K PAVITHRA AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2020] 4 S.C.R. 1041 · Decided: 19-03-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1041
B K PAVITHRA AND ORS.
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
(M.A. No. 1323 of 2019)
In
(Writ Petition (C) No. 764 of 2018)
MARCH 19, 2020
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Supreme Court Rules, 1966: Or.XL – On 10.05.2019,
judgment was rendered in B K Pavitra II whereby constitutionality
of the Reservation Act 2018 was upheld – Government of
Karnataka issued GO dated 15.05.2019 – The Preamble to the GO
noted that on 27.02.2019, instructions were issued for implementing
Reservation Act 2018 subject to judgment that was to be delivered
on the validity of Reservation Act 2018 – Following the judgment
in B K Pavitra II upholding the Reservation Act 2018, the
Government of Karnataka by GO dated 15.05.2019 directed all
appointing authorities to abide by GO dated 27.02.2019 in
implementation of the Reservation Act 2018 – On 24.06.2019, a
circular was issued by the Government of Karnataka noting that
while preparing seniority lists in conformity with GO dated
27.02.2019, meetings were held following which a list of FAQs was
prepared with the answers – Grievance of the applicants is that
until the backlog is cleared, the proportion of Scheduled Castes/
Scheduled Tribes will exceed 15% and 3% – MAs challenging the
action of State Government to carry into effect the provisions of
the Reservation Act, 2018 – Maintainability of – Held: The
judgment in B K Pavitra II concerned the constitutional validity
of the Reservation Act 2018 and not actions taken thereunder or
in pursuance of its implementation – The instant MAs, though styled
as applications for directions, sought to lay challenge to the actions
of the State government to carry into effect the provisions of the
Reservation Act 2018 – This is clear from the nature of the reliefs
sought in the MAs, which impugn both GO dated 15 May 2019
and Circular dated 24 June 2019, both of which are subsequent
   [2020] 4 S.C.R. 1041
1041
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1042
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
to the judgment of this Court in  B K Pavitra  II – The remedy,
styled as directions, sought by the applicants cannot lie in the form
of MAs – MAs are in effect a substantive challenge to the actions
of the State Government in implementing the Reservation Act 2018
through GO dated 15.05.2019 and the circular dated 24.06.2019
– If the applicants were aggrieved by the steps which were taken
by the State Government, it was open to them to pursue a
substantive remedy for challenging the steps taken by the State
Government in independent proceedings – MAs of this nature are
not maintainable – Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority
to Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservations (to
the posts in the Civil Services of the State) Act 2018.
Supreme Court Rules, 1966: Or.LV r.6 – Exercise of power
under, scope – Held: Or.LV empowers Supreme Court to, for
sufficient cause, excuse parties from compliance with any of the
requirements of 2013 Rules and issue such directions as it
considers just and expedient – r.6 of Or.LV mirrors the constitutional
power conferred under Art.142 of the Constitution which empowers
the Supreme Court to pass such decree or make such order as is
necessary for doing complete justice – Constitution of India –
Art.142 – Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
B K Pavitra & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2019)
16 SCC 129 ; Himachal Pradesh Scheduled Tribes
Employees Federation v. Himachal Pradesh Samanaya
Varg Karamchari Kalayan Mahasangh  (2013) 10 SCC
308 : [2013] 9  SCR 384 ; Abu Salem Abdul  Qayyum
Ansari v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2013) 12
SCC 1 : [2013] 7 SCR 1061 ; Nagaraj v. Union of
India (2006) 8 SCC 212 : [2006] 7  Suppl.  SCR
336 ; Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban
(2000) 7 SCC 296 : [2000] 2 Suppl. SCR 496 ; Zahira
Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2004) 5 SCC
353 : [2004] 2 Suppl. SCR 571 ; Common Cause v.
Union of India (2004) 5 SCC 222 ; Ram Chandra
Singh v. Savitri Devi (2004) 12 SCC 713 ; APSRTC v.
Abdul Karim (2007) 3 SCJ 168 ; M C Mehta v. Union
of India (2019) 2 SCJ 640 – referred to.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1043
Case Law Reference
(2019) 16 SCC 129
referred to
Para 1
[2013] 9 SCR 384
referred to
Para 8
[2013] 7 SCR 1061
referred to
Para 8
[2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 336
referred to
Para 9
[2000] 2 Suppl. SCR 496
referred to
Para 19
[2004] 2 Suppl. SCR 571
referred to
Para 20
(2004) 5 SCC 222
referred to
Para 20
(2004) 12 SCC 713
referred to
Para 20
(2007) 3 SCJ 168
referred to
Para 20
(2019) 2 SCJ 640
referred to
Par
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.