Supreme Court Clarifies State’s Discretion on Reservation in Promotions: Mukesh Kumar vs. State of Uttarakhand (2020)

Date of the Judgment: 07 February 2020
Citation: (2020) INSC 123
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and Hemant Gupta, J.

Can a state government be compelled to provide reservations in promotions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a set of appeals concerning the State of Uttarakhand. The court clarified that states are not obligated to provide such reservations and cannot be mandated to do so by the courts. This judgment underscores the enabling nature of Article 16(4) and 16(4A) of the Constitution, granting states the discretion to implement reservations based on their assessment of representation, rather than imposing a binding duty. The majority opinion was authored by Justice L. Nageswara Rao, with Justice Hemant Gupta concurring.

Case Background

The case revolves around reservations for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in promotions for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) within the Public Works Department of the Uttarakhand government. The legal battle began after the formation of Uttarakhand in 2001, when the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994, was adopted with modifications to the percentages of reservations. Over time, the state government’s stance on reservations in promotions shifted, leading to multiple legal challenges and ultimately, the Supreme Court’s intervention.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The legal journey involved several key decisions. Initially, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad upheld the validity of consequential seniority for SC/ST employees. However, this was later overturned by another division bench of the same High Court, which declared Section 3(7) of the 1994 Act and Rule 8-A of the Seniority Rules unconstitutional. The Supreme Court, in *Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation v. Rajesh Kumar*, affirmed the unconstitutionality of Section 3(7) of the 1994 Act. Subsequently, the High Court of Uttarakhand also struck down Section 3(7) of the 1994 Act, as extended to Uttarakhand. The High Court initially ruled that the state could provide reservations in promotion without collecting quantifiable data, but later modified this position, requiring such data collection. The State Government, in the meantime, had decided not to provide reservations in promotions. This led to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core legal provisions at play are Article 16(4) and 16(4A) of the Constitution of India. Article 16(4) allows 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. Article 16(4A) empowers the State to make provisions for reservation in matters of promotion to any class or classes of posts in the services under the State in favor of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes which, in the opinion of the State, are not adequately represented in the services under the State. The Supreme Court has consistently held that these articles are enabling provisions, not mandatory ones. The Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994, and its application to Uttarakhand, also forms a crucial part of the legal framework.

Arguments

Arguments on behalf of the Appellants (State of Uttarakhand)

• There is no fundamental right to claim reservation in appointments or promotions to public posts.

• The State Government is not constitutionally obligated to provide reservations.

• Article 16(4) and 16(4-A) of the Constitution are merely enabling provisions, granting discretion to the State.

• The State of Uttarakhand, after due consideration, decided on 05.09.2012, that there shall be no reservation in promotions.

• The State Government has not enacted any law in line with the judgment of the Supreme Court in *M. Nagaraj & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.*

• There is no need to collect quantifiable data after the government has decided not to provide reservations. Data collection is only necessary to justify a decision to provide reservation.

• Relying on *Suresh Chand Gautam v. State of U.P.*, it was argued that the Court cannot direct the State Government to collect quantifiable data.

Arguments on behalf of the Respondents (Reserved Category Employees)

• The State cannot refuse to collect quantifiable data regarding the adequacy or inadequacy of representation of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in public services.

• There is an obligation on the State to provide reservations in promotions for the upliftment of the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as mandated by Article 16(4) and 16(4-A) of the Constitution of India.

• The right to equality of persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes cannot be defeated by the State Government by not discharging its constitutional obligation of implementing Article 16(4) and 16(4-A) of the Constitution.

• The State has a duty to decide not to provide reservations only after the State is satisfied that the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are adequately represented in public posts on the basis of quantifiable data.

• *Suresh Chand Gautam* was not correctly decided and needs reconsideration.

• A Committee was constituted by the Government of Uttarakhand to collect quantifiable data regarding the adequacy of representation of persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes in public posts in accordance with the judgment of this Court in *M. Nagaraj*. According to the report submitted by the Committee, there is inadequate representation of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in government services in the State of Uttarakhand. The said report was approved by the State Cabinet. The State Government was duty bound to provide reservations on the basis of the data that was collected by the Committee.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The central issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the State Government is bound to make reservations in public posts?
2. Whether the decision by the State Government not to provide reservations can be only on the basis of quantifiable data relating to the adequacy of representation of persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases

• Mukund Kumar Shrivastava v. State of U.P. [(2011) 1 ALL LJ 428] – High Court of Judicature at Allahabad: Upheld the validity of consequential seniority for SC/ST employees.
• Prem Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. [(2011) 3 ALL LJ 343] – High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench: Held that the judgment in *Mukund Kumar Shrivastava* was per incuriam, and declared Section 3(7) of the 1994 Act and Rule 8-A of the Seniority Rules unconstitutional.
• Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation v. Rajesh Kumar [(2012) 7 SCC 1] – Supreme Court of India: Upheld the High Court’s decision that Section 3(7) of the 1994 Act is unconstitutional, being contrary to *M. Nagaraj*.
• Vinod Prakash Nautiyal & Others v. State of Uttarakhand & Others – High Court of Uttarakhand: Declared Section 3(7) of the 1994 Act unconstitutional and directed that no promotion can be given by the State by taking recourse to Section 3(7) of the 1994 Act.
• Indra Sawhney v. Union of India & Ors. [(1992) Supp.3 SCC 217] – Supreme Court of India: Discussed the scope of Article 16(4) and the concept of reservations.
• Jarnail Singh & Ors. v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Ors. [(2018) 10 SCC 396] – Supreme Court of India: Clarified the conditions for providing reservations in promotions.
• M. Nagaraj & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [(2006) 8 SCC 212] – Supreme Court of India: Set the conditions for providing reservations in promotions, including the collection of quantifiable data.
• Suresh Chand Gautam v. State of U.P. [(2016) 11 SCC 113] – Supreme Court of India: Held that no mandamus can be issued by the Court to the State to collect quantifiable data relating to adequacy of representation of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in public services.
• Ajit Singh (II) v. State of Punjab [(1999) 7 SCC 209] – Supreme Court of India: Held that Article 16(4) and 16(4-A) are enabling provisions.
• C.A. Rajendran v. Union of India [(1968) 1 SCR 721] – Supreme Court of India: Held that the State Government cannot be directed to provide reservations for appointment in public posts.
• Barium Chemicals v. Company Law Board [AIR 1967 SC 295] – Supreme Court of India: Discussed the scope of judicial scrutiny in matters within the subjective satisfaction of the executive.

Legal Provisions

• Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India: Empowers 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.
• Article 16(4A) of the Constitution of India: Empowers the State to make provisions for reservation in matters of promotion to any class or classes of posts in the services under the State in favor of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes which, in the opinion of the State, are not adequately represented in the services under the State.
• Section 3(7) of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994: Stipulated that Government Orders providing reservation for appointment to public posts filled up by promotion which were existing on the date of commencement of the 1994 Act shall continue till they are modified or revoked.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court approved the decision in *Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation v. Rajesh Kumar [ (2012) 7 SCC 1]*, which held that Section 3(7) of the 1994 Act is unconstitutional.
• The Supreme Court followed the judgment in *Vinod Prakash Nautiyal & Others v. State of Uttarakhand & Others*, which declared Section 3(7) of the 1994 Act unconstitutional for Uttarakhand.
• The Supreme Court referred to *Indra Sawhney v. Union of India & Ors. [(1992) Supp.3 SCC 217]*, regarding the scope of Article 16(4) and the concept of reservations.
• The Supreme Court referred to *Jarnail Singh & Ors. v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Ors. [(2018) 10 SCC 396]*, regarding the conditions for providing reservations in promotions.
• The Supreme Court referred to *M. Nagaraj & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [(2006) 8 SCC 212]*, regarding the need for quantifiable data for providing reservations in promotions.
• The Supreme Court approved the decision in *Suresh Chand Gautam v. State of U.P. [(2016) 11 SCC 113]*, holding that no mandamus can be issued by the Court to the State to collect quantifiable data.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the interpretation of Article 16(4) and 16(4A) of the Constitution, which it deemed as enabling provisions rather than mandatory ones. The Court emphasized that the State has the discretion to decide whether or not to provide reservations in promotions. This discretion is not subject to judicial interference unless the State decides to provide reservations, in which case, it must justify the decision with quantifiable data on inadequate representation. The Court also relied on its previous judgments, particularly *M. Nagaraj* and *Suresh Chand Gautam*, to reinforce the idea that the State cannot be compelled to collect data or provide reservations. The Court also noted that the State had already collected the data and was aware of the inadequacy of representation, yet it still decided not to provide reservations, which was within its discretion. The Court held that the High Court had erred in directing the State to collect data and provide reservations.

The Court rejected the argument that the State is obligated to provide reservations, stating that “Article 16 (4) and 16 (4-A) do not confer fundamental right to claim reservations in promotion.” The Court further clarified that “the State is not bound to make reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in matters of promotions.” It emphasized that “collection of data regarding the inadequate representation of members of the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes…is a pre-requisite for providing reservations, and is not required when the State Government decided not to provide reservations.”

Key Takeaways

• The State is not obligated to provide reservations in promotions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
• Article 16(4) and 16(4A) of the Constitution are enabling provisions, granting discretion to the State.
• The State cannot be mandated by the courts to provide reservations.
• Quantifiable data on inadequate representation is required only if the State decides to provide reservations, not if it decides against it.
• The State’s decision not to provide reservations does not require justification based on data showing adequate representation.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the directions given by the High Court which mandated the State Government to collect quantifiable data and provide reservations. The Court also set aside the direction that future vacancies should only be filled by members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the State has the discretion to provide or not to provide reservations in promotions, and it is not bound to collect quantifiable data if it decides not to provide reservations. This judgment reinforces the enabling nature of Article 16(4) and 16(4A) of the Constitution, clarifying that states cannot be compelled to provide reservations. This decision reaffirms the position of law established in *Suresh Chand Gautam* and other precedents, and does not change the previous position of law.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in *Mukesh Kumar vs. State of Uttarakhand* clarifies that state governments have the discretion to decide whether or not to provide reservations in promotions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The court emphasized that Article 16(4) and 16(4A) of the Constitution are enabling provisions, not mandatory ones, and that states cannot be compelled by the courts to provide such reservations. The decision underscores the importance of the State’s autonomy in making policy decisions regarding reservations, while also reaffirming the need for quantifiable data to justify such measures when they are implemented.