BAJRANG LAL SHARMA versus C. K. MATHEW AND ORS.

Citation: [2020] 1 S.C.R. 484 · Decided: 23-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT, INDIRA BANERJEE, M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Directions issued

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
484
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
BAJRANG LAL SHARMA
v.
C. K. MATHEW AND ORS.
(Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 453-454 of 2012)
JANUARY 23, 2020
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, INDIRA BANERJEE AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Contempt of Court:
Matter relating to reservation in promotion and consequential
seniority – Supreme Court in **Suraj Bhan Meena Case set aside
notifications providing for consequential seniority in promotion to
SC/ST employees holding that no exercise was undertaken in terms
of Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution, to acquire quantifiable data
regarding inadequacy of representation of SC/ST communities in
public services – Pursuant thereto Bhatnagar Committee constituted
– Committee in its report concluded that backwardness of SC/ST is
established on the basis of quantifiable data – Thereupon by
Notification dated 11.9.2011 Administrative Service Rules were
amended providing that reservation for SC/ST employees with
consequential seniority would continue till roster points are
exhausted and adequacy of promotion is achieved – In Contempt
Petition before High Court, the Court held that Notification dated
11.9.2011 was void – In appeal Supreme Court, in #Salauddin case
did not hold the contemnors guilty of contempt – Present contempt
petition before Supreme Court – Held: The Notification dated
11.9.2011 was not found to be in contempt nor was invalidated for
non-compliance of any binding directions in #Salauddin Case – The
Notification dated 11.9.2011 was issued in exercise of powers vested
in the authorities concerned – Such issuance cannot be said to be
contumacious to invite any action in contempt jurisdiction –
Contempt petitions are closed.
Closing the contempt petitions, the Court
HELD : 1. The law declared by this Court in *M. Nagraj
which was followed in **Suraj Bhan Meena is clear that in the
   [2020] 1 S.C.R. 484
484
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
485
absence of any quantifiable data relating to the issue of
backwardness and inadequacy of representation of the concerned
classes in public employment, no benefit of consequential
seniority could be extended. Therefore, in **Suraj Bhan Meena,
the Notifications dated 28.12.2002 and 25.8.2008 providing for
consequential seniority in promotion to the Members of the SC/
ST communities were set aside. [Para 14] [509-F-G]
2. Since the decision in **Suraj Bhan Meena Case was on
the premise that no such exercise was undertaken to acquire
quantifiable data, the State Government constituted the Bhatnagar
Committee. The Committee went into the issues and made certain
recommendations based on which a Notification was issued by
the State Government on 11.9.2011. High Court by its judgment
and order dated 23.2.2012 found said Notification to be not in
compliance of binding directions and to be invalid. The decision
in #Salauddin Case set aside the view taken by the High Court.
Thus, the issuance of Notification dated 11.9.2011 was not found
to be in contempt nor was it invalidated for being non-compliant
of any binding directions. [Para 15] [510-A-D]
3. The directions issued by this Court in #Salauddin Case
were clear that the State and its authorities were to act in terms
of the report of the Bhatnagar Committee in accordance with the
decisions in *M. Nagraj and **Suraj Bhan Meena. The basic
foundation of the present contempt petitions projecting the
issuance of Notification dated 11.9.2011 to be in contempt of the
directions issued by this Court, thus, does not survive. In any
case, challenge to said Notification and the report of the Bhatnagar
Committee is still pending consideration before the High court
where the correctness and validity thereof will be gone into in
accordance with law. [Para 16] [510-D-F]
4.  With the decision of this Court in ##Jarnail Singh case,
the matter also stands on a slightly modified footing. As concluded
by this Court in ##Jarnail Singh case, the conclusion in *M.
Nagraj that the State has to collect quantifiable data showing
backwardness of SC/ST, being contrary to the 9 Judges Bench
decision in ***Indra Sawhney case, was held to be invalid. The
BAJRANG LAL SHARMA v. C. K. MATHEW AND ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
486
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
challenge to the recommendations given by the Bhatnagar
Committee and the quantifiable data adverted to by the
Committee will therefore have to be seen by the High Court in
the light of the directions issued by this Court in ##Jarnail Singh
case. [Para 17] [510-F-G]
5. The issuance of Notificati

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