Supreme Court Upholds Karnataka Reservation Act 2018: B.K. Pavitra II (May 10, 2019)

LEGAL ISSUE: Validity of the Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority Act, 2018.

CASE TYPE: Service Law, Reservation in Promotions.

Case Name: B.K. Pavitra and Ors. vs. The Union of India and Ors.

Judgment Date: May 10, 2019

Date of the Judgment: May 10, 2019

Citation: Not Available

Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J. and Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

Can a state legislature enact a law to grant consequential seniority to government employees promoted under reservation policies? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in the case of B.K. Pavitra and Ors. vs. The Union of India and Ors. This case revolves around the validity of the Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority Act, 2018, which provides consequential seniority to persons belonging to Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) promoted under the state’s reservation policy. The core issue was whether the state legislature had the power to enact such a law, especially after a previous law on the same subject was struck down by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court, comprising Justices Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Uday Umesh Lalit, delivered the judgment. This case is significant as it deals with the intersection of legislative power, judicial review, and the constitutional mandate of equality for marginalized communities.

Case Background

The case has a complex history. The Karnataka government had previously enacted the Karnataka Determination of Seniority Act, 2002, which also aimed to grant consequential seniority to SC/ST promotees. However, the Supreme Court struck down this 2002 Act in B.K. Pavitra I, citing the lack of quantifiable data on “inadequacy of representation,” “backwardness,” and the impact on “overall efficiency.” The Supreme Court mandated that such data collection was essential before enacting such a law, as per the ruling in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India.

Following the B.K. Pavitra I judgment, the Karnataka government constituted the Ratna Prabha Committee to collect the required data. Based on the committee’s report, the state legislature enacted the Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority Act, 2018. This new law aimed to address the deficiencies pointed out in B.K. Pavitra I and provide consequential seniority to SC/ST government employees from April 27, 1978.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily concerns the interpretation of Article 16 of the Constitution of India, specifically clauses (1), (4), and (4A).

• Article 16(1): “There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.” This clause guarantees equal opportunity in public employment.
• Article 16(4): “Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State.” This clause allows the state to make reservations for backward classes that are not adequately represented in state services.
• Article 16(4A): “Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for reservation in matters of promotion, with consequential seniority, to any class or classes of posts in the services under the State in favour 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.” This clause enables the state to provide for reservations in promotions for SCs and STs, including consequential seniority.

The Supreme Court also considered Article 335 of the Constitution, which mandates that the claims of SCs and STs must be taken into consideration in appointments, consistent with the maintenance of efficiency of administration.

The Court also referred to the Karnataka Government Servant (Seniority Rules) 1957, which provides for seniority based on the period of service in a cadre, and the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules 1977.

Arguments

The petitioners argued that the Reservation Act 2018 was a mere re-enactment of the 2002 Act, without addressing the deficiencies pointed out in B.K. Pavitra I. They contended that the state legislature had overreached its powers by attempting to nullify a judicial decision without altering its basis. The petitioners also challenged the Ratna Prabha Committee report, claiming that it did not fulfill the requirements of collecting quantifiable data on backwardness, inadequacy of representation, and overall efficiency, as mandated by M. Nagaraj.

The respondents, including the State of Karnataka, argued that the Reservation Act 2018 was enacted after collecting quantifiable data through the Ratna Prabha Committee, thereby curing the deficiencies of the previous law. They contended that the state legislature had the power to enact laws with retrospective effect and that the concept of consequential seniority was a valid exercise of this power. They further argued that the creamy layer concept was not applicable to promotions.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Is the Reservation Act 2018 valid?
2. Does it overrule the decision of this Court in B.K. Pavitra I without altering the basis of the decision?
3. Does it violate the law laid down by this Court in Badappanavar on seniority?
4. Is the Reservation Act 2018 compliant with the principles enunciated in the Constitution Bench decisions in Nagaraj and Jarnail?
5. Does the report of the Ratna Prabha Committee constitute an adequate and appropriate basis to support the validity of the Act and its implementation?
6. Does the Reservation Act 2018 apply in the present writ petitions to those departments where there is over-representation?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on several key authorities in reaching its decision:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• M. Nagaraj v. Union of India [(2006) 8 SCC 212]* was explained as laying down the need for quantifiable data on backwardness, inadequacy of representation, and overall efficiency for reservations in promotions.
• Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta [2018 (10) SCC 396]* was considered as clarifying that quantifiable data on backwardness is not required for SCs and STs, but reaffirmed the need for data on inadequacy of representation and overall efficiency. It was also held that the creamy layer principle is a principle of equality.
• Indra Sawhney v. Union of India [1992 Supp (3) SCC 217]* was viewed as establishing the 50% limit on reservations and discussing the concept of the creamy layer.
• R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab [(1995) 2 SCC 745]* was considered as holding that once the prescribed percentage of posts is filled by reserved category candidates, the roster ceases to operate.
• Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan [(1995) 6 SCC 684]* was seen as introducing the “catch-up rule” for seniority.
• Ajit Singh Januja v. State of Punjab [(1996) 2 SCC 715]* was considered as adopting the catch-up rule.
• Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab [(1999) 7 SCC 209]* was viewed as applying the catch-up rule and holding that roster point promotees could not count their seniority from the date of continuous officiation.
• M.G. Badappanavar v. State of Karnataka [(2001) 2 SCC 666]* was considered as reiterating that Article 16(4A) does not permit the conferment of seniority to roster point promotees.
• B.K. Pavitra v. Union of India [(2017) 4 SCC 620]* was explained as striking down the Karnataka Reservation Act 2002 for lack of quantifiable data.
• State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas [(1976) 2 SCC 310]* was viewed as affirming that Article 16(4) is an emphatic declaration of Article 16(1).
• Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd v Broach Borough Municipality [(1969) 2 SCC 283]* was considered as discussing the legislative power to cure defects in a law declared invalid by the court.
• Madan Mohan Pathak v. Union of India [(1978) 2 SCC 50]* was viewed as discussing the limitations on legislative power to nullify judicial orders.
• Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd v State of Bihar [(1983) 4 SCC 45]* was considered as discussing the Governor’s power to reserve a Bill for the President’s consideration.
• Nabam Rebia and Bamang Felix v Deputy Speaker Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly [(2016) 8 SSC 1]* was viewed as discussing the discretionary powers of the Governor.
• Cheviti Venkanna Yadav v. State of Telangana [(2017) 1 SCC 283]* was considered as upholding the state’s power to enact a law with retrospective operation.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several factors:

• The state’s legislative competence to enact laws with retrospective effect.
• The need to ensure substantive equality for marginalized communities.
• The fact that the state had collected quantifiable data through the Ratna Prabha Committee, thus curing the defects of the previous law.
• The understanding that consequential seniority is a consequence of promotion and not an additional benefit.
• The view that the creamy layer concept is not applicable to promotions.
• The need to maintain the efficiency of administration, which is not compromised by including diverse segments of society.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

The Supreme Court reasoned that the state legislature had the power to enact the law, especially since the defects of the previous law had been cured. The court also emphasized that the concept of equality must be viewed in its substantive sense and that the creamy layer principle does not apply to promotions.

The Court also held that the state has the power to enact a retrospective law.

The court noted that the concept of “efficiency” must be defined inclusively and that inclusion of diverse segments of society is a valid constitutional basis for defining efficiency.

The court also noted that the state had followed the principles laid down in Sabharwal and Nagaraj in determining the roster points.

The court also held that the creamy layer principle is a principle of equality.

The court emphasized that the concept of consequential seniority is not an additional benefit but a consequence of promotion.

The Supreme Court quoted from the judgment in K C Vasanth Kumar v State of Karnataka [ (1985) Supp. SCC 714 ] to explain that the real conflict is between the class of people, who have never been in or who have already moved out of the desert of poverty, illiteracy and backwardness and are entrenched in the oasis of convenient living and those who are still in the desert and want to reach the oasis.

The court observed that a meritocratic system is one that rewards actions that result in the outcomes that we as a society value, including the promotion of equality in society and diversity in public administration.

The court also observed that the collection of data on the basis of groups A to D does not by its very nature exclude data pertaining to cadres.

The court observed that the state had followed a valid sampling methodology for data collection.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court upheld the Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority Act, 2018.
• State legislatures have the power to enact laws with retrospective effect to cure deficiencies in previous laws.
• The creamy layer concept is not applicable to promotions.
• Consequential seniority is a valid exercise of legislative power and is not an additional benefit but a consequence of promotion.
• The concept of “efficiency” must be defined inclusively and that inclusion of diverse segments of society is a valid constitutional basis for defining efficiency.
• The state has the power to make reservations in promotion for SCs and STs proportionate to their representation in the general population.

Directions

The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petitions and review petitions.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that a State legislature has the power to enact a law to grant consequential seniority to government employees promoted under reservation policies, provided that the State has collected quantifiable data on inadequacy of representation and overall efficiency. The ruling also clarified that the creamy layer principle does not apply to promotions and the concept of efficiency must be defined inclusively. The ruling is a reaffirmation of the principle that the state has the power to enact retrospective laws to cure deficiencies in previous laws.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in B.K. Pavitra II upholds the validity of the Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority Act, 2018. The judgment clarifies the scope of legislative power, judicial review, and the constitutional mandate of equality. It emphasizes that the concept of equality must be viewed in its substantive sense and that the creamy layer principle does not apply to promotions. The ruling is significant for its reaffirmation of the power of state legislatures to enact retrospective laws to cure deficiencies in previous laws, and of the need to maintain the efficiency of administration, which is not compromised by including diverse segments of society.