9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Reservation in Promotions 2. Validity of Government Orders based on Mandal Commission Report 3. Whether caste can be a criterion for identifying backward classes 4. Extent of Reservation 5. Reservation for Economically Backward Sections 6. Judicial Review of Identification of Backward Classes 7. Sub-classification within SEBCs Summary: 1. Reservation in Promotions: The judgment examines whether Article 16(4) permits reservation in promotions. It concludes that "Article 16(4) does not permit provision for reservation in the matter of promotions." This rule operates prospectively and does not affect promotions already made. Reservations in promotions may continue for five years from the judgment date, allowing authorities to revise relevant rules to ensure adequate representation of backward classes. 2. Validity of Government Orders based on Mandal Commission Report: The judgment scrutinizes the Mandal Commission Report and the subsequent government orders. It holds that the orders issued on the basis of the Mandal Report are valid and enforceable, subject to the exclusion of the "creamy layer" from the SEBCs. The government is directed to specify criteria for excluding socially advanced persons within four months. 3. Whether Caste can be a Criterion for Identifying Backward Classes: The judgment acknowledges that caste can be a significant factor in identifying backward classes but should not be the sole criterion. It states, "a caste can be and quite often is a social class in India." The identification must also consider social, educational, and economic factors. 4. Extent of Reservation: The judgment reaffirms that "The reservations contemplated in Clause (4) of Article 16 should not exceed 50%." However, it allows for exceptions in extraordinary situations, emphasizing that reservations should be applied cautiously and must not exceed 50% of appointments in a given year. 5. Reservation for Economically Backward Sections: The judgment strikes down the provision for a 10% reservation for economically backward sections not covered by existing schemes. It concludes, "The reservation of 10% of the vacancies in favour of 'other economically backward sections of the people who are not covered by any of the existing schemes of the reservation'...is constitutionally invalid." 6. Judicial Review of Identification of Backward Classes: The judgment clarifies that the identification of backward classes is subject to judicial scrutiny. It states, "The acts and orders of the State made under Article 16(4) do not enjoy any particular kind of immunity." Courts will defer to the executive's judgment but will scrutinize the identification process for any perverse or unreasonable decisions. 7. Sub-classification within SEBCs: The judgment addresses the sub-classification of SEBCs into "poorer sections" and others. It holds that such sub-classification based on economic criteria is invalid, stating, "The division of the SEBCs as 'poorer sections' and others...is constitutionally invalid and impermissible." The judgment directs that the entire 27% reservation should be extended to all SEBCs without further sub-classification. Conclusion: The judgment provides a comprehensive legal framework for reservations in public employment, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach that upholds the constitutional mandate of equality while addressing the historical disadvantages faced by backward classes. It sets clear guidelines for the permissible extent of reservations, the criteria for identifying backward classes, and the necessity of excluding the "creamy layer."
|
