were refrained from making further
promotions where consequential seniority is involved.
13. By order dated 26th April, 2010, this Court disposed of the
S.L.P. (Civil) No. 30143 of 2009 and the contempt petition
No. 27 of 2010 on the undertaking given by the State. In the
said order, this court inter alia observed as under:
9
Page 10
“Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the circular issued on 07.09.2007 has since been withdrawn as the State intends to collect more details with regard to representation of SCs/STs and to pass appropriate orders within reasonable time i.e. approximately within three months after collecting necessary details and datas (sic). The petitioner would be at liberty to take appropriate steps, if any adverse order is passed. This Special Leave Petition and the Contempt Petition are thus disposed of finally.”
14. This Court, by order dated 7th July, 2010, dismissed I.A.
No. 5 in the aforesaid SLP seeking modification/clarification of
the aforesaid order.
15. It appears that the State of Himachal Pradesh collected
the necessary data as on 31st December, 2011. This is evident
from the answers given to the Assembly Question
Unstarred No.196, to which the reply was given on 4th April,
2012. The question was specific in the following terms:
“(a) How much is the present SC/ST backlog in the
State; and
(b) What steps the Government is taking to fill-
up the backlog of these categories?”
The answer to the aforesaid question (a) and (b) was that
10
Page 11
"The necessary information is at Annexure - "A"."
16. A perusal of the Annexure-A shows that the details of
backlog position of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes in
direct recruitment and promotion in the services of the State
and Boards/Corporations/Public Sector Undertakings etc. as on
31st December, 2011, is clearly indicated.
17. It was in this backdrop that I.A. No. 6 came to be
preferred by the petitioner herein on 16th March, 2012, seeking
a direction to the State to take a decision on the issue of
reservation on the basis of data already collected or submitted
to Cabinet Sub Committee on 25th April, 2011 within a period of
one month. The petitioner also prayed for stay on all the
promotions, pending the decision taken in this case. This Court,
by order dated 6th September, 2012, directed inter alia as
under:
“In our opinion, in the facts and circumstances of this case, it is necessary for the State of Himachal Pradesh to take the necessary policy decision on the question of providing reservation to the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the matter of promotion in the services within the State of Himachal Pradesh, within a period eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
11
Page 12
The State of Himachal Pradesh is directed to place on record the compliance report before the next date of hearing.”
This direction was given upon consideration of the
submission of the State in its reply to this I.A. dated 4 th July,
2012, that the petitioners themselves had reservations with
regard to the data placed before the Cabinet Sub-Committee on
25th April, 2011. Accordingly, the Government decided to
collect afresh data and material showing position as
on 30th June, 2011. According to the respondent State, the
policy decision would have to relate to the data showing the
position as on 30th June, 2011, which would be available
shortly.
18. On 2nd November, 2012, an I.A. was filed by the State of
Himachal Pradesh in the Civil Appeal, seeking extension of
time for complying with the order of this Court until 31st January,
2013. By order dated 7th January, 2013, this Court granted
extension to the State of Himachal Pradesh as sought and
further directed it not to make any promotions in the meantime.
12
Page 13
On 11th January, 2013, the State of Himachal Pradesh issued
instructions to all the departments to stop granting promotions.
On 31st January, 2013, the State of Himachal Pradesh in Letter
No. PER (AP)-C-F(1)-2/2011 noticed that since the Constitution
(117th Amendment) Bill, 2012 is pending consideration in the
Parliament, the matter regarding implementation of Constitution
(85th Amendment) Act, 2001 in the state may be deferred.
It was also decided that the instructions dated 11 th January,
2013 issued pursuant to interim order dated 7 th January, 2013
in I.A. No. 6 of 2012 in SLP (Civil) No. 30143 of 2009 will
continue in operation in the meantime. On 4th February, 2013,
the State of Himachal Pradesh sought modification of the
restriction placed by this Court by order dated 7 th January,
2013, whereby the State was directed not to make any
promotions. The stand taken in the said affidavit was that since
the Constitution (117th Amendment) Bill, 2012 is pending
consideration in the Parliament, the matter regarding
implementation of Constitution (85th Amendment) Act, 2001 in
the state may be deferred. The State Government also prayed
that the existing reservation system in promotions be continued
till the finalization of matter relating to the Constitution
13
Page 14
(117th Amendment) Bill, 2012.
Submissions:
19. Mr. Vijay Hansaria, learned senior counsel appeared for
the appellants. Whereas, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned senior
counsel appeared for the respondent no.1, State of Himachal
Pradesh.
20. Mr. Hansaria submitted that the State Government has
already taken a decision to provide reservation in promotion. In
its order dated 31st January, 2013, the State Government
mentions that the existing system for providing reservation,
prior to order dated 7th September, 2007 will continue.
Therefore, mandamus is to be issued not for providing
reservations but to direct the State to implement its own policy
decision.
21. Mr. Hansaria further submitted that the data collected by
the State reveals that there is backlog in the government
services. Further, it was submitted that data was available to
the State Government on 31st October, 2009, but this fact was
14
Page 15
suppressed from this Court. It was also argued that the defence
put by the State that they deferred the matter concerning
implementation of 85th Amendment on the ground
of 117th Amendment Bill is without any basis since it already
has the data. Thus, they must take a decision thereon.
Learned senior counsel relied upon Salauddin Ahmed & Anr.
Vs. Samta Andolan 5 , to submit that this Court had earlier
directed the State to comply with the directions given in
M. Nagaraj (supra) and Suraj Bhan Meena (supra).
22. Dr. Dhawan, learned senior counsel, firstly, reiterated the
well known principles concerning the concept of reservation laid
down by this Court in the following cases: Indra Sawhney
(supra), R.K.Sabharwal (supra), Union of India & Ors. Vs.
Virpal Singh Chauhan & Ors. 6 , Ajit Singh Januja & Ors. Vs.
State of Punjab & Ors. 7 , Chander Pal & Ors. Vs. State of
Haryana 8 , Jagdish Lal & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. 9 ,
Ajit Singh & Ors. (II) Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. 10
5 (2012) 10 SCC 235 6 (1995) 6 SCC 684 7 (1996) 2 SCC 715 8 (1997) 10 SCC 474 9 (1997) 6 SCC 538 10 (1999) 7 SCC 209
15
Page 16
Dr. Dhawan relied upon M. Nagaraj’s case (supra), and
submitted that this Court has laid down certain conditions which
are required to be complied with by the State before providing
Reservation under Article 16(4). The learned senior counsel
relied on the following observations of this Court:
“As stated above, the boundaries of the width of the power, namely, the ceiling-limit of 50% (the numerical benchmark), the principle of creamy layer, the compelling reasons, namely, backwardness, inadequacy of representation and the overall administrative efficiency are not obliterated by the impugned amendments. At the appropriate time, we have to consider the law as enacted by various States providing for reservation if challenged. At that time we have to see whether limitations on the exercise of power are violated. The State is free to exercise its discretion of providing for reservation subject to limitation, namely, that there must exist compelling reasons of backwardness, inadequacy of representation in a class of post(s) keeping in mind the overall administrative efficiency. It is made clear that even if the State has reasons to make reservation, as stated above, if the impugned law violates any of the above substantive limits on the width of the power the same would be liable to be set aside.”
Further, Dr. Dhawan submitted that this Court, applying
the aforesaid ratio in M. Nagaraj’s case(supra), quashed the
reservation policy of the respective states in Suraj Bhan
Meena & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 11 and Uttar 11 (2011) 1 SCC 467
16
Page 17
Pradesh Power Corporation Limited Vs. Rajesh Kumar &
Ors. 12
23. Dr. Dhawan further submitted that no mandamus would
lie to order reservations or de-reservations because
Article 16(4), (4A) & (4B) are enabling provisions. Learned
senior counsel relied upon C.A. Rajendran Vs. Union of India
(UOI) & Ors.13 Union of India Vs. R. Rajeshwaran & Anr.14
and Ajit Singh (II)’s case (supra).
24. We have very carefully considered the submissions made
by the learned counsel for the parties.
25. Undoubtedly, in the case of C.A. Rajendran (supra), this
Court has held as follows:-
“Our conclusion therefore is that Article 16(4) does not confer any right on the petitioner and there is no constitutional duty imposed on the Government to make a reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, either at the initial stage of recruitment or at the stage of promotion. In other words, Article 16(4) is an enabling provision and confers a discretionary power on the State to make
12 (2012) 7 SCC 1 13 1968 (1) SCR 721 14 (2003) 9 SCC 294
17
Page 18
a reservation of appointments in favour of backward class of citizens which, in its opinion, is not adequately represented in the Services of the State. We are accordingly of the opinion that the petitioner is unable to make good his submission on this aspect of the case.”
26. Similarly, in R.Rajeshwaran (supra), this Court observed
as follows:-
“9. In Ajit Singh (II) v. State of Punjab this Court held that Article 16(4) of the Constitution confers a discretion and does not create any constitutional duty and obligation. Language of Article 15(4) is identical and the view in Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Gian Prakash v. K.S. Jagannathan and Superintending Engineer, Public Health v. Kuldeep Singh that a mandamus can be issued either to provide for reservation or for relaxation is not correct and runs counter to judgments of earlier Constitution Benches and, therefore, these two judgments cannot be held to be laying down the correct law. In these circumstances, neither the respondent in the present case could have sought for a direction nor the High Court could have granted the same.”
27. The aforesaid dicta reiterated the earlier pronouncement
of this Court in Ajit Singh (II)’s case (supra), wherein this
Court observed as follows:-
28. We next come to the question whether Article 16(4) and Article 16(4-A) guaranteed any fundamental right to reservation. It should be noted that both these articles open with a non obstante clause — “Nothing in this Article shall prevent the
18
Page 19
State from making any provision for reservation….” (emphasis supplied) There is a marked difference in the language employed in Article 16(1) on the one hand and Article 16(4) and Article 16(4-A) on the other. There is no directive or command in Article 16(4) or Article 16(4-A) as in Article 16(1). On the face of it, the above language in each of Articles 16(4) and 16(4-A) is in the nature of an enabling provision and it has been so held in judgments rendered by Constitution Benches and in other cases right from 1963.
28. In our opinion, the reliance placed on the aforesaid
observations by Dr. Dhwan is misplaced. Controversy herein is
not about whether the court can issue mandamus to introduce
the policy of reservation. The issue relates only to ensuring that
the respondent-State implements its own decisions. The only
excuse given by the State for not implementing its decision
dated 31st January, 2013 is the pendency of
the 117th Amendment Bill. As noticed earlier, the State had
admitted in answer to the unstarred Assembly question that
necessary data had been collected. Furthermore, in the reply
dated 4th July, 2012 to this application the State has admitted
the existence of the data which was placed before the Cabinet
Sub-Committee on 25th April, 2011, which has the base as on
31st October, 2009. The State also affirmed that fresh data
19
Page 20
showing the position as on 30th June, 2011, would be available
shortly. Therefore, it is patently apparent that there is no
impediment in the way of the respondent State to take the
necessary policy decision on the basis of the available data.
Non-compliance of the direction in M. Nagaraj was the sole
reason for which the High Court had quashed the instructions
dated 7th September, 2007. With the collection of the
necessary data, there exists no justifiable reason not to take the
required decision.
29. The State has very skilfully avoided a decision on merits
in SLP (C) No.30143 of 2009. Thereafter, it is a series of false
starts to avoid the implementation of their own decision and the
directions issued by this Court. In our opinion, that this cat and
mouse game has gone far enough. Therefore, we will not
content ourselves with the justification that the State has to
await the outcome of the 117th Amendment. We see no
relevance of the amendment to the implementation by the State
of its earlier decision making reservation in promotions. It has
taken a policy decision for implementation of
the 85th Constitution Amendment Act. Instructions
20
Page 21
dated 7th September, 2007 had been issued for implementation
of the policy decision. In these instructions, H.P. Government
had decided to grant seniority to SC/ST employees. But this
circular dated 7th September, 2007 was withdrawn in
compliance of the High Court judgment by issuing Circular
No. PER(AP)-CF(1)-1/2009 dated 16th November, 2009. But
the implementation of this Circular was stayed by this Court in
SLP (C) No.30143 of 2009 on 4th December, 2009. The State
then issued another Circular No. PER(AP)-C-F(1)-1/2009 dated
20th January, 2010 withdrawing circular dated 16th November,
2009. Thus, the situation prevalent prior to the Circular dated
7th September, 2007 was again operative for making
promotions. Thereafter another Circular was issued
on 23rd January, 2010 amending the circular
dated 16th November, 2009 by substituting words “wherever
reservation is available” with the words “wherever
consequential seniority by virtue of reservation will be
applicable.” The issuance of so many circulars is indication of
the intention of the State not to comply with the earlier decision
to implement the policy of reservation in promotions and the
grant of consequential seniority. Therefore, a clever statement
21
Page 22
was made before this Court on 26th April, 2010 on the basis of
which the SLP was disposed of. We are of the opinion that the
statement was only to avoid a decision on merits with regard to
the correctness of the impugned judgment of the High Court.
30. When a statement is made before this Court it is, as a
matter of course, assumed that it is made sincerely and is not
an effort to over-reach the court. Numerous matters even
involving momentous questions of law are very often disposed
of by this Court on the basis of the statement made by the
learned counsel for the parties. The statement is accepted as it
is assumed without doubt, to be honest, sincere, truthful,
solemn and in the interest of justice. The statement by the
counsel is not expected to be flippant, mischievous, misleading
and certainly not false. This confidence in statements made by
the learned counsel is founded on the assumption that the
counsel is aware that he is an officer of the Court. Here we
would like to allude to the words of Lord Denning, in the case of
Rendel vs. Worsley 15 about the conduct expected of an
Advocate. “As an advocate, he is a minister of justice equally
15 [1967] 1 QB 443
22
Page 23
with the Judge…………………I say “all he honourably can”
because his duty is not only to his client. He has a duty to the
Court which is paramount. It is a mistake to suppose that he is
the mouthpiece of his client to say what he wants: or his tool to
do what he directs. He is none of these things. He owes
allegiance to a higher cause. It is the cause of truth and justice.
He must not consciously mis-state the facts. He must not
knowingly conceal the truth. He must not unjustly make a
charge of fraud, that is, without evidence to support it. He must
produce all the relevant authorities, even those that are against
him. He must see that his client discloses, if ordered, the
relevant documents, even those that are fatal to his case. He
must disregard the most specific instructions of his client, if they
conflicts with his duty to the court. The code which requires a
Barrister to do all this is not a code of law. It is the code of
honour.” In our opinion, the aforesaid dicta of Lord Denning is
an apt exposition of the very high standard of moral, ethical and
professional conduct expected to be maintained by members of
the legal profession. We expect no less of an
Advocate/Counsel in this country. Here, in this case,
on 26th April, 2010 a statement was made on behalf of the State
23
Page 24
of H.P. that “the state intends to collect more details with regard
to representation of the SCs/STs and to pass appropriate
orders within a reasonable time, i.e., approximately within three
months after collecting the necessary details and datas.”
Having very deftly avoided a decision on merits in the SLP (C)
No.30143 of 2009, the State has totally failed to live up to the
solemn statement made to this Court. It has hedged and
hemmed and prevaricated from 26th April, 2010 till date. Inspite
of the requisite data being available, the policy of reservation
already adopted by the State has not been implemented. We,
therefore, do not agree with Dr. Dhawan that the applicants are
seeking a mandamus to adopt a policy in reservation. From the
above narration, it is evident that the applicants want the State
to implement its own decisions.
31. The prayer is :
“Direct the Respondent/State Government to decide the case in time bound manner on the basis of data already available/submitted to Cabinet Sub Committee on 25.4.2011 within a period of one month and ;
Further direct stay on all promotions pending decision taken in this Case.”
24
Page 25
32. The final excuse offered by the State for not granting the
aforesaid relief is that the State now awaits the finalisation of
the 117th Constitution Amendment. We decline to accept the
reasons put forward for not honouring the statement solemnly
made to this Court on 26th April, 2010. This Court has been
more than considerate to the requests made by the State for
extension of time. This last excuse about awaiting the
finalisation of the proposed 117th Constitutional Amendment is
the proverbial last straw on the camel’s back. As stated earlier,
the proposed 117th Constitutional Amendment would not
adversely affect the merits of the clam of the petitioner for grant
of promotion with consequential seniority. By the aforesaid
proposed amendment, the existing Article 16 clause (4A) is to
be substituted by the following clause 4A:-
“(4A) Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in the Constitution, the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes notified under article 341 and article 342, respectively, shall be deemed to be backward and nothing in this article or in article 335 shall prevent the State from making any provision for reservation in matters of promotions, with consequential seniority, to any class or classes of posts in the services under the State in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes to the extent of the percentage of reservation provided to
25
Page 26
the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in the services of the State.”
33. A bare perusal of the aforesaid would show that the
purpose of amendment is to remove any impediment in the
grant of consequential seniority upon promotion on the basis of
reservation. The aforesaid conclusion is stated explicitly in the
Statement of Objects and Reasons for the proposed
117th Constitutional amendment. For facility of reference, the
Statement of Objects and Reasons is reproduced hereunder:-
“Statement of Objects and Reasons
The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes have been provided reservation in promotions since 1955. This was discontinued following the judgment in the case of Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of India, wherein it was held that it is beyond the mandate of Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India. Subsequently, the Constitution was amended by the Constitution (Seventy-seventh Amendment) Act, 1995 and a new clause (4A) was inserted in article 16 to enable the Government to provide reservation in promotion in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. Subsequently, clause (4A) of article 16 was modified by the Constitution (Eighty- fifth Amendment) Act, 2001 to provide consequential seniority to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes candidates promoted by giving reservation.
The validity of the constitutional amendments was challenged before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court while deliberating on the issue of
26
Page 27
validity of Constitutional amendments in the case of M. Nagaraj Vs. UOI & Ors., observed that the concerned State will have to show in each case the existence of the compelling reasons, namely, backwardness, inadequacy of representation and overall administrative efficiency before making provision for reservation in promotion.
Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj case, the High Court of Rajasthan and the High Court of Allahabad have struck down the provisions for reservation in promotion in the services of the State of Rajasthan and the State of Uttar Pradesh, respectively. Subsequently, the Supreme Court has upheld the decisions of these High Courts striking down provisions for reservation in respective States.
It has been observed that there is difficulty in collection of quantifiable data showing backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment. Moreover, there is uncertainty on the methodology of this exercise.
Thus, in the wake of the judgment of the Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj case, the prospects of promotion of the employees belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes are being adversely affected.
Demands for carrying out further amendment in the Constitution were raised by various quarters. A discussion on the issue of reservation in promotion was held in Parliament on 3-5-2012. Demand for amendment of the Constitution in order to provide reservation for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in promotion has been voiced by the Members of Parliament. An All-Party Meeting to
27
Page 28
discuss the issue was held on 21-08-2012. There was a general consensus to carry out amendment in the Constitution, so as to enable the State to continue the scheme of reservation in promotion for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as it existed since 1995.
In view of the above, the Government has reviewed the position and has decided to move the constitutional amendment to substitute clause (4A) of article 16, with a view to provide impediment-free reservation in promotion to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and to bring certainty and clarity in the matter. It is also necessary to give retrospective effect to the proposed clause (4A) of article 16 with effect from the date of coming into force of that clause as originally introduced, that is, from the 17th day of June, 1995.”
34. The aforesaid leaves no manner of doubt that the
amendment is with the view to provide impediment free
reservation in promotion to the Scheduled-Castes and
Scheduled-Tribes and to bring certainty and clarity in the
matter. Furthermore, the aforesaid proposed amendment is to
be introduced with retrospective effect from 17th June, 1995. In
view of the above, there can be no impediment in the way of
the State Government to implement the policy of reservation
which existed till the issuance of the various instructions prior to
the making of the Statement before this Court on 26 th April,
28
Page 29
2010. It is time to put an end to this charade; this never ending
process of extensions and hold the State to honour its
statements.
35. We, therefore, allow this Interlocutory Application and
direct the State of Himachal Pradesh to take a final decision on
the issue either on the basis of the data already submitted to
the Cabinet Sub-Committee on 25th April, 2011 or on the basis
of the data reflecting the position as on 30 th June, 2011, within a
period of three months from today. Till a final decision is taken,
the direction restraining the State of Himachal Pradesh from
making any promotion shall continue.
….….…………………..J. [Surinder Singh Nijjar]
….…………………,……J. [Pinaki Chandra Ghose]
New Delhi; September 13, 2013.
29
Page 30 30