2019 (5) TMI 1908 - SC - Indian Laws

Validity of the Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservation (to the Posts in the Civil Services of the State) Act 2018 - consequential seniority to persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes promoted under the reservation policy of the State of Karnataka - principle of consequential seniority to reserved category candidates - challenge on the ground that the Reservation Act 2018 does not exclude the benefit of consequential seniority in respect of the creamy layer. HELD THAT - Hoechst is an authority for the proposition that the assent of the President is non-justiciable. Hoechst also lays down that even if, as it turns out, it was not necessary for the Governor to reserve a Bill for the consideration of the President, yet if it was reserved for and received the assent of the President, the law as enacted cannot be regarded as unconstitutional for want of 'proper' assent - All procedural requirements under the Constitution were according to the government duly complied with. This objection of the state government cannot cast doubt upon the grant of assent by the President. The law having received the assent of the President, the submissions which were urged on behalf of the Petitioners cannot be countenanced. Considering the validity of a law which was enacted by the State legislature for enforcing the substantive right to equality for the SCs and STs. Judicial review must hence traverse conventional categories by determining as to whether the Ratna Prabha Committee report considered material which was irrelevant or extraneous or had drawn a conclusion which no reasonable body of persons could have adopted. In this area, the fact that an alternate line of approach was possible or may even appear to be desirable cannot furnish a foundation for the assumption by the court of a decision making authority which in the legislative sphere is entrusted to the legislating body and in the administrative sphere to the executive arm of the government. Since promotions granted prior to 1 March 1996 were protected, it was logical for the legislature to protect consequential seniority. The object of the Reservation Act 2018 is to accord consequential seniority to promotees against roster points. In this view of the matter, there are no reason to hold that the provisions in regard to retrospectivity in the Reservation Act, 2018 are either arbitrary or unconstitutional - benefit of consequential seniority has been extended from the date of the Reservation Order 1978 under which promotions based on reservation were accorded. The challenge to the constitutional validity of the Reservation Act 2018 is lacking in substance - there are no merit in the batch of writ petitions as the constitutional validity of the Reservation Act 2018 has been upheld - petition dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional challenge to the Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservation Act, 2018.
2. Compliance with principles enunciated in Nagaraj and Jarnail.
3. Validity of the Ratna Prabha Committee report.
4. Reservation of the Bill to the President.
5. Seniority including consequential seniority.
6. Efficiency in administration.
7. Issue of creamy layer.
8. Retrospectivity.
9. Overrepresentation in KPTCL and PWD.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

A. The Constitutional Challenge:
The principal challenge is to the validity of the Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservation Act, 2018. The enactment provides for consequential seniority to SCs and STs promoted under the reservation policy of Karnataka, protecting consequential seniority from 24 April 1978. The Petitioners argue that the state legislature has re-enacted the earlier invalid legislation without curing its defects, while the State claims it has collected quantifiable data consistent with the parameters required by Nagaraj.

B. Constitutional Backdrop to Reservations in Karnataka:
The Court reviewed the history of reservations in Karnataka, including the Karnataka Government Servant (Seniority Rules) 1957, the Government Order of 1978, and subsequent amendments and orders. The Reservation Act 2002 was invalidated in B.K. Pavitra I due to the lack of quantifiable data on inadequacy of representation, backwardness, and overall efficiency. The Reservation Act 2018 was enacted after carrying out the required data collection exercise.

C. Submissions:
C.1. Petitioners:
1. Usurpation of Judicial Power: The Petitioners argue that the Reservation Act 2018 was enacted hastily to overrule B.K. Pavitra I without demonstrating compelling necessity.
2. Violation of Separation of Powers: The Petitioners contend that the legislature cannot overturn a judicial decision without altering its basis.
3. Lack of Compliance with Nagaraj and Jarnail: The Ratna Prabha Committee report is criticized for not complying with Nagaraj and Jarnail, particularly in data collection and analysis.
4. Reservation of the Bill to the President: The Petitioners argue that the reference to the President was unconstitutional.
5. Seniority Including Consequential Seniority: The Petitioners assert that the Seniority Rules 1957 do not cover consequential seniority, and the Reservation Act 2018 does not validly alter this.
6. Efficiency in Administration: The Petitioners argue that the Ratna Prabha Committee report does not adequately address the impact on administrative efficiency.

C.2. Respondents and Intervenors:
1. Basis of B.K. Pavitra I Altered: The State argues that the Reservation Act 2018 cures the defects identified in B.K. Pavitra I by collecting quantifiable data.
2. Ratna Prabha Committee Report: The State defends the report, stating it addresses backwardness, inadequacy of representation, and administrative efficiency.
3. Creamy Layer: The State contends that the creamy layer concept does not apply to consequential seniority.
4. Proportionality and Overrepresentation: The State argues that the Reservation Act 2018 ensures no overrepresentation and is based on sanctioned posts, not vacancies.
5. Assent to the Bill: The State asserts that the Governor's reservation of the Bill for the President's consideration was valid and non-justiciable.

D. Assent to the Bill:
The Governor reserved the Bill for the President's consideration due to the constitutional interpretation involved. The President's assent, once given, is non-justiciable, and the legislative process was duly followed.

E. Does the Reservation Act 2018 Overrule or Nullify B.K. Pavitra I:
The Reservation Act 2018 does not nullify B.K. Pavitra I but remedies the underlying cause of invalidity by collecting and analyzing the required data. The legislature can enact a law retrospectively to cure defects identified by the court.

E.1. Is the Basis of B.K. Pavitra I Cured in Enacting the Reservation Act 2018:
The Reservation Act 2018 cures the deficiencies noted in B.K. Pavitra I by collecting data on inadequacy of representation, backwardness, and administrative efficiency. The Ratna Prabha Committee report supports the validity of the Act.

E.2. The Ratna Prabha Committee Report:
The report collected data from 31 departments, showing inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs in various cadres. The methodology adopted is valid, and the data is representative and relevant.

F. Substantive vs. Formal Equality:
The Constitution aims for substantive equality, recognizing existing inequalities in society. Article 16(4) is an enunciation of substantive equality, not an exception to formal equality.

F.1. Constituent Assembly's Understanding of Article 16(4):
The Assembly recognized the need for reservations to overcome societal inequalities and ensure equal opportunity.

F.2. The Constitution as a Transformative Instrument:
The Constitution's transformative potential lies in its ability to achieve substantive equality, moving beyond formal equality.

G. Efficiency in Administration:
The argument that reservations affect administrative efficiency is based on a narrow understanding of merit. Efficiency must be inclusive, recognizing the value of diversity in governance.

H. The Issue of Creamy Layer:
The creamy layer principle applies to SCs and STs as a facet of equality. However, it does not apply to consequential seniority, which is an incident of promotion.

I. Retrospectivity:
The Reservation Act 2018's retrospective application is valid, protecting promotions and consequential seniority granted before 1 March 1996.

J. Overrepresentation in KPTCL and PWD:
The data indicates no overrepresentation when considering sanctioned posts. The Reservation Act 2018 ensures no excess representation.

K. Conclusion:
The Reservation Act 2018 is constitutionally valid, complying with Nagaraj and Jarnail. The writ petitions challenging its validity are dismissed.

← Previous Next →