Major Supreme Court Judgments On Reservation In Promotions

The Supreme Court's recent decision that there is no fundamental right to claim reservation in promotions has become a subject matter of intense debate. The decision was discussed in the Parliament, and the Centre has told the House that the matter was under the study and consideration of the Government at "high level".In this backdrop, this article traces the legal evolution of the concept of "Reservation in Promotions".Reservation not confined to initial appointment : Rangachari Case (AIR 1962 SC 36)In this case (General Manager, Southern Railway v A Rangachari), validity of the circulars issued by the Railway administration providing for reservation in favour of Scheduled Castes / Scheduled Tribes in promotions (by selection) was questioned. The contention was that Article 16(4) of the Constitution does not take in promotions and that it is confined to direct recruitment only. The Madras High Court agreed with this contention. It held that the word "appointments" in clause (4) did not denote promotion and further that the word "posts" in the said clause referred to posts outside the cadre concerned.On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed by a majority of 3 : 2. Certain notable points from the judgment written by Justice Gajendragadkar for the majority are as follows :The promotion to a selection post is also included in the matters relating to employment.Art.16(1) guarantees equality of opportunity to all citizens who enter service even in regard to promotion. The condition precedent for the exercise of the powers conferred by Art.16(4) is that the State ought to be satisfied that any backward class of citizens is not adequately represented in its services.This condition precedent may refer either to the numerical inadequacy of representation in the services or even to the qualitative inadequacy of representation.The advancement of the socially and educationally backward classes requires not only that they should have adequate, representation in the lowest rung of services but that they should aspire to secure adequate representation in selection posts in the services as well. State of Punjab v. Hiralal (AIR 1971 SC 1777)In this case, validity of an order made by the Government of Punjab providing for reservation in promotion (in addition to initial recruitment) was questioned. Though the High Court upheld the challenge, the Supreme Court (Shah, Hegde and Grover, JJ.) reversed and upheld the validity of the Government order following Rangachari (supra). N M Thomas v State of Kerala ( AIR 1976 SC 490)This case was not exactly pertaining to reservation in promotions, but was regarding the legality of a concession granted by Government to SC/ST members for availing departmental promotion.In this case, 7-judge bench upheld by 5:2 majority the amendment brought by State of Kerala to its service rules to grant exemption to members of SC/STs from appearing in a departmental examination for promotion. The majority held that Article 16(4) was not in the nature of an exception, and was a facet of equality under Articles 14 and 16(1). "The rule giving preference to an unrepresented or under-represented backward community does not contravene Art.14, 16(1) or 16(2)", held the Court. No reservation in promotions : Indira Sawhney v Union of India (1992)The Supreme Court's nine-judge constitutional bench in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), commonly called as Mandal Commission case, while allowing the extension of the reservation policy to Other Backward Classes (OBCs), held that reservation, under Article 16(4), cannot be extended to subsequent promotion within the place of employment. Among several other issues on reservation, the Court also considered this specific issue : " Whether clause (4) of Art.16 provides reservation only in the matter of initial appointments / direct recruitment or does it contemplate and provide for reservations being made in the matter of promotion as well?" Ultimately, the judgment decided that reservation would apply at the stage of initial entry only and would not apply at the stage of promotion. The majority disagreed with the view expressed in Rangachari. Concerns regarding efficiency of administration were expressed by the majority in this judgment. It was even remarked that "crutches cannot be provided throughout one's career".In the words of the Court :"While it is certainly just to say that a handicap should be given to backward class of citizens at the stage of initial appointment, it would be serious and unacceptable inroad into the rule of equality of opportunity to say that such a handicap should be provided at every stage of promotion throughout their career. That would mean creation of a permanent separate category apart from the mainstream a vertical division of the administrative apparatus. The members of reserved categories need not have to compete with others but only among themselves. There would be no will to work, compete and excel among them. Whether they...

Major Supreme Court Judgments On Reservation In Promotions

Shinto Mathew Abraham

Tags