The judgements discuss the law on reservations under the Indian legal framework, and more specifically the law pertaining to reservation in promotions in services. Given the unique social fabric of our nation and the stark disparity between the numerous classes of the society, the drafters of the Indian Constitution set in place laws providing reservation to scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and other backward classes in admissions and services to ensure gradual upliftment of these downtrodden sections. The judgments set forth the judiciary’s opinions and findings on the legality and justification of warranting or denying reservation for these classes within the promotions offered in government services.
The Supreme Court was tasked with the duty to decide the following issues in the judgments discussed in this article:
The correctness of reservations in promotions
The factors and pre-requisites to be followed before granting reservation in promotions to members of a certain class or group of persons
Whether Article 16 grants a fundamental right to claim reservation in promotions
While adjudicating upon the issue of reservation in promotions, the Supreme court in a landmark judgment held that the Article 16 (4) did not grant any rights to a person to claim benefits against any corresponding obligation on part of the government. The Supreme Court stated that Article 16 (4) was merely an enabling provision and agreed with the centre’s decision to not provide any reservation in promotions with respect to class I & class II services.
The Supreme Court in a landmark judgment held that the provision under Article 16 (4) enabling states to make reservations in appointments did not extend to the aspect of promotion, which was undesirable. Therefore, reservations cannot be provided in reservations by state governments.
The Supreme Court in an integral decision on the jurisprudence of reservation in promotions stated that there was no obligation upon the states to make provision for reservations. It stated that Articles 16 (4) & (4A) neither grant any fundamental right to any person nor place a constitutional duty upon the government to provide reservation.
In a landmark case, the Supreme Court was tasked with adjudicating the challenge to the amendments brought about to the constitution by way of the 77th and 85th amendment. While deciding the correctness of the provisions enabling reservations in promotion, the Supreme Court held that although the state governments are not mandated to provide reservations in promotions, however if a state chooses to do so, it shall have to collect quantifiable data showcasing the backwardness of a particular class and the inadequacy of its representation in public service. It further stated that such provisions for granting reservation in promotion should not come at the cost of overall administrative efficiency.
In another landmark judgment, the Supreme Court held that it could not lay down a common yardstick for evaluation of inadequacy of representation to aid states in providing reservation in promotions to a class of citizens. It further held that the state governments were under an obligation to satisfy the prerequisite to collect quantifiable data before providing reservation in promotions to any class. The Supreme Court further stated that the data to be collected for this purpose must relate only to the category or grade of post to which promotion is sought and not to the entire class or group of persons.
C. A. Rajendran vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 September, 1967
Equivalent citations: 1968 AIR 507, 1968 SCR (1) 721
Author: V Ramaswami
Bench: Wanchoo, K.N. (Cj), Bachawat, R.S., Ramaswami, V., Mitter, G.K., Hegde, K.S.
PETITIONER:
C. A. RAJENDRAN
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
ACT:
Constitution of India, Arts. 14 and 16(4)-Whether Art. 16(4)
confers a right on scheduled castes and tribes or only an
enabling provision-Provision made for no reservation of
posts for backward classes in Class I and II posts only in
lower class service whether discriminatory.
JUDGMENT:
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 11 of 1967. Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
N. C. ChatterJee, K. B. Rohtagi and S. BalakriShnan, for Petitioner.
C. K. Daphtary, Attorney-General, A. S. Nambiar, R. H. Dhebar and S. P. Nayar, for the respondents. K. B. Rohtagi, for the interveners.
Ramaswami, J. In this case the petitioner, C. A. Rajendran has obtained rule from this Court calling upon the respondents to show cause why a writ in the nature of mandamus under Art. 32 of the Constitution should not be issued for quashing the office Memorandum dated November 8, 1963 which is Annexure C' to the Writ Petition, and for directing respondent No. 1 to restore the orders passed by it in Office Memorandum No. 2 /11/ 55-RPS dated May 7, 1955 and No. 5/4/55-SCT-(1) dated January 4, 1957. Cause has been shown by the Attorney-General on behalf of the respondents to whom notice of the rule was ordered to be given.
The petitioner is a permanent Assistant in Grade IV (Class 11, non-gazetted-ministerial) of the Railway Board Secretariat Service. He was initially appointed as Accounts Clerk on February 6, 1953 in Southern Railway. He was appointed as an Assistant on October 22, 1956 in the Railway Board and confirmed as Assistant on April 1, 1960. The pay- scale of the Assistant's grade is Rs. 210-530. The next post to which the petitioner claims promotion is that of the Section Officer in the same service. The post of Section Officer is classified as Class II, Grade 11, Gazetted and it carries a pay-scale of Rs. 350-900. The Railway Board Secretariat Service (Reorganisation and Reinforcement) Scheme was drawn up in consultation with the Ministry of Home Affairs and introduced with effect from December 1, 954 with the approval of the Union Public Service Commission. According to the new Scheme the Railway Board Secretariat Service consists of the following grades: "Grade IV-Assistants in the scale of Rs. 210-530 (Class III non-gazetted) (to which Petitioner belongs)....
Download complete judgement by clicking on the button given below >>
The judgments in this article discuss the legal framework facilitating the concept of reservation in promotions in public sector employment to ensure a fair representation of the weaker sections of the society. The judgments discuss the provisions of the Indian Constitution under Part XVI which deals with the reservation for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in the union and state legislatures and also, Articles 15, 16, 330, 332 and 335. These provisions together represent the enabling framework for states to provide reservation in promotions to persons belonging to a certain class or group.
It is important to understand the law governing the policy of reservations. As a member of the communities or classes which have been recognised as scheduled castes, scheduled tribes or other backward classes, it becomes imperative to gain a proper understanding of these laws so that one can reap the complete benefit of these welfare provisions aimed at ensuring upliftment and proper representation in public employment. Given the intricacies of these laws, one is required to engage the services of a civil lawyer to ensure that their rights and interests are not only protected but advanced as well to meet the objectives of the law of reservation.
468+ Lawyers are online 
