Constitution Not Charter Of Privilege, Reservation In Promotion Can't Be Introduced Without Statutory Amendment: P&H High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that reservation in promotion cannot be implemented by executive action or policy decision in the absence of an enabling statutory rule framed under Article 309 of the Constitution.The Court observed that the Department acted beyond its jurisdiction in granting promotion benefits to juniors belonging to Scheduled Caste category by extending reservation in promotion, even though the Haryana Health Department Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (Group-C) Service Rules, 1997 and Group-B Service Rules, 1982 contained no provision for such reservation.Justice Sandeep Moudgil said, "In the present case, the respondent–department sought to introduce reservation in promotion by executive action by drawing inspiration from judicial decision without any amendment to the statutory rules. Such an approach disregards the balance that the framers of the Constitution, and later the Supreme Court, have sought to maintain between social justice and administrative merit."The Court reiterated that promotion in public service is not merely a procedural elevation and it represents institutional recognition of merit, experience, and dedication. "When employees who have consistently performed well are displaced due to earlier accelerated promotions granted under the umbrella of reservation, the equilibrium between inclusion and fairness is disturbed," it added.Constitution Not Charter Of PrivilegeThe Court observed that the Constitution is not a charter of privilege but a framework of justice. "The protection of disadvantaged sections is an enduring constitutional mandate, yet it must be pursued through lawful means, consistent with the larger principles of equality and efficiency.""The courts, as guardians of constitutional morality, must ensure that in seeking to uplift one section, the State does not inadvertently alienate another. Justice, to be just, must remain fair to all," the bench said.The petitioners entered service as Clerks in the Health Department and were later promoted as Assistants. Their names were included in the seniority list for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent under the 1997 Rules.However, during the promotion process conducted on 21 September 2010, certain junior officers were promoted under the Scheduled Caste category by applying reservation in promotion. The same pattern was repeated on 31 May 2013 during promotions to the post of Superintendent.Despite making repeated representations pointing out that the applicable rules did not provide for reservation in promotion, the petitioners received no relief. Consequently, they approached the High Court challenging the promotion orders dated 13.09.2010 and 26.04.2011, seeking quashing of these orders and a direction for grant of promotion with retrospective effect.The petitioners argued that the Department's action violated Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution and was contrary to the statutory framework governing service promotions. It was submitted that neither the 1997 Group-C Rules nor the 1982 Group-B Rules contain any clause providing for reservation in promotion.Their counsel contended that reservation in promotion can only be introduced through statutory amendment after satisfying constitutional preconditions, such as quantifiable data on backwardness and inadequate representation, as laid down in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 212 and Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018) 10 SCC 396.Without amending the rules, the Department could not have relied on executive orders or judicial interpretations to extend reservation in promotion. The petitioners, being senior and eligible, had a vested right to be considered strictly under the existing rules.The State defended its action by contending that the promotions were made in accordance with the government's policy and judicial pronouncements recognizing reservation in promotion for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.It was argued that after M. Nagaraj (supra) and Jarnail Singh (supra), the State was duty-bound to ensure adequate representation of Scheduled Castes in higher posts and thus extended the benefit of reservation in promotion to eligible employees.The respondents further submitted that promotion is not a matter of right and depends on eligibility conditions, including reservation policy in force. The Department, it was claimed, acted bona fide in line with constitutional principles of social justice.The Court undertook a detailed examination of the constitutional and legal framework governing reservation in promotion.Referring to Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217, the Court reiterated that reservation in promotion was initially impermissible and that the insertion of Article 16(4A) by the 77th Constitutional Amendment (1995) merely conferred an enabling power, not an automatic right, upon the State to provide reservation in promotion, and only after collecting quantifiable data demonstrating...

Constitution Not Charter Of Privilege, Reservation In Promotion Can't Be Introduced Without Statutory Amendment: P&H High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Constitution Not Charter Of Privilege, Reservation In Promotion Can't Be Introduced Without Statutory Amendment: P&H High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers