RESERVATION IN INDIA:

supreme court

Supreme Court says that the state government is not bound to give reservation in jobs

It has been stated by the Supreme Court that it is not important for the states to offer reservation in jobs and that there is no fundamental right to claim quota in promotions.

A bench of justices L Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta said, “In view of the law laid down by this court, there is no doubt that the state government is not bound to make reservations. There is no fundamental right which inheres in an individual to claim reservation in promotions.” They added, “No mandamus can be issued by the court directing the state government to provide reservations.”

This verdict was given by the top court when it was hearing pleas about Uttarakhand government’s September 5, 2012 decision that it would fill up all the posts in public services in the state without any reservation to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

The decision taken by the government was first challenged in the High Court of Uttarakhand, and was struck down.

While dealing with the pleas, the Supreme Court noted, “It is settled law that the state government cannot be directed to provide reservations for appointment in public posts. Similarly, the state is not bound to make reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in matters of promotions.”

The bench said, “However, if they (state) wish to exercise their discretion and make such provision, the state has to collect quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation of that class in public services.”

According to the Supreme Court, since it is not important for the government to give reservation in promotions, their decision should not have been declared illegal by the high court.

Talking about the constitutional provision regarding reservation, the bench stated, “It is for the state government to decide whether reservations are required in the matter of appointment and promotions to public posts.”

They added, “The language in clauses (4) and (4-A) of Article 16 is clear, according to which, the inadequacy of representation is a matter within the subjective satisfaction of the state. All that is required is that there must be some material on the basis of which the opinion is formed.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *