SURESH CHAND GAUTAM versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 1 S.C.R. 727 · Decided: 11-03-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 1 S.C.R. 727 
SURESH CHAND GAUTAM 
v. 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. 
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 690of2015) 
MARCH 11, 2016 
[DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts. 16(4-A), 16(4-B) and 335 
- Reservation in promotion for Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled 
Tribes - Need for quantifiable data - Whether a writ or direction 
can be issued to the State Government to collect and gather the 
necessary data of the SC and the ST in the services of the State for 
granting reservation in promotion - Held: State is not bound to 
make reservation for SCs/STs in matters of promotion - There is no 
constitutional obligation - There is no duty - Writ of mandamus is 
sought to collect material or data which is in the realm of condition 
precedent for exercising a discretion which flows from the enabling 
constitutional provision - Direction of this nature would not come 
within the principle of exercise of power coupled with duty - To 
issue a mandamus to collect the data would tantamount to taking a 
step towards framing of a rule or a regulation for the purpose of 
reservation for SC and ST in matter of promotions - This would be 
in a way, entering into the domain of legislation - Thus, writ of 
mandamus of such a nature cannot be issued. 
Dismissing the writ petitions, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 It has been clearly laid down in * M. Nagaraj 
case that the State is not bound to make reservaticln for SCs/STs 
in matters of promotion. However, if the State wishes to exercise 
the discretion and make such provision, it has to collect 
quantifiable data showing backwardness of the class and 
inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment 
in addition to compliance with Article 335. The expression of the 
opinion clearly demonstrates that the regard being had to the 
enabling provisions of Articles 16(4-A) and (4-B), the State is not 
bound to make reservation. It has a discretion to do so and the 
State's discretion can only be exercised on certain conditions 
being satisfied. The submission of the petitioners is that a 
727 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
728 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] I S.C.R. 
A 
command should be issued to the State of Uttar Pradesh to collect 
the data as enshrined in the Constitution Bench decision in M. 
Nagaraj so that benefit of reservation in promotion can be given. 
The relief sought may appear innocuous or simple but when the 
Court thinks of issue of a writ of mandamus, it has to apprise 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
itself of an existing right or a power to be exercised regard being 
had to the conception of duty. The concept of power coupled with 
duty is always based on facts. If the relief sought is scrutinized, 
the prayer is to issue a mandamus to the State and its functionaries 
to carry out an exercise for the purpose of exercising a discretion. 
The discretion is to take a decision to have the reservation, and 
to have reservation there is a necessity for collection of data in 
accordance with the principles stated in M. Nagaraj as the same 
is the condition precedent. A writ of mandamus is sought to collect 
material or data which is in the realm of condition precedent for 
exercising a discretion which flows from the enabling 
constitutional provision. Direction of this nature would not come 
within the principle of exercise of power coupled with duty. A 
direction for exercise of a duty which has inherent and 
insegretable nexus with the constitutional provision like Article 
21 of the Constitution or a statutory duty. There is an inclination 
to think so as the language employed in M. Nagaraj clearly states 
that the State is not bound to make reservation in promotion. 
Thus, there is no constitutional obligation. [Para 42] [758-E-H; 
759-A-F] 
1.2 The Courts do not formulate any policy, remains away 
from making anything that would amount to legislation, rules and 
regulation or policy relating to reservation. The Courts can test 
the validity of the same when they are challenged. The court 
cannot direct for making legislation or for that matter any kind of 
sub-ordinate legislation. In certain decisions directions have been 
issued for framing of guidelines or the court has itself framed 
guidelines for sustaining certain rights of women, children or 
prisoners or under-trial prisoners. The said category of cases 
falls in a different compartment. They are in different sphere than 
what is envisaged in Article 16 (4-A) and 16 (4-B) whose 
const

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