S. VINOD KUMAR AND ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 142 · Decided: 01-10-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
S. VINOD KUMAR AND ANR. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 1, 1996 
B 
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] 
Service Law-Reservation in promotion for SC/ST-Lower qualifying 
marks-Held not permissible to provide lower qualifying marks or lesser 
evaluation in the matter of promotion as it would affect the efficiency of 
C administration. Constitution of India-Articles 16(4), 335. 
By a Memorandum dated 21st January 1997 the SC/ST were 
provided relaxation in qualifyin1: examination for promotion on the basis 
of seniority. The State Administrative Tribunal held that the expression 
D reservation provided in Article 16( 4) includes provision for lesser qualify. 
ing marks in . the qualifying examination for promotion. The Tribunal 
declared that the status quo mai.ntained by Supreme Court for five years 
(in Indira Sawhney's case) also includes prescribing lower qualifying marks 
in the qualifying examination for promotion. The present appeal is against 
the order of the Tribunal. 
E 
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the Tribunal, this 
court 
F 
HELD: 1. It is not permissible under Article 16(4) in view of the 
cominand contained in Article 335 of the Constitution to provide lower 
qualifying marks or a lesser level of evaluation for OBCs/SCs/STs in the 
matter of promotion since that would compromise the efficiency of ad-
ministration while the same can be provided in the matter of direct 
recruitment. It is permissible to p'rescribe a reasonabally lower qualifying 
marks or evaluation consistent with efficiency of administration and na-
G tore of duties attached to the omce concerned in the matter of direct 
recruitment. It would also not be impermissible for a State to extend 
concessions and relaxation to member of reserved categories of the ad-
ministration. [147-D; 146-B-C] 
H 
Indira Sawhney Etc. v. Union of India and Ors. Etc., [1992] Suppl. 3 
142 
S. VINOD KR. v. U.0.1. (B.P.JEEVAN REDDY,J.) 
143 
SCC 215, State of Kera/a v. N.M. Thomas, [1976) 2 SCC 310 and Akhil A 
Bhartiya Shoshit Karamchari Sangh v. Union of India, [1981) 1 SCC 246 
referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 12676 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.6.95 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal of Madras, in O.A. No. 853 of 1993. 
S. Muralidhar and Ms. Neeru Vaid for the Appellants. 
Vasant V. Vaze, Y.P. Mahajan and C.V. Subba Rao for the Respon-
dents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
c 
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY J. Leave granted. Heard the counsel for the D 
parties. In Indira Sawhney Etc. v. Union of India & Ors. Etc., [1992) Suppl. 
3 S.C.C. 215, this Court had, while declaring that Article 16(4) does not 
contemplate or permit reservation in the matter of promotions, declared 
that for the several reasons stated therein, the reservations already made 
shall continue for a period of five years from the date of the said judgment. E 
In Para 829 [at Page 747) of the majority judgment, it was directed that 
"our decision on this question shall operate only prospectively and shall not 
effect promotions already made, whether on temporary, officiating or 
regular/permanent basis. It is further directed that wherever reservations 
are already pruvided in the matter of promotion-be it Central Services or 
State Services, or for that matter services under any corporation, authority F 
or body falling under the definition of 'State' in Article 12 - such reserva-
tions shall continue in operation for a period of five years from this day". 
Then, in the next para, Para 831, the majority judgment made the following 
observations: 
"We must also make it clear that it would not be impermissible for G 
the State to extend concessions and relaxations to members of 
reserved categories in the matter of promotion without compromis-
ing the efficiency of the administration. The relaxation concerned 
in State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas, (1976) 2 SCC 310, and the 
concessions namely carrying forward of vacancies and provisions H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
144 
SUPREMECOURTREPORTS [1996]SUPP. 7S.C.R. 
for in- service coaching/training in Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karam-
chari Sangh v. Union of India, [1981] 1 SCC 246, are instances of 
such concessions and relaxations. However, it would not be per-
missible to prescribe lower qualifying marks or a lesser level of 
evaluation for the members of reserved categories since that would 
compromise the efficiency of administration. We reiterate that

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