In response to a lot of requests that raise the issue of reservation in the promotion, the Supreme Court on Tuesday clarified that it would not reopen the norms established in his previous rulings that had ordered the exclusion of the creamy layer, quantifiable data on the adequacy of the representation of the backward classes in government positions and safeguarding administrative efficiency.
This clarification came repeatedly from a court of judges LN Rao, Saniv Khanna and BR Gavai as they attended 132 petitions, which challenged various state laws that attempted to sideline the mandate of three constitutional bank rulings: Indra Sawhney (which in 1992 stipulated the exclusion from the law) creamy layer to the OBC and covered share 50%), M Nagaraj (who in 2006 asked for quantifiable data to justify the scope of the reservation in the promotion with the mandate that the quota should not dilute administrative efficiency) and Jarnail Singh (who in 2018 dismissed the Nagraj reconsideration and the exclusion of extended creamy layer for SC / ST employees in promotion). In 2019, in the opinion of Pavitra-II, the CV had diluted the established concepts. In the Pavitra-I ruling, the SC had annulled a Karnataka law that stipulated consequent seniority along with reservations in promotions as unconstitutional due to the absence of quantifiable data criteria, which was deemed mandatory by the Nagaraj and Jarnail rulings. Singh.
B K Pavitra and others, through petitions filed by advocate Kumar Parimal and settled by senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, claimed that there was an error that appears in the findings of this court on the retrospective application of the Reservation Act 2018 and that inapplicability of creamy layer concept to the consequential seniority. The apex court’s order paved the way for the Karnataka government to bring about the promotion of SC/ST employees in the state.
On May 10, 2019, the top court had dismissed a batch of petitions filed by Pavitra and others against the validity of ‘the Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservation (To the Posts in the civil services of the State) Act, 2018’, passed to “circumvent” the 2017 verdict, then delivered on petitions by Pavitra and others.
In Pavitra-II, the SC diluted the constantly insisted standard of quantifiable data on the adequacy of representation by allowing the criteria to be met simply by a State saying that in its opinion there was inadequate representation to continue with reservation in the promotion. In the Nagaraj case, the CS had ruled that “the state is not required to make reservations for SC / ST in matters of promotions. However, if they wish to exercise their discretion and make such a provision, the state must collect quantifiable data showing backlog. of the class and insufficient representation of that class in public employment in addition to compliance with article 335 (administrative efficiency).
The court is hearing a series of petitions challenging 11 judgments of various HCs, which had annulled or ratified state laws on reserved promotion quotas for allegedly contravening the judgments of the SC. The court said the Attorney General would provide a background note on the issues raised in these petitions and how they were covered by various judgments.
