Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION

      CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 6046-6047 OF 2004           

ROHTAS BHANKHAR & OTHERS ... APPELLANT(s)                         Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER .. RESPONDENT(s)

J U D G M E N T

R.M.LODHA, CJI. On  23.12.1970  (1970  O.M.),  the  

Department  of  Personnel  issued  Office  Memorandum  being  O.M.  No.  8/12/69-Estt.(SCT)  relaxing standards  in the case of Scheduled  Castes/Tribes  candidates  in  departmental  competitive  examinations  and  in  departmental  confirmation  examinations.   The  said  O.M.  remained  operative  for  about  17  years  until  O.M. No. 36012/23/96-Estt.(Res) dated 22.7.1997  was issued whereby the instructions contained  

Page 2

2

in   1970  O.M.  were  withdrawn.  Thereafter  by  Notification  dated  30.11.1998,  the  Central  Secretariat  Service  Section  Officers'  Grade/Stenographers'  Grade  'B  (Limited  Departmental  Competitive  Examination)  Regulations,  1964  (for  short  “1964  Regulations”)  were  amended  by  Central  Secretariat  Service  Section  Officers'  Grade/Stenographers'  Grade  'B  (Limited  Departmental Competitive Examination) Amendment  Regulations,  1998  (for  short  “1998  Regulations”).   The  result of  this amendment  was that  in 1964 Regulations, Regulation 7,  sub-regulation  (3)  was  omitted  on  and  from  22.7.1997.   The  explanatory note  appended to  the above Notification  reads as follows:

In compliance with the Supreme Court's  judgment in the case of S. Vinod Kumar  vs.   Union  of  India  (JT  1996(8)  SC  643), the Central Government decided  to omit the provisions of regulation  7(3)  of  the  Central  Secretariat  Service  Section  Officers'  Grade/Stenographers'  Grade  'B'  (Limited  Departmental   Competitive  

Page 3

3

Examination)  Regulations,  1964  which  provides  for  relaxed  qualifying  standard  in  favour  of  the  Scheduled  Castes  and  the  Scheduled  Tribes  candidates to make up the deficiency  in the reserved quota which has been  rendered  legally  invalid  and  unenforceable. This is certified that  no one is being adversely affected by  giving  this  amendment  retrospective  effect.

2. In  S. Vinod Kumar1, this Court relying  upon  Indra Sawhney2 held that  provision for  lower  qualifying  marks/standard  of  evaluation  was not permissible under Article 16(4) of the  Constitution of India in view of Article 335.  3. Though Article 16(4A) had been brought  into Constitution by the Constitution (Seventy- seventh Amendment) Act, 1995 with effect from  17.6.1995, S. Vinod Kumar1 did not take into  consideration  this  constitutional  provision.  In our view, S. Vinod Kumar1 is per incuriam. 4. Moreover  by  the  Constitution  (Eighty- second Amendment) Act, 2000, a proviso has been  appended  to  Article  335  of  the  Constitution  1  (1996) 6 SCC 580,  S. VINOD KUMAR & ANOTHER VS. UNION OF INDIA          AND OTHERS 2  1992 Supp (3) SCC 217, INDRA SAWHNEY VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Page 4

4

with effect from 8.9.2000.  The proviso reads  as follow:

Provided that nothing in this article  shall  prevent  in  making  of  any  provision in favour of the members of  the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled  Tribes  for  relaxation  in  qualifying  marks  in  any  examination  or  lowering  the  standards  of  evaluation,  for  reservation in mattes of promotion to  any  class  or  classes  of  services  or  posts in connect with the affairs of  the Union or of a State.

5. On  8.10.1999,  when  special  leave  petitions, from which these appeals arise, came  up for consideration before a two-Judge Bench,  the  Bench  first  formulated  the  point  for  consideration in the matter, viz., whether it  was  permissible  for  the  authorities  to  fix  lesser number of qualifying marks for reserved  candidates in the matter of 'promotion'.  The  Bench noticed three judgments  of this Court;  (1) Indra Sawhney2, (2) S. Vinod Kumar1  and (3)  Kuldeep Singh3  and observed that in  Kuldeep  Singh3 the  Court  did  not  notice   the  

3  (1997) 9 SCC 199, SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH, U.T.          CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS VS. KULDEEP SINGH & OTHERS

Page 5

5

observations  of  majority  as  well  as  observations of Sawant, J. in  Indra Sawhney2,  and the matter needed to be heard by a three- Judge Bench. 6. On 2.12.1999, the matter came up before  a three-Judge Bench.  The Bench on that day  reiterated what was earlier stated by  the two- Judge Bench in the order dated 08.10.1999  that  in Kuldeep Singh3, the  Bench had not referred  to the majority decision in Indra Sawheny2.  The  Bench doubted the correctness of the decision  in Kuldeep Singh3 and referred the matter to the  Constitution  Bench.  In the  reference order,  the three-Judge Bench also noted  the decision  of  this  Court  in  Haridas  Parsedia  etc.  vs.  Urmila  Shakya  and  others (Civil  Appeal  Nos.  6590-6592  of  1999  etc.)  dated  19.11.1999  wherein it was observed that in the case of  departmental  promotion  examination,  which  is  held  exclusively for  SCs/STs, there  could be  

Page 6

6

reduction to the extent of 10% in the passing  marks. As regards Haridas Parsedia (supra), the  Bench  observed  that  in  that  case,  the  observations  of  this  Court  in  Indra  Sawhney2  

wherein it was laid down  that there cannot be  dilution  of standards  in matter  of promotion  was not noticed. 7. It  is  important  to  note  here  that  constitutional validity of Article 16(4A) came  up  for  consideration  before  the  Constitution  Bench in the case of M. Nagaraj4.  In paras 97  to  99  (page  267)  of  the  report,  the  Constitution Bench observed:

97.  As  stated  above,  clause  (4-A)  of  Article 16 is carved out of clause (4) of  Article 16. Clause (4-A) provides benefit  of reservation in promotion only to SCs and  STs.  In S. Vinod Kumar v. Union of India  this  Court  held  that  relaxation  of  qualifying  marks  and  standards  of  evaluation  in  matters  of  reservation  in  promotion was not permissible under Article  16(4)  in  view  of  Article  335  of  the  Constitution.  This was also the view in  Indra Sawhney.

98. By the Constitution (Eighty-second  4. (2006)8 SCC 212  M. NAGARAJ AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Page 7

7

Amendment)  Act,  2000  a  proviso  was  inserted at the end of Article 335 of the  Constitution which reads as under :

“Provided  that  nothing  in  this  article shall prevent in making  of any provision in favour of the  members of the Scheduled Castes  and  the  Scheduled  Tribes  for  relaxation in qualifying marks in  any examination or lowering the  standards  of  evaluation,  for  reservation  in  matters  of  promotion to any class or classes  of  services  or  posts  in  connection  with  the  affairs  of  the Union or of a State.”

99. This  proviso  was  added  following  the benefit of reservation in promotion  conferred upon SCs and STs alone.  This  proviso was inserted keeping in mind the  judgment  of  this  Court  in  Vinod  Kumar  which took the view that relaxation in  matters of reservation in promotion was  not  permissible  under  Article  16(4)  in  view of the command contained in Article  335.  Once a separate category is carved  out of clause (4) of Article 16 then that  category  is  being  given  relaxation  in  matters of reservation in promotion.  The  proviso is confined to SCs and STs alone.  The said proviso is compatible with the  scheme of Article 16(4-A).

8. The  conclusions  recorded  by  the  Constitution  Bench  in  M. Nagaraj4  are  also

relevant and they read as under:

Page 8

8

121. The  impugned  constitutional  amendments by which Articles 16(4-A) and  16(4-B)  have  been  inserted  flow  from  Article 16(4).  They do not alter the  structure of Article 16(4).  They retain  the controlling factors or the compelling  reasons,  namely,  backwardness  and  inadequacy  of  representation  which  enables  the  States  to  provide  for  reservation keeping in mind the overall  efficiency  of  the  State  administration  under  Article  335.  These  impugned  amendments are confined only to SCs and  STs.  They do not obliterate any of the  constitutional  requirements,  namely,  ceiling  limit  of  50%  (quantitative  limitation), the concept of creamy layer  (qualitative  exclusion),  the  sub- classification between OBCs on one hand  and SCs and STs on the other hand as held  in  Indra Sawhney, the concept of post- based  roster  with  inbuilt  concept  of  replacement as held in R.K. Sabharwal. 122. We reiterate that the ceiling limit  of 50%, the concept of creamy layer and  the  compelling  reasons,  namely,  backwardness,  inadequacy  of  representation and overall administrative  efficiency  are  all  constitutional  requirements without which the structure  of equality of opportunity in Article 16  would collapse. 123. However, in this case, as stated  above,  the  main  issue  concerns  the  “extent of reservation”.  In this regard  the State concerned will have to show in  each  case  the  existence  of  the  compelling reasons, namely, backwardness  inadequacy of representation and overall  administrative  efficiency  before  making  

Page 9

9

provision  for  reservation.   As  stated  above,  the  impugned  provision  is  an  enabling  provision.   The  State  is  not  bound to make reservation for SCs/STs in  matters of promotions.  However, if they  wish  to  exercise  their  discretion  and  make  such  provision,  the  State  has  to  collect  quantifiable  data  showing  backwardness of the class and inadequacy  of  representation  of  that  class  in  public  employment  in  addition  to  compliance with Article 335.  It is made  clear  that  even  if  the  State  has  compelling reasons, as stated above, the  State  will  have  to  see  that  its  reservation provision does not lead to  excursiveness  so  as  to  breach  the  ceiling limit of 50% or obliterate the  creamy layer or extend the reservation  indefinitely. 124.  Subject  to  the above, we uphold  the  constitutional  validity  of  the  Constitution(Seventy-Seventh  (Amendment)  Act;1995: the Constitution (Eighty-first  Amendment)  Act,  2000;  the  Constitution  (Eighty-second Amendment) Act, 2000 and the  Constitution  (Eighty-fifth  Amendment) Act, 2001.   

9. We do not think, it is necessary for us  to deal with the width and scope of  Article  16(4A) any further.  Insofar  as Kuldeep Singh2  

is  concerned,  we  find  that  the  matter  was  decided  by  this  Court  having  regard  to  the  constitutional  provision  contained  in  Article  

Page 10

10

16(4A).   The  view   taken  by  this  Court  in  Kuldeep Singh3 is in accord with  constitutional  scheme articulated in Article 16(4A).  On the  other hand, in S. Vinod Kumar1, the Court failed  to  consider  Article  16(4A).   As  a  matter  of  fact,  Article  16(4A)  was  inserted  in  the  Constitution to undo the  observations in Indra  Sawhney2 that   there  can  not  be  dilution  of  standards in matters of promotion. 10. We  are  in  respectful  agreement   with  the decision in Kuldeep Singh3 and approve the  same. Ordinarily, we would have sent the matter  to the Regular Bench for disposal of the matter  but having regard to the nature of controversy  and the fact that the  Central Administrative  Tribunal, Delhi (for short “the Tribunal”) has  followed  S. Vinod Kumar1  which is not a good  law and resultantly 1997 O.M. is also illegal,  in our view, the agony of the appellants need  not be prolonged as  they are entitled to the  

Page 11

11

reliefs.   11. Consequently,  civil  appeals  are  allowed. The impugned order  is set-aside. 1997  O.M. is declared illegal.  The respondents are  directed to modify the results in the Section  Officers/Stenographers  (Grade  B/Grade-I)  Limited  Departmental  Competitive  Examination,  1996  by providing  for reservation  and extend  all consequential reliefs to the appellants, if  not granted so far.  No costs.           

   .......................CJI. (R.M. LODHA)

                 .........................J.          (JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR)

            .........................J. (J. CHELAMESWAR)

.........................J. (A.K. SIKRI)

NEW DELHI; .........................J. JULY 15, 2014. (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)

Page 12

12

ITEM NO.502               COURT NO.1               SECTION XVI                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal No(s). 6046-6047/2004 ROHTAS BHANKHAR & ORS                           Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS U.O.I. & ANR                                   Respondent(s)

Date : 15/07/2014 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM :               HON'BLE THE  CHIEF JUSTICE              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN For Appellant(s) Dr. Krishan Singh Chauhan,Adv.

Mr. Ajit Kumar Ekka, Adv. Mr. Ravi Prakash, Adv. Mr. Chand Kiran, Adv. Mr. Murari Lal, Adv.

                     For Respondent(s) Mr. Ranjit Kumar, SG

Mr. P.S. Patwalia, ASG Mr. A. Mariarputham, Sr. Adv. Ms. V. Mohana, Adv. Ms. Binu Tamta, Adv. Adv. Mr. D.L. Chidananda, Adv. for Ms. Sushma Suri, Adv.                      

 UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following                                O R D E R  

Civil  Appeals  are  allowed  in  terms  of  reportable judgment.

(PARDEEP KUMAR) AR-cum-PS

(RENU DIWAN)  COURT MASTER  

[SIGNED REPORTABLE JUDGMENT IS PLACED ON THE FILE]