Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No.     1226     of 2020 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 23701 of 2019]

Mukesh Kumar & Anr.   .... Appellant(s)

Versus The State of Uttarakhand & Ors.

…. Respondent(s)

WITH  

Civil Appeal No.    1227      of 2020 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 22640 of 2019]

Civil Appeal No.    1228    of 2020 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 25508 of 2019]

Civil Appeal No.   1229     of 2020 [Arising out of Dy. No.39572 of 2019 @S.L.P. (Civil) No.  3668

of 2020]

Civil Appeal No.    1230     of 2020 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 27715 of 2019]

Civil Appeal No.   1231    of 2020 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 28039 of 2019]

Civil Appeal No.    1232   of 2020 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 27735 of 2019]

Civil Appeal No.    1233    of 2020 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 28947 of 2019]

J U D G M E N T

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

1 | P a g e

1. The Controversy in the above Appeals pertains to the

reservations to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in

promotions in the posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in Public

Works Department, Government of Uttarakhand.   

 2. The  Uttar  Pradesh  Public  Services  (Reservation  for

Scheduled  Castes,  Scheduled  Tribes  and  Other  Backward

Classes) Act, 1994 (for short “the 1994 Act”) provided for

reservation in public services and posts in favour of persons

belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other

Backward Classes of citizens.  Section  3(1) of the said Act

stipulated  reservation  at  the  stage  of  direct  recruitment.

According to Section 3(7) of the 1994 Act, the Government

Orders providing reservation for appointment to public posts

filled up by promotion which were existing on the date of

commencement of the 1994 Act shall continue till they are

modified or  revoked.   After  the formation of  the State of

Uttarakhand  in  2001,  the  Uttar  Pradesh  Public  Services

(Scheduled  Caste,  Scheduled  Tribe  and  Other  Backward

Caste Reservation) Act,  1994 was made applicable to the

State of Uttaranchal by a Notification dated 30.08.2001 with

2 | P a g e

a  modification  in  the  percentage  of  reservations.   21%

reservation for Scheduled Castes was modified to 19% and

2% for  Scheduled Tribes  was increased to  4%.  Likewise,

21%  reservation  provided  in  the  1994  Act  for  Other

Backward Classes was altered to 14%.   

3. A  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  of  Judicature  at

Allahabad  in  Mukund  Kumar  Shrivastava v.  State  of

U.P.1 upheld the validity of Rule 8-A of the Uttar Pradesh

Servants Government Seniority Rules, 1991 (for short “the

Seniority Rules”) which dealt with consequential seniority of

persons  belonging  to  Scheduled  Castes  and  Scheduled

Tribes.   Later,  in  Prem Kumar Singh v.  State of U.P.2,

another Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at

Allahabad,  Lucknow  Bench  held  that  the  judgment  in

Mukund Kumar Shrivastava (supra) is  per incuriam and

not a binding precedent.   In  Prem Kumar Singh’s case

(supra), the High Court declared Section 3(7) of the 1994

Act  and  Rule  8-A  of  the  Seniority  Rules  unconstitutional.

While  declaring  the  correctness  of  the  judgments  of  the

1 (2011) 1 ALL LJ 428 2 (2011) 3 ALL LJ 343

3 | P a g e

High Court,  this Court by its judgment in  Uttar Pradesh

Power Corporation v.  Rajesh Kumar3 held that Section

3(7)  of  the  1994  Act  is  unconstitutional  insofar  as  it  is

contrary to the dictum in  M. Nagaraj & Ors. v.  Union of

India & Ors.4

4. The  challenge  to  Section  3(7)  of  the  1994  Act,  as

extended to the State of Uttarakhand, was upheld by the

High Court of Uttarakhand in  Vinod Prakash Nautiyal &

Others  v.  State  of  Uttarakhand  &  Others5.   Relying

upon  the  judgment  of  this  Court  in  U.P.  Power

Corporation (supra),  the  High  Court  of  Uttarakhand

declared Section 3(7) of the 1994 Act unconstitutional and

directed that no promotion can be given by the State by

taking  recourse  to  Section  3(7)  of  the  1994  Act.   The

application  filed  for  review  of  the  judgment  in  Vinod

Prakash  Nautiyal (supra)  was  dismissed.   By  way  of

implementation of  the  judgment  of  the  High Court  dated

06.07.2011  in  Vinod  Prakash  Nautiyal (supra),  a

committee  was  constituted  by  the  Government  of

3 (2012) 7 SCC 1 4 (2006) 8 SCC 212 5 W.P. (S/B) No.45 of 2011

4 | P a g e

Uttarakhand for  collection of  quantifiable  data  relating to

the backwardness of the reserved communities in the State

of Uttarakhand and the inadequacy of their representation

in public posts.   

5. On 05.09.2012, the State Government decided that all

posts in public services in the State shall be filled up without

providing  any  reservations  to  Scheduled  Castes  and

Scheduled Tribes.   All  Government Orders to the contrary

were superseded by the proceeding dated 05.09.2012. Mr.

Gyan Chand who was working as Assistant  Commissioner

(Civil),  State  Tax  and  belonging  to  Scheduled  Caste

Community filed a Writ Petition for quashing the proceeding

dated 05.09.2012.  The High Court by its judgment dated

01.04.2019 struck down the proceeding dated 05.09.2012

as being contrary to the law declared by this Court in Indra

Sawhney v. Union of India & Ors.6 and Jarnail Singh &

Ors. v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Ors.7  While referring to

the  judgments  of  this  Court  in  M.  Nagaraj (supra)  and

Jarnail Singh (supra), the High Court held that Article 16(4)

6 (1992) Supp.3 SCC 217 7 (2018) 10 SCC 396

5 | P a g e

of the Constitution in an enabling provision.  The High Court

observed that it is not necessary for the State Government

to  collect  quantifiable  data  regarding  representation  of

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in State services or

regarding their backwardness before providing reservation

in their favour in promotion posts. The High Court was of the

opinion  that  the  judgment  in  Vinod  Prakash  Nautiyal

(supra) related to the constitutional validity of Section 3(7)

of  the 1994 Act  alone and the Notifications  pertaining to

reservation in promotion in favour of Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes were not set aside.  The Appeals arising

out of Civil Appeal @ S.L.P.(Civil) No.25508 of 2019 and Civil

Appeal @S.L.P. (Civil) @ Diary No.39572 of 2019 have been

filed  assailing  the  judgment  of  the  High  Court  dated

01.04.2019.   

6. Vinod  Kumar  and  three  others  belonging  to  the

Scheduled Castes working in the Public Works Department,

Government of Uttarakhand filed a Writ Petition in the High

Court of Uttarakhand seeking a direction to the Respondent

therein to prepare a separate list of eligible candidates as

6 | P a g e

per Rule 5 of the Uttarakhand Promotion by Selection (on

posts  outside  the  purview  of  Public  Service  Commission)

Eligibility Rules, 2003 and to prepare a separate list for each

category of eligible candidates of General, Scheduled Castes

and Scheduled Tribes for promotion to the post of Assistant

Engineer  (Civil)  in  Public  Works  Department.   A  further

direction  to  the  State  Government  was  sought  to  hold  a

departmental  promotion  committee  for  promotion  to  the

posts of Assistant Engineers after providing reservation to

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in accordance with

the Government Orders dated 30.08.2001, 31.08.2001 and

17.02.2004 by which reservation was provided in promotion.

The  Writ  Petition  was  disposed  of  by  the  High  Court  on

15.07.2019  with  a  direction  to  the  State  Government  to

implement  reservations  in  promotion  by  promoting  only

members  of  Scheduled  Castes  and  Scheduled  Tribes  in

future vacancies to maintain the quota earmarked for the

said categories.  Civil Appeals @ S.L.P.(Civil) No. 23701 of

2019 and Civil Appeal @ S.L.P. (Civil) No.22640 of 2019 are

challenging the judgment dated 15.07.2019.   

7 | P a g e

7. In  the  meanwhile,  the  Respondents  in  Writ  Petition

(Civil) No.117 of 2019 i.e. the State of Uttarakhand filed an

application for  review of  the judgment  dated 01.04.2019.

The High Court realized that it committed an apparent error

in its judgment dated 01.04.2019, while deciding the Writ

Petition by referring to the judgment of this Court in Jarnail

Singh (supra).   The  High  Court  clarified  that  the  State

Government  is  obligated  to  collect  quantifiable  data

regarding  inadequacy  of  representation  of  the  Scheduled

Castes  and  Scheduled  Tribes  in  state  services  before

providing reservation in promotion.  The High Court clarified

that it is not necessary for the State Government to collect

data regarding backwardness of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes in the light of the direction of this Court in

Jarnail Singh (supra).  The High Court also observed that

the  State  is  not  obligated  to  provide  reservation  in

promotions to members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes as Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution is an enabling

provision.   However,  reservation  can  be  provided  by  the

State  Government  only  after  collecting  data  regarding

inadequacy of representation of the Scheduled Castes and

8 | P a g e

Scheduled Tribes in state services.  As such, the High Court

directed the State Government to collect quantifiable data

regarding  inadequacy  of  the  representation  of  the

Scheduled  Castes  and  Scheduled  Tribes  in  Government

services which would enable the State Government to take

a  considered  decision  on  providing  or  not  providing

reservation.  The State Government was directed to take a

decision  whether  to  provide  reservation  or  not  only  after

considering the data relating to the adequacy or inadequacy

of representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

in the services of the State within a period of four months

from the date of receipt of the judgment.  Aggrieved by the

order dated 15.11.2019 passed in Review Petition in W. P.

(S/B)  No.117  of  2019,  the  Civil  Appeal  @  S.L.P.(Civil)

No.27715 of 2019, Civil Appeal @ S.L.P.(Civil) No.28039 of

2019, Civil Appeal @ S.L.P. (Civil) No.27735 of 2019 and Civil

Appeal @ S.L.P.(Civil) No. 28947 of 2019 have been filed.     

8. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for

the  Appellants  in  SLP  (C)  No.  25508  of  2019,  Mr.  Mukul

Rohtagi  and  Mr.  P.S.  Narsimha,  learned  Senior  Counsel

9 | P a g e

appearing for the State of Uttarakhand contended that there

is no fundamental right to claim reservation in appointments

or promotions to public posts.   There is no constitutional

duty  on  the  part  of  the  State  Government  to  provide

reservations.   Article  16  (4)  and  16  (4-A)  are  merely

enabling  provisions.   On  15.09.2012,  the  State  of

Uttarakhand,  after  due  consideration,  decided  that  there

shall be no reservation in promotions.  They relied upon the

judgment  of  the  High  Court  of  Uttarakhand  in  Vinod

Prakash Nautiyal (supra)  by which Section 3 (7)  of  the

1994 Act was declared unconstitutional. It was submitted by

them that the State Government has not brought any law in

terms of the judgment of this Court in M. Nagaraj & Ors.

(supra).  It was urged by the learned Senior Counsel that

there is no necessity for collection of any quantifiable data

after the Government has taken a decision not to provide

reservations.  The collection of data, according to them, is

required only to justify a decision to provide reservation.  It

was also submitted by them that according to a judgment of

this Court in Suresh Chand Gautam v. State of U.P.8  no

8 (2016) 11 SCC 113

10 | P a g e

direction can be given by the Court to the State Government

to collect quantifiable data on the basis of which a decision

to  provide  reservation  should  be  taken.   They  placed

reliance on the judgment of  this  Court  in  M. Nagaraj &

Ors. (supra) to argue that the State is not bound to make

reservations.   

9. On the other hand, Mr. Kapil Sibal, Mr. Dushyant Dave

and Mr. Colin Gonsalves, learned Senior Counsel and Dr. K.

S.  Chauhan,  learned  counsel,  appearing  for  the  reserved

category employees submitted that the State cannot refuse

to  collect  quantifiable  data  regarding  the  adequacy  or

inadequacy of representation of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes in public services.   They submitted that

there is an obligation on the State to provide reservations in

promotions for upliftment of the members of the Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes as mandated by Article 16 (4)

and  16  (4-A)  of  the  Constitution  of  India.  The  right  to

equality  of  persons  belonging  to  Scheduled  Castes  and

Scheduled  Tribes  cannot  be  defeated  by  the  State

Government by not discharging its constitutional obligation

of  implementing  Article  16  (4)  and  16  (4-A)  of  the

11 | P a g e

Constitution.  They urged before this Court that according to

the law laid down by this  Court,  the State has a duty to

decide not  to  provide reservations only after  the State is

satisfied that  the Scheduled Castes  and Scheduled Tribes

are adequately represented in public posts on the basis of

quantifiable  data.    According  to  them,  Suresh  Chand

Gautam  (supra)  was  not  correctly  decided  and  needs

reconsideration.  It  was  also  submitted  on  behalf  of  the

reserved  category  candidates  that  a  Committee  was

constituted  by  the  Government  of  Uttarakhand  to  collect

quantifiable data regarding the adequacy of representation

of  persons belonging to  Scheduled Castes  and Schedules

Tribes in public posts in accordance with the judgment of

this Court in M. Nagaraj (supra).    According to the report

submitted  by  the  Committee,  there  is  inadequate

representation  of  the  Scheduled  Castes  and  Scheduled

Tribes in government services in the State of Uttarakhand.

The said report was approved by the State Cabinet. It was

contended  by  the  learned  counsel  that  the  State

Government was duty bound to provide reservations on the

basis of the data that was collected by the Committee.   

12 | P a g e

10. The central point that arises for  our consideration in

these appeals is whether the State Government is bound to

make reservations in public posts and whether the decision

by the State Government not to provide reservations can be

only on the basis of quantifiable data relating to adequacy

of representation of persons belonging to Scheduled Castes

and Scheduled Tribes.

11. Article 16 (4) and 16 (4-A) do not confer fundamental

right to claim reservations in promotion9.  By relying upon

earlier judgments of this Court, it was held in  Ajit Singh

(II) (supra) that Article 16 (4) and 16 (4-A) are in the nature

of  enabling  provisions,  vesting  a  discretion  on  the  State

Government  to  consider  providing  reservations,  if  the

circumstances so warrant.  It is settled law that the State

Government cannot be directed to provide reservations for

appointment  in  public  posts10.  Similarly,  the  State  is  not

bound  to  make  reservation  for  Scheduled  Castes  and

Scheduled Tribes in matters of promotions.  However, if they

wish to exercise their discretion and make such provision,

the  State  has  to  collect  quantifiable  data  showing

9 Ajit Singh (II) v. State of Punjab, (1999) 7 SCC 209 10 C.A. Rajendran v. Union of India, (1968) 1 SCR 721

13 | P a g e

inadequacy of representation of that class in public services.

If  the  decision  of  the  State  Government  to  provide

reservations  in  promotion  is  challenged,  the  State

concerned shall have to place before the Court the requisite

quantifiable  data  and  satisfy  the  Court  that  such

reservations became necessary on account of inadequacy of

representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in

a  particular  class  or  classes  of  posts  without  affecting

general efficiency of administration as mandated by Article

335 of the Constitution11.            

12. Article 16 (4) and 16 (4-A) empower the State to make

reservation  in  matters  of  appointment  and  promotion  in

favour of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes ‘if in

the  opinion  of  the  State  they  are  not  adequately

represented in the services of the State’.  It is for the

State  Government  to  decide  whether  reservations  are

required in the matter  of  appointment and promotions to

public  posts.   The  language  in  clauses  (4)  and  (4-A)  of

Article 16 is  clear,  according to which,  the inadequacy of

representation is a matter within the subjective satisfaction

11 M. Nagaraj (supra)

14 | P a g e

of the State.   The State can form its own opinion on the

basis of the material it has in its possession already or it

may  gather  such  material  through  a

Commission/Committee,  person  or  authority.   All  that  is

required is that there must be some material on the basis of

which the opinion is formed.  The Court should show due

deference  to  the  opinion  of  the  State  which  does  not,

however, mean that the opinion formed is beyond judicial

scrutiny altogether.  The scope and reach of judicial scrutiny

in matters within the subjective satisfaction of the executive

are extensively stated in Barium Chemicals v. Company

Law Board12, which need not be reiterated13.  

13. On the basis of the settled law of this Court pertaining

to  the  scope  of  Article  16  (4)  and  16  (4-A)  of  the

Constitution,  we proceed to  determine the  correctness  of

the  judgments  of  the  High  Court.  As  noted  above,  the

judgment of the High Court in Writ Petition No.117 of 2019 is

to the effect that the proceeding dated 05.09.2012 issued

by the Government of Uttarakhand by which it was decided

to  fill  up  the  promotional  posts  or  vacancies  without

12 AIR 1967 SC 295 13 Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) Supp. (3) SCC 217

15 | P a g e

providing reservations to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes was struck down.   It was held by the High Court that

the  notifications  that  were  issued  by  the  Government  of

Uttarakhand,  providing  for  reservations,  continued  to

operate.   A  direction  was  issued  by  the  High  Court  that

reservation in promotion in favour of the Scheduled Castes

and Scheduled Tribes can be made by the State Government

without  having  quantifiable  data  regarding  the

backwardness of the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes

or the adequacy of their representation in the Government

services.

14. The application filed for review of the judgment in Writ

Petition No.117 of 2019 was decided by a judgment dated

08.11.2019  by  the  High  Court.   Realising  the  error

committed in its judgment dated 01.04.2019, the High Court

modified  the  judgment  by  holding  that  according  to  the

decision of this Court in Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain

Gupta14, the  State  was  obligated  to  collect  quantifiable

data  regarding  the  inadequacy  of  representation  of  the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in public services.

14 (2018) 10 SCC 396

16 | P a g e

The High Court observed that Article 16 (4) and 16 (4-A) of

the  Constitution  are  enabling  provisions,  and  the  State

Government  is  not  obligated  to  provide  reservations  in

promotion in favour of members of the Scheduled Castes

and Scheduled Tribes.   The High Court expressed its opinion

that  reservation  in  promotion  to  public  posts  can  be

provided by the State Government only after collecting data

regarding the inadequacy of their representation in service.

In  light  of  the  above,  the  High  Court  directed  the  State

Government  to  collect  quantifiable  data  regarding  the

adequacy  or  inadequacy  of  representation  of  Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes in state services which would

enable the State Government to take a considered decision

as  to  whether  or  not  reservation  in  promotion  should  be

provided  in  favour  of  Scheduled  Castes  and  Scheduled

Tribes.   The collection of quantifiable data was directed to

be completed within four months from the date of receipt of

the judgment.   

15. The High Court committed an error by striking down

the proceeding dated 05.09.2012 by which a decision was

taken  not  to  provide  reservation  in  promotions  without

17 | P a g e

giving any reasons, except stating that the said decision is

contrary to the judgments of this Court in Jarnail Singh and

Indra Sawhney (supra).  A perusal of the proceeding dated

05.09.2012 would show that the decision taken by the State

Government was by way of implementation of the judgment

of  the  High  Court  of  Uttarakhand  in  Vinod  Prakash

Nautiyal  (supra)  by which Section 3(7)  of  the 1994 Act,

relating to  the provision of  reservation in  promotion,  was

struck down.  By its judgment dated 10.07.2012 in  Vinod

Prakash Nautiyal (supra), the High Court declared Section

3 (7) of the 1994 Act as contrary to the law laid down by this

Court  in  M.  Nagaraj (supra).   There  was  a  further

declaration that no promotion can be given by the State of

Uttarakhand by taking recourse to Section 3 (7) of the 1994

Act.  However, the State Government was given liberty to

bring  out  another  legislation  in  accordance  with  the

mandate  of  the  Constitution  of  India,  by  following  the

judgment in  M. Nagaraj (supra). This Court dismissed the

SLP filed against the said judgment.  At this juncture, it is

relevant to  mention that  certain notifications were issued

after  the formation of  the State of  Uttarakhand by which

18 | P a g e

reservation in promotion to public posts as provided in the

State  of  Uttar  Pradesh  was  adapted  with  certain

modifications.   As  stated  above,  the  Government  of

Uttarakhand  appointed  a  Committee  for  collection  of

quantifiable data pertaining to the adequacy or inadequacy

of representation of the members of Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled  Tribes  in  public  services  in  the  State.   The

Committee  submitted  its  report,  according  to  which  the

representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is

inadequate.   The  State  Cabinet  approved  the

recommendation  of  the  Committee  on  12.04.2012.

Ultimately,  the  State  Government  by  a  proceeding  dated

05.09.2012 decided to  set  aside all  previous Government

orders relating to reservation in promotions to Government

services in the State.  As the Government is not bound to

provide  reservation  in  promotions,  we  are  of  the  opinion

that there is no justifiable reason for the High Court to have

declared the proceeding dated 05.09.2012 as illegal.  

16. The direction that was issued to the State Government

to collect quantifiable data pertaining to the adequacy or

inadequacy  of  representation  of  persons  belonging  to

19 | P a g e

Scheduled  Castes  and  Scheduled  Tribes  in  Government

services is the subject matter of challenge in some appeals

before us.  In view of the law laid down by this Court, there

is no doubt that the State Government is not bound to make

reservations.  There is no fundamental right which inheres in

an  individual  to  claim  reservation  in  promotions.   No

mandamus can be issued by the Court directing the State

Government to provide reservations.  It is abundantly clear

from the judgments of this Court in  Indra Sawhney, Ajit

Singh (II),  M.  Nagaraj and  Jarnail  Singh (supra)  that

Article 16 (4) and 16 (4-A) are enabling provisions and the

collection  of  quantifiable  data  showing  inadequacy  of

representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in

public service is a sine qua non for providing reservations in

promotions.   The  data  to  be  collected  by  the  State

Government is only to justify reservation to be made in the

matter  of  appointment  or  promotion  to  public  posts,

according to Article 16 (4) and 16 (4-A) of the Constitution.

As  such,  collection  of  data  regarding  the  inadequate

representation  of  members  of  the  Scheduled  Castes  and

Schedules  Tribes,  as  noted  above,  is  a  pre  requisite  for

20 | P a g e

providing reservations, and is not required when the State

Government decided not to provide reservations.  Not being

bound to provide reservations in  promotions,  the State is

not  required  to  justify  its  decision  on  the  basis  of

quantifiable  data,  showing  that  there  is  adequate

representation  of  members  of  the  Scheduled  Castes  and

Schedules  Tribes  in  State  services.   Even  if  the  under-

representation of Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes in

public  services  is  brought  to  the  notice of  this  Court,  no

mandamus  can  be  issued  by  this  Court  to  the  State

Government to provide reservation in light of the law laid

down by this Court in C.A. Rajendran (supra) and Suresh

Chand Gautam (supra).         Therefore, the direction given

by the High Court that the State Government should first

collect  data  regarding  the  adequacy  or  inadequacy  of

representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in

Government  services  on  the  basis  of  which  the  State

Government  should  take  a  decision  whether  or  not  to

provide reservation in promotion is contrary to the law laid

down by this Court and is accordingly set aside.  Yet another

direction  given  by  the  High  Court  in  its  judgment  dated

21 | P a g e

15.07.2019, directing that all future vacancies that are to be

filled up by promotion in the posts of Assistant Engineer,

should only be from the members of Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes,  is  wholly  unjustifiable  and is  hence set

aside.  

17. The  submission  made  on  behalf  of  the  reserved

category  candidates  that  the  judgment  of  this  Court  in

Suresh Chand Gautam  (supra)  needs reconsideration is

without substance in view of the findings recorded above.

We  are  in  agreement  with  the  decision  of  this  Court  in

Suresh Chand Gautam (supra) in which it was held that

no mandamus can be issued by the Court to the State to

collect  quantifiable  data  relating  to  adequacy  of

representation  of  the  Scheduled  Castes  and  Scheduled

Tribes in public services.  

18.  The  High  Court  was  not  informed  about  the

appointment of  a  Committee for  collection of quantifiable

data and the completion of such exercise by the Committee,

which was approved by the State Cabinet.   However, the

State Government took a conscious decision not to provide

reservation in promotions.  The direction given by the High

22 | P a g e

Court  to  collect  quantifiable  data,  therefore,  is  wholly

unnecessary as the State is already in possession of the said

data.  

19. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned judgments of

the High Court in Writ Petition (S/B) No.351 of 2019, Writ

Petition (S/B) No.117 of 2019 and Review Application No.389

of 2019 in Writ Petition (S/B) No.117 of 2019 are set aside.   

20. The Appeals are disposed of accordingly.

         .……..........................J.                                                 [L. NAGESWARA RAO]

                                           …...…….....................J.

                                                     [HEMANT GUPTA] New Delhi, February 07, 2020.

23 | P a g e