B. K. PAVITRA & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 1 S.C.R. 631 · Decided: 09-02-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ADARSH KUMAR GOEL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 1 S.C.R. 631 
B. K. PAVITRA & ORS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2368of2011) 
FEBRUARY 09, 2017 
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.] 
Karnataka Determination of Seniority of the Government 
Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservation (Io the Posts in the 
Civil Services of the State) Act, 2002 - Providing for grant of 
consequential seniority to the Government servants belonging to 
SC and ST promoted under reservation policy as also protecting 
consequential seniority already accorded from 27. 04.1978 onwards -
Validity of - Held: Exercise for determining 'inadequacy of· 
representation', 'backwardness' and 'overall efficiency', is a must 
for exercise of power u/Art.16(4A) - Mere fact that there is no 
proportionate representation in promotional posts for the population 
of SCs and STs is not by itself enough to grant consequential 
seniority to promotees who are oth~rwise junior and thereby denying 
seniority to those who are given promotion later on account of 
reservation policy - State has to place material on record that there 
was compelling necessity for exercise of such power and decision 
of the State was based on material including the study that overall 
efficiency is not compromised - In the instant case, no such exercise 
was undertaken - High Court erroneously observed that· it was for 
the petitioners to plead and prove that the overall efficiency was 
adversely affected by giving consequential seniority to junior 
persons who got promotion on account of reservation - Also High 
Court erred in brushing aside the mandatory requirement of 
determining 'inadequacy of representation', 'backwardness' and 
'overall efficiency' in view of the inbuilt mechanism in s. 3 limiting 
the representation to 15% and 3% fur SC and ST respectively -
Thus, the order passed by the Hi:;h Court is set aside - Provisions 
of 2002 Act declared to the extent cf doing away with the 'catch up' 
rule and providing for consequential seni'Jrity to persons belonging 
to SCs and STs on promotion against roster points, ultra vires Arts. 
14 and.16 - Constitution of India - Arts. 14 and 16 - Constitution 
(Eighty-fifth Amendment) Act, 2001. 
631 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
632 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) I S.C.R. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 While no doubt in M. Nagaraj 85" Amendment 
was upheld with the 'observation that enabling the State to do 
away with the 'catch up' rule, a judicially evolved concept to 
control the effect of reservations, was valid but the exercise of 
power to do away with the said rule and providing consequential 
seniority in favour of roster point promotees of reserved category 
was subject to the limitation of determining the three factors of 
'backwardness', 'inadequacy of representation' and 'overall 
efficiency'. The High Court brushed aside the said mandatory 
requirement by simply observing that Section 3 provided for an 
inbuilt mechanism as the extent of mechanism was limited to 15% 
and 3% respectively for the SCs .and STs which dispensed with 
any requirement of determining inadequacy of representation or 
backwardness. The High Court further dispensed with the 
requirement of determining overall efficiency by· observing that 
there was no pleading that overall efficiency would be hampered 
by promoting persons belonging to SCs and STs. This reasoning 
in the judgment of the High Court, it is submitted, is contrary to 
the mandate of law as recognized in M. Nagaraj case and the 
view similar to the impugned judgment has been repeatedly 
disapproved in decisions of this Court. There is force in the 
submission. [Para 15) (643-A-D) 
1.2 It is held in M. Nagraj case that conferment of enabling 
power on State under Article 16(4A) did not by itself violate the 
basic feature of equality. If the affirmative action stipulated under 
Article 16(4A) could be balanced with the need for adequate 
representation for justice to the backwards while upholding equity 
for the forwards and efficiency for the entire system with the 
further observation that the content of a right is defined by the 
Courts and even while the amendment as such could be upheld, 
validity of an individual enactment was required to be gone into. 
If the State wished to exercise its discretion under Article 16(4A), 
it was to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the 
class and inadequacy of representation of that class in public 
employment in additi

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