The apex court on Tuesday asked the federal government what action it has taken to justify the decision to grant promotions to employees belonging to Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) for reasons such as they are under-represented in their jobs. Reservation does not adversely affect overall administrative performance.
If a three-judge bench headed by Justice L Nageshwara Rao challenges the judiciary in granting promotion in a particular post to SCs and STs, the government should justify it to them. Providing adequate representation and allocation in a particular cadre does not adversely affect overall administrative performance.
“Please do not argue on the principles. Show us the data. How do you justify the reservation for promotion and what training did you do to justify the results. Please take the instructions and let us know,” the bench comprising Justices Sanjeev Khanna said. And P.R.
Initially, Attorney General KK Venugopal, appearing for the Union Government, referred to the Supreme Court judgments from the 1992 Indira Sahni judgment, the 2018 Jarnail Singh judgment, popularly known as the Mandal Commission case.
The Mandal judgment stated that there was no provision in promotions.
“The Indira Sahni verdict is about backward classes, not SCs and STs,” the legal official said.
“The ruling deals with the question of whether each category should be given a proportionate quota for their population, and then it says ” no, it should not be so ” because it would exceed the 50 per cent limit,” he said.
Section 16 of the Constitution requires equality in matters of public employment and if merit is the only criterion, SCs and STs, who are backward in the society, may not be able to compete, he said.
Until 1975, 3.5 per cent SCs and 0.62 per cent STs were in government employment, which is an average number, the legal official said.
Now in 2008, the number of SCs and STs in government employment stood at 17.5 and 6.8 per cent, respectively, which is still low and justifies such allocation.
The court will continue the trial today.
Earlier, the apex court had on September 14 said that it would not reopen the decision to grant reservation in promotion to SCs and STs as the states would decide how to implement it.
“We make it clear that we are not going to reopen Nagaraj or Journal Singh (cases) because the only idea is to settle these cases according to the law laid down by the court,” the bench said.
Issues created by Attorney General KK Venugopal and circulated by others increase the scope of cases.
“We are not prepared to do that. There are some problems already determined in Nagaraj and we are not going to take it. We are clear that we will not allow any arguments to reopen the cases or to argue that law. What was put out by Indira Sahni is that the purpose of these cases is to apply the law laid down by this court.” Said the bench.
KK Venugopal had submitted to the Supreme Court that almost all these issues have been covered up by the judgments of the Supreme Court and he will give the background of all the cases related to reservation from the Indira Sahni case.
The Attorney General has issued three interim High Court orders that are a problem of the Union of India, two of which say that promotion may continue, while one High Court has issued current orders regarding promotion.
“There are 1,400 posts (Secretariat level) in the Government of India where stagnant promotions cannot be offered, affecting the allotted seats.
KK Venugopal sought a stay on the contempt petition against the government, saying, “Another 2,500 posts have been stagnant for many years due to the current status orders relating to regular promotions. The government wants to make those promotions on a temporary basis without any entitlement.” Officer
Earlier, Maharashtra and other states had said that promotions were given in unreserved categories, but not in categories reserved for SC and ST employees.
In 2018, a five-judge constitutional bench refused to mention the 2006 judgment in the M Nagaraj case, in which the Creamy Layer Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) were extended to a larger seven-judge bench. For reconsideration.
This paved the way for allocating promotions to SCs and STs in government service, and modified the 2006 ruling to the extent that states were not required to “collect measurable data” to reflect the backwardness between these communities. Justify the quota in promotions.
However, the Supreme Court, in 2018, upheld certain conditions that justify promotion in the quota for SCs and STs. Performance