The Supreme Court (SC) recently rejected to establish a "yardstick" for determining lack of representation for awarding reservation in promotions for SC/ST candidates in government jobs.
Court Ruling:
Cadre for Data Collection: For the purpose of collecting quantifiable data for promotion quotas, it used the term "cadre" rather than "class," "group," or "the entire service."
Worthless exercise: It stated that if data relevant to the representation of SCs and STs was collected with regard to the entire service, the entire exercise of reservation in promotions would be rendered worthless.
There is no yardstick: The question of whether or not a SC/ST community is adequately represented should be left to the respective States to decide, and it cannot set any criteria for evaluating inadequacy of representation.
Set aside the B.K. Pavithra Case's Decision (2019):
The court overturned its prior decision in the B.K. Pavithra case after recognising 'cadre' as the unit for collecting measurable data.
The Supreme Court ruled that this court's decision to allow data gathering based on groupings rather than cadres is contradictory to the law established by the Supreme Court in the Nagaraj and Jarnail Singh decisions.
The Nagaraj decision would have "prospective effect," according to the court.
Ordered for review: The Supreme Court ordered that a review of the data be conducted in order to determine the inadequacy of representation in promotions. The court did, however, leave it up to the Union government to set a "reasonable" deadline for the States.
Reservations in Promotions:
Since the 1950s, the federal and state governments have followed a policy of reserving seats in promotions for SC-ST communities on the grounds that they are underrepresented at the decision-making level of government.
Nagraj Case Verdict:
Quantifiable data: Need quantifiable data to prove the backwardness of a caste.
The whole object of reservation is to see that the backward classes of citizens move forward to create equality in society.
It will not be possible if only the creamy layer within that class bags all the coveted jobs in the public sector and perpetuates themselves.
When a court applies the creamy layer principle to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, it does not in any manner tinker with the Presidential List under Articles 341 or 342 of the Constitution.
It is only for that group or sub-group, who have come out of untouchability or backwardness by virtue of belonging to the creamy layer.
The court held that the principle was based on the fundamental right to equality.
Jarnail Singh Case 2018:
In the Jarnail Singh case, the Supreme Court modified the Nagaraj decision by stating that the State does not need to produce quantifiable data to prove the "backwardness" of a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community in order to provide quotas in public employment.
The government's efforts to provide "rapid promotion with consequential seniority" for members of Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes (SC/ST) in government jobs received a big boost from the court.
Constitutional provisions
Article 15 and 16 of the Constitution enabled the State and Central Governments to reserve seats in government services for the members of the SC and ST.
Article 330 and 332 provides for specific representation through reservation of seats for SCs and STs in the Parliament and in the State Legislative Assemblies respectively.
Article 243D provides reservation of seats for SCs and STs in every Panchayat.
Article 233T provides reservation of seats for SCs and STs in every Municipality.
Article 335 of the constitution says that the claims of STs and STs shall be taken into consideration constituently with the maintenance of efficacy of the administration.
