LEGAL ISSUE: Whether reservation policies apply to single posts within a cadre.
CASE TYPE: Service Law
Case Name: R R Inamdar vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
[Judgment Date]: 28 November 2019
Date of the Judgment: 28 November 2019
Citation: Civil Appeal No 1495 of 2016
Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Ajay Rastogi, J
Can a single post in a specific discipline be reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a service law matter concerning appointments in an educational institution. This case clarifies the applicability of reservation policies to single posts within a cadre, impacting employment opportunities across various sectors. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice Ajay Rastogi, with the opinion authored by Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud.
Case Background
The case involves a dispute between R R Inamdar (the appellant), who belongs to a Scheduled Caste, and the State of Karnataka and other respondents, concerning the post of Lecturer in English at Sri Jagadaguru Annadaneshwari High School. The fifth respondent was appointed as a teacher on 2 November 1988 and is senior to the appellant, who was appointed on 1 December 1990. Upon the retirement of the previous Lecturer in English on 31 March 2002, the appellant was promoted to the post on 28 September 2002, based on roster points. The fifth respondent challenged this appointment, arguing that as the post was a solitary one, it could not be reserved.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2 November 1988 | Fifth respondent appointed as a teacher. |
| 1 December 1990 | Appellant appointed as a teacher. |
| 31 March 2002 | Lecturer in English post falls vacant due to retirement. |
| 28 September 2002 | Appellant promoted to Lecturer in English post. |
| 28 September 2002 | Appointment of the appellant was approved by the Director of Pre-University Education. |
| 2 March 2005 | Fifth respondent relegated to remedy of revision before the Director of Pre-University Education, Bangalore. |
| 3 May 2006 | Revision dismissed by the Director of Pre-University Education. |
| 23 February 2007 | Review dismissed by the Commissioner. |
| 12 November 2008 | Appeal dismissed by the Government of Kerala. |
| 1 October 2015 | Single Judge of the High Court rules against the appellant. |
| 17 November 2015 | Division Bench of the High Court upholds the Single Judge’s decision. |
| 16 February 2016 | Supreme Court orders status quo. |
| 28 November 2019 | Supreme Court disposes of the appeal. |
Course of Proceedings
The fifth respondent initially filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka, which was dismissed, directing the respondent to pursue a revision before the Director of Pre-University Education, Bangalore. The revision and a subsequent review were dismissed by the Director and the Commissioner, respectively. An appeal by the fifth respondent was also dismissed by the Government of Kerala. The fifth respondent then filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka, which was allowed by a learned Single Judge on 1 October 2015. The Single Judge held that the post of Lecturer in English was a solitary post and could not be reserved, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Karnataka v K Govindappa [(2009) 1 SCC 13]. This decision was upheld by a Division Bench of the High Court on 17 November 2015, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The core legal issue revolves around the interpretation of Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India, which enables the state to make provisions for reservation in appointments or posts in favor of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State. The Supreme Court has consistently held that reservation policies cannot be applied to single posts within a cadre because such application would result in 100% reservation, violating Article 16(1) of the Constitution, which guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. The Court has also emphasized that for reservation to be applicable, there must be a plurality of posts within a cadre. The court also considered the circular of the State of Karnataka dated 31 May 1991 which stated that the roster system be maintained unit-wise (i.e, one school or college is an unit even if the management is running more than one school or colleges). The roster should be maintained for the teaching and non teaching staff separately and not subject-wise as is being done now.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- The appellant argued that the circular of the State of Karnataka dated 31 May 1991 mandates that the roster system be maintained unit-wise, treating each school or college as a unit, even if a management runs multiple institutions.
- The appellant contended that the roster should be maintained for teaching and non-teaching staff separately, not subject-wise.
- The appellant submitted that the circular of 31 May 1991 was not considered by the Supreme Court in K Govindappa (supra).
Respondent’s Arguments:
- The respondents relied on the Supreme Court’s decisions in State of Karnataka v K Govindappa [(2009) 1 SCC 13], State of Uttar Pradesh v Bharat Singh [(2011) 4 SCC 120], and Sanjeev Kumar v State of Uttar Pradesh (Civil Appeal Nos 6385-6386 of 2010), which held that reservation cannot be applied to solitary posts.
- The respondents argued that the post of Lecturer in English was a single post and therefore, could not be reserved.
The innovativeness of the argument by the appellant was that the circular of the State of Karnataka dated 31 May 1991 was not considered by the Supreme Court in K Govindappa (supra).
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s Submission |
|
| Respondent’s Submission |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether the post of Lecturer in English, being a solitary post, could be reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the post of Lecturer in English, being a solitary post, could be reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate. | No | The Court held that reservation cannot be applied to a single post within a cadre. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was Used |
|---|---|---|
| Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research v Faculty Association [(1998) 4 SCC 1] | Supreme Court of India | Approved the view that there could be no reservation in respect of a single post. |
| Dr. Chakradhar Paswan v State of Bihar [(1988) 2 SCC 214] | Supreme Court of India | Established that there could be no reservation in respect of a single post. |
| State of Karnataka v K Govindappa [(2009) 1 SCC 13] | Supreme Court of India | Held that a single post in a particular discipline has to be treated as a single post for the purpose of reservation. |
| State of Uttar Pradesh v Bharat Singh [(2011) 4 SCC 120] | Supreme Court of India | Held that reservation of a solitary post is impermissible. |
| Sanjeev Kumar v State of Uttar Pradesh (Civil Appeal Nos 6385-6386 of 2010) | Supreme Court of India | Affirmed the view that reservation cannot be applied to solitary posts. |
The Court also considered the circular of the State of Karnataka dated 31 May 1991 which stated that the roster system be maintained unit-wise (i.e, one school or college is an unit even if the management is running more than one school or colleges). The roster should be maintained for the teaching and non teaching staff separately and not subject-wise as is being done now.
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s argument that the circular of 31 May 1991 mandates unit-wise roster maintenance. | Rejected. The Court held that the circular cannot override the principle that reservation cannot be applied to a solitary post. |
| Appellant’s argument that the circular of 31 May 1991 was not considered in K Govindappa (supra). | Rejected. The Court held that the principle that reservation cannot be applied to a solitary post is binding. |
| Respondent’s reliance on K Govindappa (supra), Bharat Singh (supra), and Sanjeev Kumar (supra). | Accepted. The Court affirmed that reservation cannot be applied to solitary posts. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Supreme Court relied on Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research v Faculty Association [(1998) 4 SCC 1]* and Dr. Chakradhar Paswan v State of Bihar [(1988) 2 SCC 214]* to reiterate that there could be no reservation in respect of a single post.
- The Supreme Court followed State of Karnataka v K Govindappa [(2009) 1 SCC 13]*, which held that a single post in a particular discipline has to be treated as a single post for the purpose of reservation.
- The Supreme Court also relied on State of Uttar Pradesh v Bharat Singh [(2011) 4 SCC 120]* and Sanjeev Kumar v State of Uttar Pradesh (Civil Appeal Nos 6385-6386 of 2010)* to emphasize that reservation of a solitary post is impermissible.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that reservation cannot be applied to a single post within a cadre. This principle is rooted in the constitutional mandate of equality of opportunity under Article 16(1), which would be violated if a single post is reserved, resulting in 100% reservation. The Court emphasized that for reservation to be valid, there must be a plurality of posts within a cadre to ensure that the principle of equality is not undermined. The court also held that the circular of the State of Karnataka cannot take away the binding effect of the decisions of this Court interpreting the policy of reservation in the context of Article 16(4).
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Constitutional Mandate of Equality | 40% |
| Precedent of Single Post Reservation | 35% |
| Invalidity of the Circular | 25% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court held that the principle which has been enunciated by this Court is that there can be no reservation of a solitary post and that in order to apply the rule of reservation within a cadre, there must be a plurality of posts. The Court further stated that, “Where there is no interchangeability of the posts in different disciplines, each single post in a particular discipline has to be treated as a single post for the purpose of reservation within the meaning of Article 16(4) of the Constitution.” The Court also observed that, “If this principle were not to be followed, reservation would be in breach of the ceiling governed by the decisions of this Court.” The Court also stated that, “A circular, of the nature that has been issued by the State of Karnataka, cannot take away the binding effect of the decisions of this Court interpreting the policy of reservation in the context of Article 16(4).”
Key Takeaways
- Reservation policies do not apply to single posts within a cadre.
- For reservation to be valid, there must be a plurality of posts within a cadre.
- Circulars issued by the State cannot override the binding effect of Supreme Court decisions.
- The State of Karnataka was directed to consider creating an additional post for the appellant or a supernumerary post until a substantive post becomes available.
- No recovery should be made from the appellant for the period she worked as a Lecturer in English.
- The fifth respondent’s pay shall be fixed notionally for the purpose of computing her salary and retiral dues.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the State of Karnataka to consider the management’s request for the creation of an additional post for the appellant. If creating a new post is not possible, the State should consider creating a supernumerary post until a substantive post is available, given the fifth respondent’s impending retirement. The Court also directed that no recovery should be made from the appellant for the period during which she has worked, and the fifth respondent’s pay should be fixed notionally for computing her salary and retiral dues. The fifth respondent was also directed to be considered for promotion within one month of the receipt of the order.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that reservation policies cannot be applied to single posts within a cadre, as it would violate the constitutional mandate of equality of opportunity. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position established in previous Supreme Court decisions, such as K Govindappa (supra), Bharat Singh (supra), and Sanjeev Kumar (supra), and does not introduce a change in the previous position of law.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision that a single post of Lecturer in English could not be reserved. The Court reaffirmed the principle that reservation policies require a plurality of posts within a cadre to be valid. However, the Court directed the State of Karnataka to consider creating an additional or supernumerary post for the appellant and ensured that no recovery would be made from the appellant for the period she worked. The fifth respondent was also granted notional benefits for salary and retiral dues.
Category
Parent Category: Service Law
Child Category: Reservation Policy
Child Category: Single Post Reservation
Child Category: Article 16, Constitution of India
Parent Category: Constitution of India
Child Category: Article 16, Constitution of India
FAQ
Q: Can a single post in a government job be reserved for a specific category?
A: No, according to this Supreme Court judgment, reservation policies cannot be applied to single posts within a cadre. This is because such reservation would lead to 100% reservation, violating the principle of equality of opportunity.
Q: What does ‘plurality of posts’ mean in the context of reservation?
A: ‘Plurality of posts’ means that there must be more than one post within a cadre for reservation policies to be applicable. This ensures that reservation does not result in the exclusion of other categories of candidates.
Q: What did the Supreme Court direct the State of Karnataka to do in this case?
A: The Supreme Court directed the State of Karnataka to consider creating an additional post for the appellant or a supernumerary post until a substantive post becomes available. The Court also ensured that no recovery would be made from the appellant for the period she worked as a Lecturer in English, and the fifth respondent’s pay was to be fixed notionally for the purpose of computing her salary and retiral dues.
Q: Can state government circulars override Supreme Court decisions on reservation?
A: No, state government circulars cannot override the binding effect of Supreme Court decisions. The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution and laws is binding on all lower courts and state governments.
Q: What is the significance of this judgment for future cases?
A: This judgment reinforces the principle that reservation policies cannot be applied to single posts and clarifies the need for a plurality of posts within a cadre for reservation to be valid. It serves as a precedent for similar cases in the future, ensuring that reservation policies are applied in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution.