B K PAVITRA AND ORS. versus THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Citation: [2019] 7 S.C.R. 1086 · Decided: 10-05-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 8 judgment(s) · cites 29 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1086
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 7 S.C.R.
B K PAVITRA AND ORS.
v.
THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
(M. A. No. 1151 of 2018)
in
(Civil Appeal No. 2368 of 2011)
MAY 10, 2019
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to
Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservation (to the
Posts in the Civil Services of the State) Act, 2018:
Validity of – Held: Reservation Act 2018 is constitutionally
valid – Reservation Act 2018 has cured the deficiency noticed by
*B K Pavitra I in respect of the Reservation Act 2002 – Reservation
Act 2018 does not amount to usurpation of judicial power by the
state legislature – The Act is a valid exercise of the enabling power
conferred by Art. 16 (4A) – Karnataka Determination of Seniority
of the Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservation
(to the Posts in the Civil Services of the State) Act, 2002 – Constitution
of India – Art. 16 (4A).
2018 Act, if overruled or nullified B K Pavitra I case – In
B K Pavitra I case, the Reservation Act 2002 was held to be
unconstitutional since the State did not collect the quantifiable data
on the three parameters enunciated in Nagaraj case-inadequacy of
representation, backwardness and overall efficiency, before
providing for reservation in promotion and consequential seniority
– Thereafter, enactment of 2018 Act – Held: Following the decision
in *B K Pavitra I, the State government duly carried out the exercise
of collating and analysing data on the compelling factors adverted
to in Nagaraj case – State legislature of Karnataka, by enacting
the Reservation Act 2018, has not nullified the judicial decision in
*B K Pavitra I, but taken care to remedy the underlying cause which
led to a declaration of invalidity in the first place – Thus, the
   [2019] 7 S.C.R. 1086
1086
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1087
Reservation 
Act 
2018 
cured 
the 
deficiency 
noticed
by *B K Pavitra I in respect of the Reservation Act 2002 – Such a
law is valid because it removes the basis of the decision – Karnataka
Determination of Seniority of the Government Servants Promoted
on the Basis of Reservation (to the Posts in the Civil Services of the
State) Act, 2002.
s. 4 – Protection of consequential seniority already accorded
from 27.04.1978 onwards – Provision in regard to retrospectivity,
whether arbitrary or unconstitutional – Held: Provisions are neither
arbitrary or unconstitutional – Section 4 stipulates that the
consequential seniority already granted to government servants
belonging to the SCs and STs in accordance with the reservation
order with effect from 27.04.1978 shall be valid and shall be
protected – Since decision in Virpal Singh held that the catch-up rule
would be applied only from 10.02.1995, decision in Ajit Singh II
specifically protected the promotions granted before 01.03.1996
without following the catch-up rule; and in Badappanavar’s case,
promotions of reserved candidates based on consequential seniority
which took place before 01.03.1996 were specifically protected, it
was logical for the legislature to protect consequential seniority –
Object of the Reservation Act 2018 is to accord consequential
seniority to promotees against roster points.
Constitution of India:
Arts. 200 and 201 – Assent to the Bill – Reservation of the
Bill( which led to Reservation Act, 2018) by the Governor for the
consideration of the President – Power u/Art. 200 – Exercise of –
Held: Once the Bill was reserved by the Governor for the
consideration of the President, it was for the President to either
grant or withhold assent to the Bill – President having assented to
the Bill, the requirements of Art. 201 were fulfilled – Validity of the
assent by the President is non-justiciable – State Government, was
of the view that there was no necessity of reserving the Bill for the
consideration of the President, since in its view, the Governor had
not recorded a finding that it was unconstitutional, or fell afoul of
existing central legislation on the subject or that it was beyond
legislative competence or derogated from the fundamental rights –
This objection of the State Government cannot cast doubt upon the
grant of assent by the President – Karnataka Extension of
Consequential Seniority to Government Servants Promoted on the
B K PAVITRA AND ORS. v. THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1088
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 7 S.C.R.
Basis of Reservation (to the Posts in the Civil Services of the State)
Act, 201

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.