Bench & Quorum: L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta

Procedural History of the Case:

The reservation policy is a traditional idea that has been implemented in India for a very long time to level the playing field and eliminate inequalities. To achieve this goal, the Indian Constitution includes special clauses for the advancement of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as well as the elimination of untouchability. The Indian judiciary has also issued several rulings. The primary goal of the reservation policies is to enhance the social and educational standing of the poor populations, improving their quality of life. The court and the government have been at odds over reservations in promotions for a very long time. A number of adjustments have been made recently regarding reservations:

• 1995-77th Constitutional Amendment [Article 16(4A)] The 77th Constitutional Amendment eliminated the impact of the Indra Sawhney case by introducing Article 16(4A), a special provision that limits reservations for promotions to members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. This provision has since been amended several times to encourage increased reservations by states when those states feel their constituents are not adequately represented in government services.
  
  
• 2000-81st Constitutional Amendment [Article-16(4B)] The Carry Forward Rule, which permits the state to carry forward unfilled vacancies from one year to the next and replace them in the next year, was added in this modification. Such vacancies shall not be regarded as part of the class of vacancies for the year in which they are filled.
  
  
• 2000-82nd Constitutional Amendment [Inserted provision to Article-335] This modification overturns the ruling in S Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, which determined that lowering the qualifying marks is not permitted when it comes to racial discrimination in promotion. The amendment was reversed, and it now reads that the state is free to reduce the requirements for SC/STs seeking promotion to any class of public service or post.
  
  
• 2001-85th Constitutional Amendment [Article-(4A)] This modification overturns the ruling in S Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, which determined that lowering the qualifying marks is not permitted when it comes to racial discrimination in promotion. The amendment was reversed, and it now reads that the state is free to reduce the requirements for SC/STs seeking promotion to any class of public service or post.

Facts:

• The case revolves around the issue of reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in promotions for the position of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the Public Works Department of the Government of Uttarakhand.
  
  
• The Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994, provided for reservations at the stage of direct recruitment. Section 3(7) of the Act extended reservations to appointments through promotion for existing posts. After Uttarakhand's formation in 2001, the Act was applied to the state with modifications in reservation percentages.
  
  
• A Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad upheld the validity of Rule 8-A of the Uttar Pradesh Servants Government Seniority Rules, 1991, dealing with consequential seniority for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. However, another Bench later declared Section 3(7) of the 1994 Act and Rule 8-A unconstitutional.
  
  
• The challenge to Section 3(7) of the 1994 Act in Uttarakhand was upheld by the High Court, declaring it unconstitutional. A committee was then formed to collect data on the backwardness of reserved communities and their representation in public posts.
  
  
• On September 5, 2012, the State Government decided to fill all public service posts without providing reservations to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, superseding previous government orders. This decision was challenged, and the High Court struck it down in 2019, citing constitutional provisions enabling reservations without the necessity of quantifiable data.
  
  
• Simultaneously, individuals belonging to Scheduled Castes filed a petition seeking separate lists and departmental promotion committees with reservation. The High Court directed the State Government to implement reservations in promotions for future vacancies to maintain the quota for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
  
  
• In a review, the High Court clarified its earlier judgment, stating that while the state is not obligated to provide reservations, it must collect quantifiable data on the inadequacy of representation before making a decision. The State Government was directed to decide on reservations based on the collected data within four months.
• Various appeals have been filed against these decisions, challenging the High Court's stance on the necessity of quantifiable data and the constitutional validity of providing reservations in promotions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
• The Supreme Court took cognizance of the case as part of its civil appellate jurisdiction to decide on the matter.

Issues:

• Whether the State Government is bound to make reservations in public posts?
• Whether the decision by the State Government not to provide reservations can be only based on quantifiable data relating to the adequacy of representation of persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes?
• Whether it is necessary to look at the quantitative and qualitative data when deciding not to give reservation?
• Whether it is binding on the state to provide reservations under Article 16(4)?

Arguments:

From Appellant:

• There is no fundamental right to claim reservations in the first place in appointment or promotion to public posts.
• Articles 16(4) and 16(4A) are merely enabling provisions, and there is no constitutional duty on the state government to provide for reservations as per the judgment of M. Nagraj.
• It is only necessary to provide for the collection of any quantifiable data only when the government provides for reservations and not otherwise as per the judgment of Suresh Chand Gautam v. State of U.P.

From Respondent:

• The state cannot refuse to collect quantifiable data regarding the adequacy or inadequacy of representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in public services.
• There is an obligation on the state to provide reservations as mandated by Articles 16(4) and 16(4A).
• If the state decides not to provide reservation to SCs and STs, it can do so only after it is satisfied that they are adequately represented in public posts based on quantifiable data.
• Suresh Chand Gautam was not correctly decided and needs reconsideration.
• The committee constituted to seek quantifiable data for reservation based on the M. Nagraj judgment submitted that there is inadequate representation.

Judgment:

Another year-defining decision declares that states are not required to provide reservations to SCs and STs that ensure advancement in public employment. The court also declared that because it is not a basic right protected by the Constitution, no mandamus may be issued in support of it. The honorable bench held that states are not required to gather quantifiable statistics showing the representation of SCs and STs if they choose not to offer such accommodations. The states are given this latitude by Article 16(4) of the Constitution. The bench went on to say: "As such, collection of data regarding the inadequate representation of members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is a prerequisite for providing reservations and is not required when the State Government decides not to provide reservations." The State is not obligated to substantiate its choice with quantitative evidence that demonstrates that there is an appropriate representation of members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in State services since it is not compelled to offer reservations in promotions.

Analysis:

This case centred around the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for SCs, STs, and OBCs) Act of 1994, which granted reservations for Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in public services and positions in Uttar Pradesh. Section 3(7) of this Act allowed for reservations in promotions. When Uttarakhand was established in 2001, the 1994 Act was applied to the new state with some changes in reservation percentages. Legal disputes emerged regarding the validity of Section 3(7) of the 1994 Act and the extent of reservations for SCs and STs in promotions. The Uttarakhand High Court ruled Section 3(7) of the 1994 Act unconstitutional, leading to disagreements over reservations for SCs and STs in promotions.

The judgment reaffirmed that individuals do not have a fundamental right to demand reservations in appointments or promotions to public posts. Reservations are not a guaranteed entitlement. The state government is not required to provide reservations in promotions unless they have collected specific data demonstrating a lack of representation of SCs and STs in public services. This data is crucial to justify the need for reservations. Although the state government has the discretion to implement reservations, it is not compelled to do so. The decision to provide reservations should be based on the data collected and should not harm the overall efficiency of public administration. Courts cannot force the state government to gather data on SCs and STs' representation unless the government decides to provide reservations.

This judgment clarifies the importance of quantifiable data in determining the necessity of reservations in promotions for SCs and STs. It emphasizes that reservations are not an automatic entitlement but should be based on evidence of underrepresentation. The judgment underscores the discretion of the state government in deciding whether to implement reservations and the significance of ensuring that reservations do not compromise overall administrative efficiency. This ruling provides guidance on the legal framework surrounding reservations in India, particularly in the context of promotions in government services. It highlights the importance of data-driven decision-making when implementing reservations and the limited role of courts in mandating such decisions.

Opinion:
The judgment on reservations for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in promotions within the public works department of the government of Uttarakhand holds very significant relevance. The matter of reservation has been a topic of discussion for a long time and is an essential part of the socio-political landscape in India. This sometimes results in a disbalance between social justice and administrative efficiency. The disbalance is hard to eradicate as both things are equally important. Some might think that social justice is a much bigger prospect than efficiency in public works, but I think in the long run efficiency is as important.

In our country, there are always two sides to a dispute. In this matter where reservation in promotions in public work department here also there are two sides. This reservation may be beneficial for the scheduled castes and tribes as many higher officials are hesitant or out of spite do not present SCs/STs with equal opportunity for promotions. The other side is that the SCs/STs employees may lack in competency. Efficiency is what runs the whole organization.

We agree with the judgment of the high court that the state government should collect quantifiable data regarding the adequacy or inadequacy of representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in government services, which was overturned by the Supreme Court. It is high time that data-driven policies should be considered more credible. The Public expects that the government bases its decision on empirical evidence and in this case, involves the implementation of social justice policies. We think if the government starts making the reservation policies based on data acquired, it would be justified and would show the relevancy of such policies.