You are on page 1of 33

INDEX

 Introduction
 Meaning and objective of 'Reservation'
 Constitutional Provisions
 Extent of Reservation
 Impact of Reservation
 Reservation in promotions
 Constitutional validity of 4A
 Reservation in case of Single Post
 Present Day Situation– 117thAmendment Bill – Potential Disaster
 Conclusion: Justice and a Good Life
Reservation in Promotions

The Indian society is characterized by a high degree of structural inequality based on the tenets
of the caste system. The caste system is based on the principles of purity and pollution, which
involve the division of people into castes with unequal and hierarchal assignment of economic
and civil rights ascribed by birth. Social exclusion among the castes is ensured through the
practices of endogamy and social separation. Exclusion is, thus, internal to the system, and a
necessary outcome of its basic features.
Though, every caste has suffered from the unequal and hierarchal assignment of rights to some
extent, but the erstwhile untouchable castes located at the bottom of the caste hierarchy suffered
the most as they were historically denied the rights to property, business (except to occupations
considered as impure and polluting), education, civil, cultural, and religious rights. Besides, the
Scheduled Castes (SCs) also suffered from the deleterious effects of residential segregation and
social isolation.
The Government in recognition to the peripheral status of the marginalized social communities
has consistently promulgated various legislations and statutes, which are influenced by two main
considerations, namely:
a. to overcome the multiple deprivations of the marginalized social groups inherited from
exclusion in the past, and to the extent possible bring them at par with the others; and
b. to provide protection against exclusion and discrimination in the present by encouraging their
effective participation in the general economic, social and political processes of the country.

Towards these ends, the Government had utilized two-fold strategies, which include:
a. anti-discriminatory and protective measures; and
b. development and empowering measures.1

Meaning and objective of 'Reservation'


Reservation is the policy of a carrying out corrective, ameliorative measures and strategies for
removing the cumulative disadvantage of socially, educationally, economically disadvantaged
groups of population and bringing them at par with the rest of the population.
The basic object of 'reservation' seeks to compensate people unfavorably located in scheme of
resource endowment for the loss incurred on account of their exploitation and stagnation. it
seeks to right past wrongs as it is wedded to the task of reducing the weight of the past to
facilitate appropriation of the benefits of the present. In other words, the object of 'reservation' is
to speed up the establishment of a representative and unprejudicial workforce in addition to assist
those who were in the past derived by unfair discrimination to fulfill their highest potential.

1
Sukhadeo Thorat and Chittaranjan Senapati, ‘Reservation Policy in India – Dimensions and Issues’ (2006) 1 Indian
Institute of Dalit Studies
After independence, India committed itself to a socially just and an egalitarian social order. The
Constitution, promulgated in 1950, recognized the SCs and the STs as two of the most
marginalized social groups needing special protections. A number of provisions, therefore, were
specifically incorporated for the two social groups with a view to abolish all forms of
discrimination, untouchability, and social exclusion emanating from the caste system and to
alleviate the peripheral position of these social groups.

Reservations alone are not enough to mainstream the SCs and the STs to the levels of the other
sections of the society. The system of reservations meant to uplift the weaker sections, has in
fact, succeeded in the creation of creamy layers within the marginalized social groups to the
extent that the percolation of the benefits have been marginal and differentially accessed. Thus,
the Indian Government’s approach towards these social groups has been primarily shaped by the
provisions in the Constitution, which guarantee equality before the law, and empowers the State
to make special provisions for the promotion of the educational, social, political and economic
interests of the SCs/STs, and to further, protect them from any form of discrimination and
exclusion.
Reservations for the SC/STs in the Government services, educational institutions, and political
bodies like the Central and the state legislatures also fall under pro-active measures. These
measures have been incorporated to ensure the proportional participation of the SC/STs in the
public domain –democratic decision-making bodies.

Constitutional Provisions

Specific provisions for the reservation in services, in favor of the members of the SC/STs have
been made in the Constitution of India. They are as follows:
Article 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution enabled both the state and Central Governments to
reserve seats in public services for the members of the SC and ST, thereby, enshrining equality of
opportunity in matters of public employment.
Article 15(4) states that:
“Nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of
appointments or posts in favour of any backward class or citizens, which, in the opinion of the
State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State.”
Article 16(4 A) states that:
“Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provisions for reservation in the
matter of promotion to any class or classes of posts in the services under the State in favour of
SCs and STs which in the opinion of the State are not adequately represented under the
State”(Constitutional 77th Amendment, - Act, 1995).
Article 16 (4 B) states that:
“Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from considering any unfilled vacancies of a year
which are reserved for being filled up in that year in accordance with any provision for
reservation made under clause (4) or clause (4A) as a separate class of vacancies to be filled up
in any succeeding year or years and such class of vacancies shall not be considered together with
the vacancies of the year in which they are being filled up for determining the ceiling of fifty
percent reservation on total number of vacancies of that year” (Constitutional 81st Amendment, -
Act, 2000).
Article 46 states that:
“The State shall promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker
sections of the people and, in particular, of the SC and ST, and shall protect them from social
injustice and all forms of exploitation.”
The Constitution prohibits discrimination (Article 15) of any citizen on grounds of religion, race,
caste, etc.; untouchability (Article 17); and forced labour (Article 23). It provides for specific
representation through reservation of seats for the SCs and the STs in the Parliament (Article
330) and in the State Legislative Assemblies (Article 332), as well as, in Government and public
sector jobs, in both the federal and state Governments (Articles 16(4), 330(4) and 335).

Though Article 15(4) is intended for reservation in educational institutions and Article 16(4) is
intended for reservation in public employment. Although Article 16(4) has an overriding flavour
as it starts with non-obstante clause but it is only an enabling provision. Reservation for
backward classes in services is not a mandate rather it is the prerogative of the state. It confers no
right on citizens to claim reservation. Article 16 (4) has been held to be not mandatory.
Reservations for the SCs, the STs, and the OBCs are available for all groups of posts in the
Central services, PSUs, public sector nationalized banks, and the public sector insurance
companies in the case of direct recruitment on an all India basis by open competition at 15, 7.5,
and 27 percentage points for the SCs, the STs, and the OBCs respectively. Further, in case
recruitment is not by open competition, the applicable/stipulated quotas for reservation stand at
16.66 percent for the SCs, 7.5 percent for the STs, and 25.84 percent for the OBCs in that order.

Extent of Reservation

Reservation for SCs, STs and OBCs is available in all groups of posts in case of direct
recruitment. While in case of direct recruitment on all India bases by open competition,
reservation for SCs, STs and OBCs is respectively 15 percent, 7.5 percent and 27 percent,
otherwise than by open competition it is 16.66 percent, 7.5 percent and 25.84 percent
respectively (Annual Report DOPT 2005). In case of direct recruitment to Groups C and D posts
normally attracting candidates from a locality or a region, percentage of reservation for SCs/STs
is generally fixed in proportion to the population of SCs and STs in the respective States/UTs and
reservation for OBCs in such cases has been so fixed that it is not more than 27 percent and total
reservation does not exceed the limit of 50 percent.
There are also reservations in the promotions of the employed persons from the marginalized
social groups. The Government services generally include Government civil services, PSUs,
statutory and semi-Government bodies, and voluntary agencies etc. which are under the control
of the Government or receive grants-in-aid. At the Central level, some of the services are
excluded from the purview of the reservation policy and these prominently include the defence
services and the judiciary.5
Also, in case of direct recruitment to Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ posts normally attracting
candidates from a locality or a region, the percentage of reservations for the SC/STs are generally
fixed in proportion to their population in the respective States/UTs and reservation for OBCs in
such cases has been so fixed that it is not more than 27 percent. In any case, the total reservation
stipulated should not exceed 50 percent.2
The main objective of providing reservations for the SCs and the STs in Government services
was, not only, to provide employment to some persons belonging to the marginalized
communities, and thereby, increase their representation in the services, but also, to improve their
relative status in
critical human development indicators.
The Supreme Court was confronted with a case arising under Article 16 – T. Devadasan v. Union
of India3 This was also a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. It related to the validity of
the 'carry-forward' rule obtaining in Central Secretariat Service. The reservation in favour of
Scheduled Castes was twelve and half per cent while the reservation in favour of Scheduled
Tribes was five per cent. The 'carry-forward' rule considered in the said decision was in the
following terms: "If a sufficient number of candidates considered suitable by the recruiting
authorities, are not available from the communities for whom reservations are made in a
particular year, the unfilled vacancies should be treated as unreserved and filled by the best
available candidates. The number of reserved vacancies, thus, treated as unreserved will be
added as an additional quota to the number that would be reserved in the following year in the
normal course; and to the extent to which approved candidates are not available in that year
against this additional quotas, a corresponding addition should be made to the number of
reserved vacancies in the second following year." Because sufficient number of SC/ST
candidates were not available during the earlier years the unfilled vacancies meant for them were
carried forward as contemplated by the said rule and filled up in the third year - that is in the year
1961. Out of 45 appointments made, 29 went to Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes. In other words, the extent of reservation in the third year came to 65 per cent.
The
rule was declared unconstitutional by the Constitution Bench, with Subba Rao, J. dissenting. The
majority held that the carry forward rule which resulted in more than 50 per cent of the vacancies

2
Indira Sawhney
3
A I R 1964 S C 179
being reserved in a particular year, is bad. The principle enunciated in Balaji 4 regarding 50
percent
was followed. Subba Rao, J. in his dissenting opinion, however, upheld the said rule.
The learned Judge observed:
"The expression, "nothing in this article" is a legislative device to express its intention in a most
emphatic way that the power conferred thereunder is not limited in any way by the main
provision but falls outside it. It has not really carved out an exception, but has preserved a power
untrammeled by the other provisions of the Article."

A carry-forward' rule may be in a form different than the one considered in Devadasan. The Rule
may provide that the vacancies reserved for Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes shall not be
filled up by general (open competition) candidates in case of non-availability of SC/ST
candidates and that such vacancies shall be carried forward.

Impact of Reservation

This section examines the impact of the reservation policy on employment in India, with
reference to the reserved categories. The analysis sufficiently establishes that there has been a
remarkable increase in the numbers of SC/ ST Government employees over the years. In 1960,
the absolute numbers of the SC Government employees stood at 228 thousand, which increased
to 590 thousands in 1990, and further to 540 thousand in 2003. The percentage share of the SC
employees to the total Government employees was 12.24 percent in 1960, which increased to
about 17 percent in 2003; fairly close to their percentage share in the population. In the case of
the STs, their absolute
numbers increased from 37 thousand in 1960 to 211 thousand in 2003 with a corresponding
increase in their percentage share from 2 percent in 1960 to 6.46 percent in 2003.
For the effective implementation of the reservation policy, the Government has developed certain
procedural safeguards, which include, the maintenance of a model roster for giving effect to
reservations in posts (i.e., identifying vacancies as reserved or unreserved), holding separate
interviews for the SC/ST candidates, appointing Liaisoning Officers to oversee the
implementation of the reservation policy in each office, appointing the representatives of the
SC/ST on selection boards, banning de-reservation of reserved posts, and banning the full
exchange of posts with the general category candidates if candidates belonging to the SC/ST
categories are not available.

4
M.R Balaji - v. - State of Mysore. AIR 1963 SC 649. This case involved the following facts : Large number of
professional College Candidates filed writ petitions it the Supreme Court alleging that but for the reservation made
by the State govt. they would have been admitted students with less marks admitted. The extent of reservation was
unreasonable 68% reservation. It was held that: Caste alone could not be the criterion for deciding the
backwardness. Poverty, occupation and place of habitation and such other thing have to be considered. Sub-
classification into ‘backward’ and ‘most backward’ is unconstitutional, Total reservation could not exceed 50%.
One of the prominent limitations of the present reservation policy remains the absence of a
Reservation Act and a provision of checks against those who wilfully avoid the implementation
of the reservation policy.

Reservation in promotions

Reservations in promotions. An issue contentious from the very beginning and fiercely opposed
by the upper caste members of Indian Polity, it aimed keeping aside a number of seats in
government offices during promotions reserved for the Scheduled Castes and Tribes. The first
step towards this was taken by the Narasimha Rao government by introducing the 77th
amendment via sub clause 4A under article 16 of the constitution. It created the problem of
consequential promotions. Later on the Manmohan Singh government replaced the section with
one that sought to legalize these “consequential” promotions under the 85th amendment in 2005.
Notably the latest step in this direction was taken by the 117th amendment in 2013 which has
cleared the passage of the Rajya Sabha and awaits passage in the lower house.5

It is submitted that providing for reservation thereafter in the matter of promotion amounts to a
double reservation and if such a provision is made at each successive stages of promotion, it
would be a case of reservation being provided that many times. It is also submitted that by
providing reservation in the matter of promotion the member of a reserved category is enabled to
frog leap over his compatriots, which is bound to generate acute heart burning and may well lead
to inefficiency in administration. The members of the open competition category would come to
think that whatever be their record and performance the members of reserved categories would
steal a march over them, irrespective of their performance and competence.
It is further submitted that if Article 16(4) is construed as warranting reservation even in the
matters of promotion it would be contrary to the Mandate of Article 335 viz. maintenance of
efficiency in administration. It is submitted that such a provision would amount to putting a
premium upon in-efficiency. The members of the reserved category would not work hard since
they do not have to complete with all their colleagues but only within the reserved category and
further because they are assured of promotion whether they work hard and efficiently or not.
Such a course would also militate against the goal of excellence referred to in clause (J) of
Article 51A.6

How the issue of reservation in promotion evolved?

5
RESERVATION IN PROMOTIONS IN INDIA by Dipanjan Roychoudhary
6
Indira Sawhney
In the case of General Manager, Southern Railway v. Rangachari7, the validity of the circulars
issued by the Railway administration providing for reservation in favour of Scheduled
Castes/Scheduled Tribes in promotions (by selection) was questioned. The contention was that
Article 16(4) does not take in or comprehend reservation in the matter of promotions as well and
that it is confined to direct recruitment only. The Madras High Court agreed with this contention.
It held that the word "appointments" in Clause (4) did not denote promotion and further that the
word "posts" in the said clause referred to posts outside the cadre concerned. On appeal, the
Supreme Court reversed by a majority of 3:2, Gajendragadkar, J. speaking for the majority
enunciated certain propositions:
(a) matters relating to employment [in Clause (1)] must include all matters in relation to
employment both prior, and subsequent, to the employment which are incidental to the
employment and form part of the terms and conditions of such employment.
(b) in regard to employment, like other terms and conditions associated with and incidental to it,
the promotion to a selection post is also included in the matters relating to employment, and even
in regard to such a promotion to a selection post all that Article 16(1) guarantees is equality of
opportunity to all citizens who enter service.

(c) The condition precedent for the exercise of the powers conferred by Article 16(4) is that the
State ought to be satisfied that any backward class of citizens is not adequately represented in its
services.
This condition precedent may refer either to the numerical inadequacy of representation in the
services or even to the qualitative inadequacy of representation. The advancement of the socially
and educationally backward classes requires not only that they should have adequate
representation in the lowest rung of services but that they should aspire to secure adequate
representation in selection posts in the services as well. In the context the expression 'adequately
represented' imports considerations of "size" as well as "values", numbers as well as the nature of
appointments held and so it involves not merely the numerical test but also the qualitative one.

In B. N. Tewari v. Union of India8, If Sufficient number of reserved candidates were not


available, the number of vacancies were to be carried forward. This ‘carry forward’ rule was
challenged because the petitioner was denied of promotion from Grade IV Assistant to Section
Officer. It was held that: Carry forward Rule as modified in 1955 was held invalid and
unconstitutional.

In State of Punjab v. Hiralal9, validity of an order made by the Government of Punjab providing
for reservation in promotion (in addition to initial recruitment) was questioned. The respondent
was denied promotion and a person belonging to Scheduled caste and junior to the respondent

7
A I R 1962 S C 36
8
AIR 1965 SC 1430
9
A I R 1971 S C 1777
was promoted. Though the High Court upheld the challenge, the Supreme Court (Shah, Hegde
and Grover, JJ.) reversed and upheld the validity of the Government order following Rangachari.

In Janaki Prasad Parimoo v. State of Jammu & Kashmir 10, the case was relating to reservation
in promotion for backward classes under Article 16(4). Equal treatment was denied in regard to
reversion owing to reservation made under the government orders in promotion as headmasters.

In N. M. Thomas v. State of Kerala 11, The Kerala Government had, by amending Kerala State
and Subordinate Service Rules empowered the Government to exempt, by order, for a specified
period, any member or members belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes and already
in service, from passing the test which an employee had to pass as a precondition for promotion
to next higher post. Exercising the said power, the Government of Kerala issued a notification
granting "temporary exemption to members already in service belonging to any of the Scheduled
Castes or Scheduled Tribes from passing all tests (unified, special or departmental test) for a
period of two years". On the basis of the said exemption, a large number of employees belonging
to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, who had been stagnating in their respective posts for
want of passing the departmental tests, were promoted. They were now required to pass the tests
within the period of exemption. Out of 51 vacancies which arose in the category of Upper
Division Clerks in the year 1972, 34 were filled up by members of Scheduled Castes leaving
only 17 for others. This was questioned by Thomas, a member belonging to non-reserved
category. His grievance was: but for the said concession/exemption given to members of
Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes he would have been promoted to one of those posts in view
of his passing the relevant tests. He contended that Article 16(4) permits only reservations in
favour of backward classes but not such an exemption. the court held that the power to make
reservation, which is conferred and the state under Article 16 (4) can be exercised by the state in
a proper case not only by providing for reservation of appointments but also by providing for
reservation of selection posts. In providing for reservation of appointment or posts under Article
16(4) the state has to take into consideration the claims of the backward classes consistently with
the maintenance of the efficiency of administration. It must the not be forgotten that the
efficiency of administration is of such paramount importance that it would be unwise and
impermissible to make reservation at the cost of efficiency of administration. Among the
minority Khanna, J. preferred the view taken in Balaji and other cases to the effect that Article
16(4) is an exception to Article 16(1). He opined that no preference can be provided in favour of
backward classes outside Clause (4). A.C.Gupta, J.
concurred with this view.

In Ahkil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India 12, the validity of a
number of circular issued by the Railway Administration was questioned. The experience gained
10
(1973) 1 SCC 420
11
AIR 1976 SC 490
12
A I R 1981 S C 2981
over the year disclosed that reservation of appointments / posts in favor of SCs / STs, though
made both at the stage of initial recruitment and promotion was not achieving the intended result
in as much as several posts meant for them remained unfilled by them accordingly, the
administration issued several circular from time to time extending further concession and other
measures to ensure that members of these categories avail of the posts reserved for them fully.
The circular contemplated (1) giving one grade higher to SC / St candidates than in assignable to
an employee; (II) carrying forward vacancies for a period of three years; and (III) provision for
in – service training and coaching to raise the level of efficiency of SC / ST employees who were
directed to be promoted on a temporary basis for a specified period, even if they did not obtain
the requisite places. The contention of the writ petition was that these circular, being incises term
with the mandate of Article 335 are bad. Rangachari was sought to be re-opened by arguing that
Article 16(4) does not take in reservation in the matter of promotion. The division bench
(Krishna Iyer, Pathak and Chinnappa reddy, JJ. not only refused to re – open Rangachari but also
repelled the attach upon the circulars. It was held that no dilution of efficiency in administration
resulted from the implementation of the circular in as much as they preserved the criteria of
eligibility and minimum efficiency required and also provided for in- service training and
coaching to correct the deficiency if any.

In Comptroller and Auditor General v. K. S. Jagannathan 13, it was held that the reservation in
favor of backward classes of citizen including the members of Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes, as contemplated by Article 16(4) can be made not merely in respect of initial
recruitment but also in respect of posts to which promotion are to be made.

As per Article 16(4) of the Constitution, reservations in direct recruitment and in promotions
were admissible to SC/STs in the Central/State Government Services in proportion to their
population till 15.11.92.

The scope and extent of article 16(4) has been examined thoroughly by the Supreme Court in the
historic case of Indra Sawhney v Union of India14, popularly known as Mandal case.
The nine judges bench did not agree with the decision of the Rangachari case, that Article 16(4)
contemplates or permits reservation in promotion as well. The court held that it is true that the
expression “appointment” takes in appointment by direct recruitment, appointment by promotion
and appointment by transfer. It may also be that Article 16(4) contemplates not merely
quantitative but also qualitative support to backward class of citizen. It must not be forgotten that
the efficiency of administration is of such paramount importance that it would be unwire and
impermissible to make any reservation at the cost of efficiency of administration that
undoubtedly is the effect of Article 335. Reservation of appointments or post may theoretically
and conceivably means “some impairment for efficiency but then its explain it away by saying
but the risk involved in sacrificing efficiency of administration must always be borne in mind
13
A I R 1987 S C 537
14
AIR 1993 SC 477
when any states sets about making a provision for reservation of appointments or post. The court
further held that “we see no justification to multiply the risk which would be the consequence of
holding that reservation can be provided even in the matter of promotion. While it is certainly
just to say that a handicap should be given to backward class of citizen at the stage of initial
appointment, it would be serious and unacceptable inroad into the rule of equality of opportunity
to say that such a handicap should be provided at every stage of promotion throughout their
career. That would mean creation of permanent separate category apart from the mainstream – a
vertical division of the administrative apparatus. The member of reserved categories need not
have to compete with others but only among themselves. There would be no will to work,
compete and excel among them. Whether they work or not, they tend to think, their promotion is
assured. This in turn is bound to generate a feeling of despondence and heart burning among
open competition members. All this is bound to affect the efficiency or administration putting the
members of backward classes as a fast track would necessarily result in leapfrogging and the
deleterious effect of leap-fogging need no illustration at our hands. At the initial stage of
recruitment of reservation can be made in favor of backward class of citizen but once they enter
the service, efficiency of administration demands that those members too compete with others
and earn promotion like all others; no further distraction can be made thereafter with reference to
their birth mark. They are expected to operate an equal footing with others. Clutches cannot be
provided throughout one’s carrier. That would not be in the interest of efficiency of
administration nor in the larger interest of the nation. It is wrong to think that by holding so, we
are confining the backward class of citizens to the lowest cadres. It is well known fact that direct
recruitment takes place at several higher levels of class – IV and class – III. Direct recruitment is
provided even at the level of all India services.

Position after Mandal Case

The Court had laid down that there shall be no reservation in promotions in government jobs.
The court, however, ordered that since reservation in promotions was admissible to SC/STs
through various offices since 1954, the same be continued for another period of 5 years only.
This buffer period was provided to executive to take appropriate measures to implement the
Indra Sawhney order. Thus, Rangachari decision was overruled. In order to remove the anomaly,
the parliament through 77th Constitutional Amendment, added Clause 4A in Art. 16 w.e.f.
17.06.1995. making provision for reservation in promotions for SC/STs.15

The constitutional position on the insertion of Clause 4A is that the State is now empowered to
make provision for reservation in matter of promotions as well, in favour of SC and ST wherever
the State is of the opinion that SCs and STs are not adequately represented in the service under
the State. Nevertheless, it is only an enabling provision which empowers the State to make any
provision for reservation for SC and ST candidates in the matter of promotion as well. If the state
15
National commission fot SC/St
makes no reservation, the High Court has no jurisdiction under Art.226 of te Constitution to issue
any direction therefor.16

This amendment was clearly intended to nullify the effect of the descison of Mandal case. The
evil of reservation in promotions was abolished by the Supreme Court as it caused lot of
bitterness and bitterness among the employees of the same category who were bypassed by their
collegues having less merits. There was no demand for it from any section SC’s and STs. In view
of this, the amendment for reservation in promotions is hardly justified. The haste in which the
governmemt had brought the 77th Amendment clearly show that it was passed for political
considerations. It has its own dangers. Although at present it covers only the SCs & STs, but in
due course a demand for such reservation can be made for other OBCs also.

In R.K.Sabharwal v State of Punjab17as well as J.C. Mallick Vs. Ministry of Railways 18, In this
decision, it has been held that where the total number of posts in a cadre reserved for reserved
candidates are filled by operation of a roster, the object of rule of reservation must be deemed to
have been achieved and that thereafter there would be no justification to operate the roster. Para-
5 of the said judgment brings out the reasons for the said rule and the rule itself:
"We see considerable force in the second contention raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioners. The reservations provided under the impugned Government instructions are to be
operated in accordance with the roster to be maintained in each Department. The roster is
implemented in the form of running account from year to year. The purpose of ‘running account’
is to make sure that the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and and Backward Classes get their
percentage of reserved posts. The concept of ‘running account’ in the impugned instructions has
to be so interpreted that it does not result in excessive reservation. The percentage of reservation
is the desired representation of the Backward Classes in the State Services and is consistent with
the demographic estimate based on the proportion worked out in relation to their population. The
numerical quota of posts is not a shifting boundary but represents a figure with due application of
mind. Therefore, the only way to assure equality of opportunity to the Backward Classes and the
general category is to permit the roster to operate till the time the respective
appointees/promotees occupy the posts meant for them in the roster. The operation of the roster
and the ‘running account’ must come to an end thereafter.
The vacancies arising in the cadre, after the initial posts are filled, will pose no difficulty. As and
when there is a vacancy whether permanent or temporary in a particular post the same has to be
filled from amongst the category to which the post belonged in the roster.
The Constitution Bench has, however, made it clear that the rule enunciated by them shall
operate only prospectively [vide Para 11]. It has further been held in the said decision that the
"percentage of reservation has to be worked out in relation to the number of posts which form the

16
A.P. Sarpanch Association v Govt. of A.P., AIR 2001 AP 474.
17
(1995) 2 SCC 745
18
(1978 (1) SLR).
cadre-strength (and that) the concept of ‘vacancy’ has no relevance in operating the percentage of
reservation".

In National Federation of State Bank of India v. Union of India & Ors.19 , the case of service
under Public Sector Banking Institutions, while reservation in promotions was provided in the
case of promotion from Class- IV to Class-III, Class-III to Class-II and from Class-II to Class-I,
no such reservation was provided so far as promotions within Class-I were concerned. Only a
concession (set out in the judgment) was provided in favor of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled
Tribes candidates with a view to enable them to obtain promotions within Class-I which they
may not have obtained otherwise. It was held by this Court that such a concession can also be
provided under Article 16(4). In short, it is open to the State, if it is so advised, to say that while
the rule of reservation shall be applied and the roster followed in the matter of promotions to or
within a particular service, class or category, the candidate promoted earlier by virtue of rule of
reservation/roster shall not be entitled to seniority over his senior in the feeder category and that
as and when a general candidate who was senior to him in the feeder category is promoted, such
general candidate will regain his seniority over the reserved candidate notwithstanding that he is
promoted subsequent to the reserved candidate. There is no unconstitutionality involved in this.
It is permissible for the State to so provide.

Promotion of SC/ST employees out of turn because of the scheme of reservation gives rise to the
problem, especially, pertaining to seniority of such persons over the employees belonging to the
general category. The Supreme Court has sought to grapple with such problems keeping in view
considerations of equity and fairness.20

In Union of India v Virpal Singh Chauhan21, it was held that it was "permissible" for the
Railways to say that reserved candidates who get promotion at roster points would not be entitled
to claim seniority at the promotional level as against senior general candidates who got promoted
at a later point of time to the same level. It was further held that "it would be open" to the State to
provide that as and when the senior general candidate got promoted under the rules,- whether by
way of a seniority rule or a selection rule- to the level to which the reserved candidate was
promoted earlier, the general candidate would have to be treated as senior to the reserved
candidate (the roster-point promotee) at the promotional level as well, unless, of course, the
reserved candidate got a further promotion by that time to a higher post. This is described for
convenience as the "catch-up" rule.

19
(1995 (3) S.C.C. 432), overruling State Harijan Kalyan Parishad v Union of India, AIR 1985 SC 983 and
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Employees Asssociation v Union of India, 1990 Supp 1 SCC 350.
20
Indian Constitutional Law by M P Jain
21
AIR 1996 SC 448
Catch-up Rule- The concept of catch-up rule appears for the first time in Virpal Singh
Chauhan. Therefore, in Virpal Singh Chauhan this Court has said that the ―catch-up rule
insisted upon by the Railways though not implicit in Articles 16(1) and 16(4), is constitutionally
valid as the said practice/process was made to maintain efficiency. In Ajit Singh (I)22, it was held
that if the ―catch-up‖ rule is not applied then the equality principle embodied in Article 16(1)
would stand violated. This Court opined that without ―catch-up rule, giving weightage to earlier
promotion secured by roster-point promotee would result in reverse discrimination and would
violate equality under Articles 14, 15 and 16. Accordingly, this Court took the view that the
seniority between the reserved category candidates and general candidates in the promoted
category shall be governed by their panel position.

S. Vinod Kumar v Union of India 23, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of had held that the
various instructions of Government providing for lower qualifying marks/lesser standard of
evaluation in matter of promotion for candidates belonging to SC/ST are not permissible in view
of the provisions contained in Article 335. In view of this decision the various orders regarding
lower qualifying marks/standard of evaluation for SC/ST in the matter of promotion were
withdrawn by the Government w.e.f. 22.7.97.

Fundamental Right – In Ajith Singh Januaja v State of Punjab (Ajith Singh I)24, a three judge
bench of the supreme court went a step ahead of the Virpal Case and it was held that the
members of the scheduled caste or backward class who have been appointment / promoted on
basis of the policy of reservation and system of roster cannot claim promotion against general
category posts in the higher grade, on basis of their seniority in the lower grade having been
achieved because of the accelerated promotion or appointment by applying the roster. The
equality principle requires exclusion of the factor of extra weightage of earlier promotion to a
reserved category candidate because of reservation alone when he compete for further promotion
to a general category candidate senior to their in the panel.

The Apex Court held that employment includes promotion. It also stated that Article 16(1)
provides to every employees otherwise eligible for promotion or who comes within the zone of
consideration, a fundamental right to be considered for promotion. Equal opportunity means the
right to be considered for promotion, if a person satisfies the eligibility and zone criteria but is
not considered for promotion, and then there will be clear infraction of this fundamental right.
The balance must be maintained in such a manner that there was no reverse discrimination
against the general candidates and that any rule, circular or order which gave seniority to the
reserved candidates promoted at roster point, would violate Articles 14 and 16(1) of the
Constitution of India. The court also held that Article 16(4) and 16(4-A) do not confer any

22
AIR 1996 SC 1189
23
(1996) 6 SCC 580
24
AIR 1996 SC 1189
fundamental right and they were enabling provision only. Article 16(4) , 16(4-A) confer a
discretion but do not create any duty or obligation which could be enforced by issuing a writ of
mandamus to provide reservation a relaxation under Article 32 and 226.

Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of UP (1997) involved a controversy over the precise ratio
of Indra Sawhney. Some UP service rules provided reservations for Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes. There was 21% reservation for SCs (Dalits), 2% reservation for STs (Tribes)
and 27% reservation for the OBCs. Moreover, if SCs and STs were not available, and public
interest required the vacancies to be filled, general category candidates would be appointed on an
ad hoc basis. The carry-forward rule could not exceed 45%. It was also provided that each
category would be prepared separately in the order of their inter se seniority for available
vacancies for each category and selection would be done from such eligibility list for each
category on the basis of seniority.

The main contention was that, following Indra Sawhney, reservations in promotions were
inapplicable. This was despite the passage of Art. 16 (4A). It was also questioned whether the
right to promotion is a fundamental right, and whether the prospective ruling in Indra Sawhney is
void.

The Court set out some important principles. It pointed out that the right to reservation in
promotion is required to be balanced with the competing right to equality of the general
employees. It held that there also needs to be a balance between equality in law and equality in
fact (or what, for the sake of greater clarity, might be understood as equality of opportunity and
equality of outcomes). In order to bridge the gap between the two, protective discrimination was
needed. The Court observed “that de jure equality must ultimately find its raison d’etre in de
facto equality.” (that is to say, formal equality of opportunity must be structured in such a way
that there is a rough equality in the outcome).

The Court further held that the right to promotion is a statutory right and not a fundamental right.
At the same time, however, it held that “Article 16(4A) read with Articles 16(1) and 14
guarantees a right to promotion to Dalits and Tribes as a fundamental right where they not have
adequate representation consistently with the efficiency in administration.”

On the other hand, in Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana25, It held that the general rule in the
service rules relating to seniority from the date of continuous officiation which was applicable to
candidates promoted under the normal seniority/selection procedure would be attracted even to
the roster- point promotees as otherwise there would be discrimination against the reserved
candidates. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that the SC/ST candidates will get seniority with
reference to the date of their promotion. The plea of general candidates on the basis of the

25
A I R 1997 SC 66
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Virpal Singh Chauhan(supra), Ajit Singh
I(supra), was rejected. The Bench also observed that the right to promotion was a statutory right
while the rights of the reserved candidates under Article 16(4) and Article 16(4-A) were
fundamental rights and in that behalf, it followed Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. where a
similar principle had been laid down.

Ajit Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others 26, The matter concerns a dispute relating to
seniority of reserved candidates and general candidates. The court held that the Promoted
Candidates (reserved category) cannot count their seniority in the promoted category from the
date of their Continuous Officiation in the promoted post, vis-a-vis the general candidates who
were senior to them in the lower category and who were later promoted.
The Court also discussed the Catch-Up Rule. This rule was interpreted by the Court in a manner
that the experience of the Promoted Candidates (Reserved Category) must also be taken into
consideration for further Promotion.
The Court also overruled the decisions in Jagdish Lal and Ashok Kumar Gupta and held that: “In
view of the overwhelming authority right from 1963, we hold that both Articles 16(4) and
16(4A) do not confer any fundamental rights nor do they impose any constitutional duties but are
only in the nature of enabling provision vesting a discretion in the State to consider providing
reservation if the circumstances mentioned in those Articles so warranted. We accordingly hold
that on this aspect Ashok Kumar Gupta, Jagdishlal and the cases which followed these cases do
not lay down the law correctly.”
Language of Article 15(4) is identical and the view in Comptroller and Auditor General of India,
Gian Prakash v. K.S. Jagannathan 27and Superintending Engineer, Public Health v. Kuldeep
Singh28 that a mandamus can be issued either to provide for reservation or for relaxation is not
correct and runs counter to judgments of earlier Constitution Benches and, therefore, these two
judgments cannot be held to be laying down the correct law.

Same was held in the following cases:- In C. A. Rajendran v. Union of India29, it was clearly
laid down by the five Judge Bench that Article 16(4) was only an enabling provision, that Article
16(4) was not a fundamental right and that it did not impose any constitutional duty. It only
conferred a discretion on the State. The Supreme Court held: “Our conclusion therefore is that
Article 16(4) does not confer any right on the petitioner and there is no constitutional duty
imposed on the government to make reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes,
either at the initial stage or at the stage of promotion. In other words, Article 16(4) is an enabling
provision and confers discretionary power on the State to make a reservation of appointment in
favour of backward class of citizens which, in its opinion, is not adequately represented in the
services of the State.”

26
AIR 1999 SC 3471
27
A I R 1987 S C 537
28
A I R 1997 S C 2133
29
(AIR 1968 SC 507)
In P to T Scheduled Castes / tribes employees welfare association v. Union of India30, the court
refused to issue a writ against Government for providing reservation in posts or appointment in P
and T. department. Here the petitioner prayed that a director should be issued to the government
to issue specific orders conferring on thin such an extra advantage. The court held that the claim
made in the petitioner is true but it may be true that no writ can be issued ordinarily compelling
the Government to make reservation under Article 16 (4) which is only an enabling clause.
Therefore the court used a direction to the Government of India to issue order on the behalf.

State Bank of India Scheduled Caste/Tribe Employees' Welfare Assn. v. State Bank of India 31,
the Association, Chandigarh has challenged the reservation policy of framed by the SBI
reserving certain posts for employees belonging to SCs/STs in promotion. The two circulars
issued by the SBI provided a scheme for reservation in promotion for the above categories of
employees. Under the scheme 15% reservation was made in favor of SCs and 7.5% in favor of
STs. The rules also provided that the number of vacancies which could not be filled would be
carried forward from one year to the next year upto a period of three years. If after type end of
three years, such vacancies could not be filled, it would be treated as lapsed. It provided that
maximum reservation would not exceed 50% a year. The court held that the policy of reservation
in promotion was not violative of category of Arts. 16(4) and (4-A) and the vacancies lapsed due
to non-availablity of reserved category candidates cannot be revived and filled retrospectively.
Article 16(4) does not confer any right on the petitioner and there is no constitutional duty
imposed on the Government to make a reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes,
either at the initial stage of recruitment or at the stage of promotion. In other words Article 16(4)
is an enabling provision and confers a discretionary power on the State to make a reservation of
appointments in favour of backward class of citizens which, in its opinion, is not adequately
represented in the services of the State.

In Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. 32, it has been laid down that the right to promotion is
only a "statutory right" while the rights covered by Articles 16(4) and 16(4-A) are "fundamental
rights".

It should be noted that both these articles open with a non obstante clause - "Nothing in this
Article shall prevent the State from making any provision for reservation”. There is a marked
difference in the language employed in Article 16(1) on the one hand and Article 16(4) and
Article 16(4-A) on the other. There is no directive or command in Article 16(4) or Article 16(4-
A) as in Article 16(1). On the face of it, the above language in each of Articles 16(4) and 16(4-A)
is in the nature of an enabling provision and it has been so held in judgments rendered by
Constitution Benches and in other cases right from 1963.
30
(1998) 4 S C C 147
31
(1996) 4 SCC 119
32
(1997) 5 SCC 201
The court laid down in the case of M R Balaji vs. State of Mysore33 that articles 16 (4) and 16 (4
A) contain no directive or command, it is only a enabling provision15 and it imposes no
constitutional duty on the state and confers no fundamental right on any one . It is necessary to
balance all these provisions. The interests of the reserved classes must be balanced against the
interests of other segments of society.34

Constitutional validity of 4A
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, A.P Hyderabad v. G. Sethumadhave Rao 35, the appeal
arises from the Order of the Administrative Tribunal Andhra Pradesh. Andhra Pradesh State and
Subordinate Service Rules-not applicable in the case of Assist. Comm. Tax. Officer. It was held
that: The stand taken by the Tribunal would apply only for direct recruitment and not for
promotion is illegal. Appeal allowed.

In Union of India v Madhav36 a three judge bench held that “Government evolved reservation in
post or office under the state as one of the modes to socio-economic justice to Dalits and
Scheduled Tribes. Appointment to an office or post in a service under the state is some of the
means to render socio-economic justice.
The insertion of clause (4-A) to Article 16 was challenged in Ashok Kumar Gupta v State of
U.P,37 as being unconstitutional. It was held that the policy of reservation is part of socio-
economic justice enshrined in the preamble of the constitution, the fundamental right under
Article 14, 15(4), 16(1), 16(4), 16(4A) 46 and 335 and other related Articles to give effects to the
above constitutional objectives. It was also held in this case that right to proportion is a statutory
right. It is not fundamental right. The policy of reservation creates an obligation on the state to
treat every one with equal respect and cancan and in this sense this policy serves the principle of
equal treatment but this policy dose not create any corresponded individual right in favour of the
members of the beneficiary groups.

In Superintending Engineer, Public Health U T Chandigarh v. Kuldeep Singh,38 the


Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs admittedly, by letter dates June 12, 1986 had
given direction that since in the Union Territory of Chandigarh, the population of Scheduled
Tribes is not available, the principle of alternative exchange to the scheduled caste should be
adopted. Consequently, when vacancy no. 1 in the roster is available to the Scheduled Tribes, it
requires to be filled by considering caste. It is therefore, clear that though scheduled tribe
33
AIR (1998) 4 SCC 1
34
Mangat Ram v. State of Punjab (2005) 9 SCC 323
35
AIR 1996 SC1915
36
(1997) 2 SCC 332..
37
(1997) 5 SCC 201
38
A I R 1997 S C 2133
candidate was not available to fill up the vacancy at no. 1 in the roster, the candidate belonging to
the Scheduled Castes is required to be considered according to the rules and given promotion on
seniority cum fitness basis which is the rule under which the candidates are required to be
considered. When eligible scheduled caste candidate was available for promotion he could not be
denied the same on the specious ground that as per the carry forward rule the period of three
years had expired. Thus promotion could not be given to a candidate from general category in
preference to the eligible scheduled caste candidate.

Reservation in case of Single Post


Reservation of the post in a single – post cadre amounts to 100% reservation in the cadre, while
keeping it beyond the realm of reservation might render it almost inaccessible to reserved
category of candidates.

In Arati Ray Cahudhary v. Union of India,39 the Supreme Court has clearly held that the
reservation for backward community should not be so excessive as to create a monopoly or to
disturb unduly the legitimate claim of other communities. It has been specially indicated in the
said decision that if there are two vacancies to be filled up in a particular year, not more than one
vacancy can be treated as reserved. In this case the learned judges followed the earlier decision
in M.R Balaji case that in no case reservation of seats beyond 50% could be made.

In Dr. Chakradhar Paswan v. State of Bihar,40 Supreme Court pointed out that whenever there
is one post in a cadre, there can be no reservation with reference to that post either for
recruitment at initial stage or for felling up future vacancy in respect of that post. The court
observed that no reservation could be made under Article 16(4) so as create a monopoly
otherwise, it would render the guarantee of equal opportunity, it would render the guarantee of
equal opportunity contained in Article 16(1) and 16(2) wholly meaningless and illusory. A
reservation, which would come under Article 16(4), presupposes the arability of at least more
than one post in that cadre.

In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India,41 it has not been held that there can be reservation in a
single cadre post. There is no dispute that a carry forward scheme, provided, it does not result in
reservation beyond 50% is constitutionally valid but that does not mean that by the device of
carry forward scheme, 100% reservation on some occasion can be made even when the post is
only a single cadre post.

39
A I R 1974 S C 532
40
A I R 1988 S C 959
41
A I R 1993 S C 477
In Chetana Dilip Motghare v. Bhide Girls Education Society, Nagpur,42 where the Supreme
Court upheld its earlier decision taken in the case of Chakradhar Paswan, where it was held that
single isolated post cannot be reserved. In the present case Supreme Court held that the principle
of reservation would not apply in the case of an isolated post and the decision of Chakradhar
Paswan holds the fields.

In Union of India v. Madhav43,” a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court took such an
approach. In the National Savings Scheme Services, the Government had created several posts.
Among them the post of Secretary was only one which was a feeder post for promotion as
Regional Deputy Director in which category too there were several posts. The Government
applied a 40-point roster of reservation rules by rotation to the vacancies in the post of Secretary
and thereby point No. 4 vacancy became the turn of Scheduled Tribe. When the vacancy was
sought to be filled up by promotion from the category of Superintendents from Scheduled Tribe,
the respondent challenged it before the Central Administrative Tribunal at Bombay. The
Tribunal, relying on Chakradhar quashed the promotion and held that since the post of Secretary
is a single post, no reservation could be given to reserved candidates as it would amount to 100
per cent reservation and therefore it was unconstitutional.“
The question before the Court in the present case was whether the Government would be
justified in law to provide reservation in promotion in a single post by rotating the vacancy as per
the roster point prepared by the Government. After referring to the preamble objectives of the
Constitution such a socio-economic justice, equality of opportunity and of status, dignity of
person and their attainment through reservation in employment to Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes, the Court
examined the case and the Government measures in the issue. The Court did not endorse the
Supreme Court's view in Chetana.”
According to the Court, Chetana had not correctly appreciated the ratio laid down in Arati Ray.
The Court reversed the order of the Tribunal and upheld the rule of reservation to isolated post
based on rotation. Justice K. Ramaswamy reiterated the position in the following words :
"Thus, we ‘hold that even though there is a single post, if the Government have applied the rule
of rotation and the roster point to the vacancies that had arisen in the single point post and were
sought to be filled up by the candidates belonging to the reserved categories at the point on
which they are eligible to be considered, such a rule is not violative of Article 16(1) of the
Constitution."

On promotion the Supreme Court in Suresh Chandra v J. B Agarwal, 44 held that in case of
solitary isolated post on the basis of the rule of rotation, the benefits and facilities should be
extended to the reserved candidates. Namely, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for

42
A I R 1994 S C 1917
43
A I R 1997 S C 3074
44
A I R 1997 S C 2487
appointment by promotion to the single post and, therefore application of the rule of reservation
is not unconstitutional.

In Union of India v. Brij lal Thakur,45 it was held that even though there is a single post, if the
government have applied the rule of rotation and roster point to the vacancies that had arisen in
the single point post and where sought to be filled up by the candidate belonging to the reserved
categories at the point on which they were eligible to be considered, such a rule is not violative
of Article 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution.

In State of Punjab v. G .S Gill,46it was held that it is settled legal position that application of
roster to single post cadre and appointment by promotion to carry forward post is valid and
constitutional.
In the Department of Industries of the State of Punjab, the post of Assistant Superintendent
Quality Marking Centre (Textile) was a single post in that cadre. As per the roster system and in
view of Arti Ray, a Scheduled Caste candidate was promoted to that post and when it was
challenged by the respondent before the High Court both the single Bench as well as the Division
Bench of the High Court adopted the view of Chakradhar that there could be no reservation to
single post and thus this appeal before the Supreme Court. The Court followed Madhav and
reaffirmed the view of Arati Ray that was taken in Madhav. The Court, speaking through Justice
K. Ramaswamy held:
"Thus it is settled legal position that application of roster to single post cadre and appointment by
promotion to carry forward post is valid and constitutional. With a view to give adequate
representation in public service to reserved category candidates, the opportunity given to them is
not
violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution".”

In Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P 47, the Supreme Court followed Madhav’s case and held
that reservation provided to single post on the basis of rule of rotation is not unconstitutional. It
is clearly, therefore an error to hold that reservation in promotion to a single post and application
of carry forward rule and of roster is unconstitutional.

In case of Post Graduate Institution of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh v.


Faculty Association,48 it was held that there is no difficulty in appreciating that there is need for
reservation for the members of the scheduled caste and Scheduled Tribes and other backwards
classes and such reservation is not confined to the initial appointment in cadre but also to the
appointment in promotional post. It cannot, however, be lost light of that in the anxiety for such
reservation be brought by which the chance of appointment is completely taken away so far as

45
A I R 1997 S C 2101
46
A I R 1997 S C 2324
47
(1997) 5 S C C 201
48
A I R 1998 S C 1767
the members of other segment of the society are concerned by making such single post cent
percent reserved for the reserved categories to the exclusion of other members of the community
even when such members is senior in service and is otherwise more meritorious. It was as further
held that Article 14,15 and 16 including Article 16(4) and 16(4-A) must be applied in such a
manner so that the balance is struck in the matter of appointment by creating reasonable
opportunities for the reserved classes and also for the other members of community who do not
belong to reserved classes.
In concluding part of the judgment in the matter, Hon’ble Court decides as follows:
“We, therefore, approve the view taken in Chakradhar’s case that there cannot be any
reservation in a single post cadre and we do not approve the reasonings in Madhav’s (1997 AIR
SCW 3113), Brijlal Thakur’s and Bageswari Prasad’s case49 upholding reservation in a single
post cadre either directly or by device of rotation of roster point. Accordingly impugned decision
in the case of Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research cannot also be sustained.”

In Indira Sawhney Vs. Union of India 50,'' it was clearly held that the doctrine of principles of
reservations have to be applied having regard to the vacancy position as existing in the entire
area, the only exception being the cases,which would be falling under Article 16(4)''

In the case of M.G. Badappanavar & Anr.Vs. State of Karnataka & ors.51, the Hon'ble Apex
Court held that the equality is the basic feature of the Constitution of India and any treatment of
equals as unequally or unequals as equals will be violation of the basic structure of the
Constitution of India. Therefore, if consequential seniority is given to the roster point promotees
it will violate the equality principle which is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Even
Article 16(4-A) cannot, therefore, be of any help to the reserved candidates. The court again
confirmed the ruling in the Balaji case.

On 4th January, 2002, the Parliament amended the Constitution by the Constitution (85th
Amendment) Act, 2001, in order to restore the benefit of consequential seniority to the reserved
category candidates with effect from 17th June, 1995. This led to another Constitution
amendment and the Parliament enacted the Constitution (Eighty-Fifth Amendment) Act, 2001
whereby Clause 4A of Article 16 was amended. The amended Clause 4A reads: "4A. Nothing in
this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for reservation in matters of
promotion with consequential seniority to any class or classes of posts in the services under the
State in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes which, in the opinion of the
State, are not adequately represented in the services under the State."
The constitutional validity of this clause and clause 4B which was also inserted through the
same amendment and reads; "(4B) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from
considering any unfilled vacancies of a year which are reserved for being filled up in that year in
49
1995 Supp SCC 432
50
AIR 2000 SC 498
51
AIR 2001 SC 260
accordance with any provision for reservation made under clause (4) or clause (4A) as a separate
class of vacancies to be filled up in any succeeding year or years and such class of vacancies
shall not be considered together with the vacancies of the year in which they are being filled up
for determining the ceiling of fifty per cent reservation on total number of vacancies of that year"
was challenged before the Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj and others v. Union of India and
Others.52

The Hon'ble Apex Court in M.Nagaraj's case on 19.10.2006, while upholding the constitutional
validity of the Constitution (Seventy-Seventh Amendment) Act, 1995 and the Constitution
(Eighty-Fifth Amendment) Act, 2001 on the ground that the concepts of “catch-up” rule and
“consequential seniority” are judicially evolved concepts and could not be elevated to the status
of a constitutional principle so as to place them beyond the amending power of the Parliament.
The Court made it clear that it will not be necessary for the State Government to frame rule in
respect of reservation in promotion with consequential seniority, but in case the State
Government is willing to frame the rule in this regard then it has to satisfy, by quantifiable data,
that there is backwardness, inadequacy of representation in public employment and overall
administrative efficiency, and unless that exercise is done by the State Government, the rule
relating to reservation in promotion with consequential seniority, cannot be introduced.
The interim order was passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in M.Nagaraj's case as well as in the
case of All India Equality Forum vs. Union of India that the general/OBC candidates who have
already been promoted, they will not be reverted and their seniority will not be disturbed.

The Constitution was amended thrice to change this, to provide not only for reservations in
promotion but also for consequential seniority on that basis. What this means is that a person gets
promoted through reservations, then claims to be senior on the basis of that promotion for the
purposes of a further promotion, and this continues indefinitely.

The Supreme Court in Suraj Bhan Meena v. State of Rajasthan53, after the survey of the legal
position which has emerged through a series of decisions and constitutional amendments, agreed
with the decision of the Rajasthan High Court that the Government of Rajasthan could not have
granted "consequential seniority" to those belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes "without quantifying the figures of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates to
enable a decision to be arrived at that reservation was required in promotion and also to show
that the State had to pass such orders for compelling reasons, such as, backwardness, inadequacy
of representation", The Supreme Court in decision has declared that such survey of population
and factors relating to backwardness were required before such consequential seniority could be
vested by the Government.54
52
(2006) 8 SCC 212
53
AIR 2011 SC 874
54
No reservation in promotion without survey of backwardness: Supreme Court, Law-in
Perspective (11 Dec 2010)
The position after the decision in M. Nagaraj’s case is that reservation of posts in
promotion is dependent on the inadequacy of representation of members of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes and subject to the condition of
ascertaining as to whether such reservation was at all required. The view of the High Court
is based on the decision in M. Nagaraj’s case as no exercise was undertaken in terms of Article
16(4-A) to acquire quantifiable data regarding the inadequacy of representation of the Schedule
Castes and Scheduled Tribes communities in public services. The Rajasthan High Court has
rightly quashed the notifications dated 28.12.2002 and 25.4.2008 issued by the State of
Rajasthan providing for consequential seniority and promotion to the members of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes communities and the same does not call for any interference.
Accordingly, the claim of Petitioners Suraj Bhan Meena and Sriram Choradia in Special Leave
Petition will be subject to the conditions laid down in M. Nagaraj’s case and is disposed of
accordingly. Consequently, Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Rajasthan, are also
dismissed.

In the case of UP Power Corporation Ltd v. Rajesh Kumar 55 the decision in the M. Nagaraj case
was upheld and it was stated that:
1- Affirmative action was inevitable in a society divided by thousands of years of discrimination
due to an exploitative caste system.
2- Reservations in promotions is a much needed step towards improving representation of the
lower classes in the bureaucracy, thus ending their marginalization.
3- Those who base their argument on the fact that efficiency would be reduced are of the opinion
that the lower classes are by default intellectually inferior and no amount of affirmative action
would do them any good. This mindset needs to be both discouraged and removed.

It had already been held in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (October 2006) that the state must
demonstrate backwardness, inadequacy of representation and maintenance of efficiency before
providing reservation in promotions. However, what the U.P Power Corporation did for the first
time was to strike down reservation in promotions for not meeting these criteria.

The Supreme Court struck down the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Seniority Rules
– which provided for consequential seniority in promotions – holding that, although the
Constitution has been permitted to enable consequential seniority, the state had failed to satisfy
conditions relating to the determination of backwardness and the appropriateness of reservations.
It is unclear what shape the proposed amendment will take, but it seems that the state does not
even want to discharge the burden that the case for special treatment must be made out.56

55
2012 (2) KLT 115 (SN)
56
http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/devesh-kapur-the-honourable-men/483076/ (Supreme Court strikes
down UP Govts’ Seniority rules) Site visted 19-04-2013
PRESENT DAY SITUATION – 117TH AMENDMENT BILL – POTENTIAL DISEASTER
The government recently introduced the 117th amendment bill in the Rajya Sabha which was
then subsequently cleared by the upper house. The bill was deemed necessary to circumvate a
Supreme Court judgment which deemed that proper reasons must be provided by the government
before giving reservations in promotions. It would render irrelevant the need to prove
“backwardness and inadequate representation in services”. It also seeks to insulate the
promotion quota from article 385 which says that efficiency in administration must not be
affected.

The new sub-clause 4A that is supposed to be inserted reads as thus


“(4A) Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in the Constitution, the Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes notified under article 341 and article 342, respectively, shall be deemed
to be backward and nothing in this article or in article 335 shall prevent the State from making
any provision for reservation in matters of promotions, with consequential seniority, to any class
or classes of posts in the services under the State in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes to the extent of the percentage of reservation provided to the Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes in the services of the State.”.

On November 16th 1992 in the case of Indira Sawney the court had ruled that reservation in
promotions was illegal but had allowed it to continue for a period of five years as that was a
special case. To overcome the decision that disallowed reservations in promotions and
consequential seniority Parliament enacted three amendment acts in 1995, 2000 and 2002. The
77th and 85th amendments gave advantage to SC/ST candidates promoted by reservation.
Now with this new amendment bill the advantage is expected to tilt all the more. The grounds
on which the court had rejected the claims of the government earlier to provide reservations in
promotions stand nullified. This would prove to be harmful in the long run as those denied of this
facility namely the general category and OBC‟s would be marginalized causing a decline in their
economic indicators.

A Constitution amendment bill providing for quota for SCs and STs in government job
promotions was today passed by Rajya Sabha with an overwhelming vote of 206 in the 245-
member House. The bill, which provides for reservation proportionate to population of SCs and
STs, was approved by the Union Cabinet on September 5 against the backdrop of Supreme Court
quashing such a decision of the Uttar Pradesh government.57

The Constitution (117th Amendment) Bill, 201258


57
http://www.livemint.com/Politics/ZPC6CqNkq7GFXXWgBseSqK/Rajya-Sabha-passes-quota-Bill-despite-SPs-
threats.html?utm_source=copy
58
http://www.prsindia.org/billtrack/constitution-one-hundred-seventeenth-amendment-bill-2012-
2462/ConstitutionalAmendments
 The Constitution (One Hundred Seventeenth Amendment) Bill, 2012 was introduced in
the Rajya Sabha on September 5, 2012 by Mr. V Narayansamy, Minister of State for
Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions.
 In 1992, the Supreme Court in the case of Indira Sawhney v Union of India had held
reservations in promotions to be unconstitutional. Subsequently in 1995, the central
government had amended the Constitution and inserted Article 16(4A). This provided for
reservation in promotions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes which in the
opinion of the state are not adequately represented in the services.
 In 2006, the Supreme Court in the case of M. Nagraj v Union of India upheld the
constitutional validity of the amendment. While upholding the validity of the
amendment, the court held that before framing any law on this issue, the state will have
to satisfy the test of; (a) backwardness of the particular SC and ST group; (b) inadequate
representation of the said group; and (c) efficiency of administration.
 In April 2012, the Supreme Court struck down the UP Government Seniority Rules which
provided for reservations in promotions. The court held that the state government had
not undertaken any exercise to identify whether there was backwardness and inadequate
representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the state government.
 In light of the recent judgment of the Supreme Court, the central government has
introduced the present Bill amending the Constitution. The Bill seeks to substitute Article
16(4A) of the Constitution of India.
 The Bill provides that all the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes notified in the
Constitutional shall be deemed to be backward.
 Article 335 of the Constitution states that the claims of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes have to be balanced with maintaining efficiency in administration. The
Bill states that provision of the amendment shall override the provision of Article 335.

The government’s response, as reflected in the 117 Constitution Amendment Bill introduced in
the Rajya Sabha, is unsatisfactory. While the proposal remedies the error in Nagaraj on the issue
of backwardness of the SCs/STs, its approach to ‘adequacy of representation’ and efficiency is
counterproductive. The proposed Article 16 (4A), which seeks to substitute the existing Article
16 (4A), has done away with concerns of efficiency by stating that nothing in Article 335 can be
an impediment, and the reference to ‘adequacy of representation’ has been deleted.

In H.P. Samanaya Varg Karamchari Kalayan Mahasangh Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.59 decided
by the Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court on 18.9.2009, the State of Himachal
Pradesh issued instructions dated 7.9.2007 which makes provision for reservation in the matter
of promotions with consequential seniority for all classes of post in the service under the State in
favour of the SC/ST. The State instructions were challenged by Himachal Pradesh Samanaya
Varg Karamchari Kalayan Mahasangh. The Division Bench considered the judgment of the
59
(2013) 10 SCC 308
Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Indra Sawhney, R.K. Sabharwal and M.Nagraj , and after
quoting the relevant paras of M.Nagraj's case, held that the State has not carried out any exercise
before issuing the instructions to collect the quantifiable data on the lines indicated in
M.Nagaraj's case to show backwardness, inadequacy of representation and overall efficiency of
State administration, and therefore, allowed the writ petition and quashed the instructions.

The Supreme Court’s 3 member bench comprising Hon'ble Chief Justice R.M Lodha, Mr.
Justice Kurian Joseph and Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman on 12 September 2014 while
hearing a fresh appeal titled Union of India & Others Versus National Confederation for
Development of Disabled & An60r ruled in favour of three per cent reservation for differently-
abled candidates in civil services, not only at the stage of their appointments but also for
departmental promotions. In the instant case at Bombay High Court, the petitioners
National Confederation for Development of Disabled had prayed for writ of mandamus to direct
the respondents to appoint the disabled persons in terms of Section 33 of the Persons with
Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (PWD
Act) in Indian Administrative Services posts to be filled up either by promotion from the State
Civil Services or by selection from persons who hold gazetted posts in connection with the
affairs of a state but are not members of the State Civil Services, as per their
entitlement retrospectively from 1996 and to comply with the said provisions hereafter.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the above Judgement of the Bombay High Court meaning
thereby that the reservation provisions of Section 33 will extend to all appointments in all groups
i.e. A, B, C& D and appointment is not restricted to direct recruitment only. It would also include
promotion, deputation etc.61

Justices H.L. Gokhale and Kurian Joseph, at the Supreme Court, have, while setting aside the
judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, in the judgment of the case – Panchraj Tiwari v
M P State Electricity Board (MPSEB) and Others 62, delivered on March 4, 2014, expressed the
Court’s views on principle of fixation of seniority, while going through the process of
integrating/ merging of services. When there is a merger or amalgamation of units, the
employees have a right to get positioned appropriately in the merged service. There is
however, no vested right for an employee to have a particular position in the integrated or
merged service. It is always open to the authorities concerned to lay down the principles with
regard to fixation of seniority. On the other hand, incoming employees cannot be kept for all
times as a different cadre to enjoy that benefit. An employee has always an interest in seniority
and a right to be considered for promotion. If after integration, only the chances of promotion are
affected, it would have been only a case of heart burn of an individual or a few individuals which
is only to be ignored. In this case, there is complete denial of promotion forever which cannot be

60
CIVIL APPEAL NO.9096 OF 2013
61
http://disabilityrightsthroughcourts.blogspot.in/2014/10/sc-clarifies-3-reservation-in.html
62
(2014) 5 SCC 101
comprehended under the Constitutional scheme of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India.
The Supreme Court has made it clear that the appellant accordingly shall be entitled to
retrospective promotions at par with and with effect from the dates on which the junior-most
graduate engineer in the parent service on the date of absorption obtained such promotions.
However, the Court has clarified that benefits till date need to be worked out only notionally. The
apex-Court has allowed the appeal in these terms.

In Rohtas Bhankhar and Others vs Union of India 63, decided on 15 July, 2014, the Supreme
Court had in S. Vinod Kumar 64, in the same year held that the provision for lowering qualifying
marks/standards of evaluation was not permissible under the Constitution. Implementing the
judgment, the government in 1997 withdrew its 1970 order relaxing standards for S.C. and S.T.
candidates in departmental competitive examinations and in departmental confirmation tests.65
The Court held that the decision in S. Vinod Kumar case is per incuriam, as the Court relying
upon Indra Sawhney, held that provision for lower qualifying marks/standard of evaluation was
not permissible under Art. 16(4) in view of Art. 335 but did not take into consideration Art. 16(4-
A) which was inserted in the Constitution to undo the observations in Indra Sawhney case on this
point - Hence, as CAT followed S. Vinod Kumar case which is not good law resultantly 1997
OM is also illegal - Respondents directed to modify the results in the Section
Officers/Stenographers (Grade B/Grade I) Limited Departmental Competitive Examination, 1996
by providing for reservation and to extend all consequential reliefs to appellants.
This verdict by the five-judge Supreme Court bench does not necessarily mean that the Centre
and state governments — to which the judgment applies equally — are bound to offer benefits in
promotion to all Dalit and tribal employees from now on. The court itself stressed that this so
called “reservation” benefit — which comes in the form of lower qualifying marks in
departmental exams that decide lower and middle-rung employees’ promotions, and not as a
reserved percentage of posts — is a matter of government discretion.
Chief Justice R.M. Lodha, who headed the five-judge bench, quoted from the earlier Constitution
bench ruling in the Nagaraj case: “The State is not bound to make reservation for SCs/STs in
matters of promotions. However, if they wish to exercise their discretion and make such
provision, the State 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.”

A bench of Justice J. Chelameswar and Justice A.K. Sikri delivered their decision in this regard
on

63
(2014) 8 SCC 872
64
(1996) 6 SCC 580
65
Justice restored By SAGNIK DUTTA, Frontline (August 22, 2014)
9 January 2015 in the case of Chairman & Managing Director Central Bank of India & Ors.
v. Central Bank of India SC/ST Employees Welfare Association & Ors 66, the Supreme Court
has held that there shall be no reservation in promotion by selection for top posts in Banks. It
was held that for the appellant public sector banks, there is no provision for reservation in respect
of Scale-VII and above [which carry an ultimate salary of 5,700/- per month (revised to 18,300/-
by 5th Central Pay Commission and 20,800/- per month in respect of those Public Sector
Undertakings following IDA pattern). However, the Supreme Court held that to carry out
promotions from Scale-I upwards up to Scale-VI, reservation in promotion in favour of SC/ST
employees has to be given.67

CONCLUSION: JUSTICE AND A GOOD LIFE

More than a political consensus, it is hard data on the absence of marginalised sections
from the higher bureaucracy that will give legitimacy to the measure
The decision to amend the Constitution to ensure reservation in promotions for the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes has been the subject of much scrutiny without paying sufficient
critical attention to the discourse of the Supreme Court on the issue. While the Court is not
opposed to reservation in promotions per se, it has left many critical questions unanswered and
has not clarified the precise content of the conditions on which it is willing to permit reservation
in promotions.

The three conditions laid down in Nagaraj raise a number of concerns. It must be remembered
that Article 16 (4A) permits reservation in promotions only for the SCs/STs and not for the
OBCs. In this context, the first condition in Nagaraj requiring the state to demonstrate
backwardness of the beneficiaries is problematic. It is problematic because it amounts to
bringing in the ‘creamy layer’ test for SCs/STs through the backdoor. It has been held numerous
times by the Supreme Court, including in the judgment in Indra Sawhney, that the test of
‘creamy layer’ is not applicable to SCs/STs. The settled position of law is that all members of
recognised SC/ST groups automatically satisfy the condition of backwardness and there is no
burden on the state to further establish the backwardness of those individuals benefiting from
reservation. While this requirement exists for the OBCs in terms of the ‘creamy layer’ test,
Justice (as he then was) Kapadia’s opinion in Nagaraj does not provide any justification for not
following the position endorsed by a larger bench in the context of the SCs/STs.

On the question of inadequacy of representation, the text of Article 16 is clear that it is a matter
for the state to determine. While it must base its determination on some material, the question as
demonstrated in the U.P Power Corporation case is about the nature of the empirical evidence
66
Civil Appeal No. 209 of 2015
67
No reservation in promotion by selection for top posts in Banks, says Supreme Court(Jan 12, 2015)
that is required. The Supreme Court provides no justification for using the cadre as a unit for
determining inadequacy of representation and the method could well distort the picture on
adequacy of representation. There is no reason why the state cannot make its determination on
the basis of a particular group of services or certain ranks across services or even public
employment as a whole. The Supreme Court has also failed to address certain other aspects of
adequacy of representation. It has not discussed whether achieving proportional representation
would be the standard to determine adequacy or whether it considers proportional representation
irrelevant in this context. It has also not clarified the period over which adequacy must be
determined.

Dr. Ambedkar demonstrated tremendous foresight in the Constituent Assembly when he called
for deleting the phrase — “is in the opinion of the state, not adequately represented” — from
Article 16(4). He believed that it would become a matter of litigation and the courts could
substitute their judgment on adequacy of representation by holding that a reservation was being
made despite being adequately represented.

In many ways it is the efficiency question that has always been at the heart of the debate
concerning reservation in promotions. Prabhat Patnaik, while making a strong argument for
viewing reservation in employment as promoting efficiency, has accurately observed that the
supporters of reservation in public employment rarely rebut the ‘loss in efficiency’ argument and
appear to counter it only by resorting to arguments about social justice and inclusion. Ever since
the early days of the Supreme Court, it has been a constant refrain that reservation in
employment leads to a loss in efficiency. The basis for that argument has never been articulated
in any of the Supreme Court’s judgments and has always been stated as a self-evident truth.
The ‘loss in efficiency’ argument, apart from not being grounded in any sort of empirical study,
is largely the result of an extremely conservative understanding of ‘merit’. There has been no
judicial discussion about the role of efficiency across different categories of public employment.
What does it really mean to talk about efficiency in the context of a railway ticket inspector, an
IAS officer, a Group D employee, a nuclear scientist, etc.? The quality of discourse on this issue,
in terms of the arguments from the government’s side and the Supreme Court’s judgments, leaves
a lot to be desired.

Caste-based reservations are an idea whose time has gone. Sixty years was long enough to prove
its efficacy or lack of it. But one can be certain it will remain forever. Providing reservations in
educational sector is justified for the purpose of coping up for past injustice, but reservation in
government jobs is not justified, as it risks deteriorating the efficiency of the functioning of the
society, and leads to a greater injustice, and disharmony in the society. We started with
Ambedkar’s promise that Dalits need it for only 10 years, but have found various excuses to
extend it forever, and for all kinds of groups, and for all kinds of reasons. From SC/STs, we now
have reservations extended to OBCs, Muslims, and even economically backward upper castes.
The main reason adduced for giving promotions on a caste basis is that there are very few SC/ST
candidates in the higher echelons of government. This is why Mayawati introduced a law in
Uttar Pradesh to ensure this, but it was struck down by the Supreme Court on the ground that it
was ultra vires of the constitution. While some constitutional amendments after the Indira
Sawhney judgment (which declared this ultra vires) provided for reservations in promotion, the
Supreme Court said this could not be done unless a state could demonstrate that a particular caste
was backward and grossly under-represented in a service.

This should normally have been easy to prove, but our politicians do not even want to provide
even data to support their cause. So, clearly, this is not about giving SC/STs a helping hand
against discrimination, but a political ploy to further complicate the reservations issue.
The only fault in the reservation system is the exploitation in the hand of law makers; it is a
shame that those who are charged with the duty to do justice, to maintain harmony, are the ones
who destroy it. The political parties have long taken advantage of the social backwardness to win
elections, and the recent efforts to amend the article 16(4) of the Constitution of India to reserve
seats in promotion in government jobs are totally unjustified on moral grounds, and in a long run,
might prove havoc to the administration of the country. Affirmative Action policies if
implemented with goodwill will yield successful results that will benefit the whole society. The
present percentage of reservation in educational institutes seems reasonably justified, and as
mentioned in PA Inamdar v State of Maharashtra, education is not business, and hence private
institutes should have to follow the reservation policy too.
Dr. Subramanian Swami in an interview said that, “the caste system is melting, yes. The only two
places where people feel very strongly about caste system is, one when it comes to marriage, and
second when it comes to election” 68The inter-caste marriages are now common, and are
continuously increasing with modernization. But caste is used as a big tool in elections. The
politicians have constantly made this issue a part of their election campaigns, promising the
welfare of the backward classes by providing them with reservation. The true purpose of
implementing affirmative action died long ago in the hands of political parties, to whom it is a
way to retain their rule. In fact, caste based politics has led to a further segregation in the society.
Many people claim that the reservations should be based on economic factors rather than caste.
But that would not fulfill the purpose of having reservations at first place, which is to save
people from being discriminated against, even though most people in the urban centers of India
are unaware of the untouchability that still persists in the 21st century India, but in rural centers,
and remote areas of cities and towns, untouchability still persists to the same extent as it might
have existed during British Raj.

68
In an interview with Richard M Landau, Subramanian Swami talked about “Hidden Truth about Religions, Caste
System, Reservation and Secularism”. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Il4V1ssHnNQ
In any case, the question really is this: why are the SC/STs under-represented in central and state
services despite 60 years of reservations?
The answer is counter-intuitive. Government jobs usually go by seniority upto a point, and then
by merit. The reason why so few Dalits are up there near the top is that their average age of entry
is around 29-31, when other candidates enter in the range of 24-26. Little wonder they lose on
the seniority criteria.
The solution is clearly not reservations in promotion, but lowering the age of entry of SC/ST
candidates in the administrative services. What the government really needs to do is focus on
getting younger Dalits to enter the services through quotas, whether by giving them better
mentors, or spotting them earlier, or financing better for pre-test coaching, or some other means.
It is time to abandon quotas and substitute it with a time-bound affirmative action programme.
To give Dalits or OBCs or even Muslims the opportunities that they are justly entitled to, we
need to create alternative programmes that allow states, government bodies or even private
organisations to do it differently.
Rather than embedding a proviso in the constitution that ensures reservations in promotions,
what we need is a constitutional amendment that will give any state or institution currently
subject to reservations a 10-year window in which to try out alternate affirmative ideas and
plans, subject to periodic reviews.
At the end of 10 years, if the plan is a flop, the amendment can be made to automatically lapse
and compulsory reservations mandated instead.
It is time for India to take the road not taken to help the classes that have been most
discriminated against. The worst baggage our Dalits carry is the stamp of mediocrity writ large
on their foreheads all their lives, thanks to mindless quotas.
If Ambedkar could do it without reservation, it is downright insulting to argue that all his
followers are so incapable that they deserve reservations.
Indians need to have the courage to admit that quotas may be mere placebos – they are not the
cure for social backwardness.

Bibliography
 Sukhadeo Thorat and Chittaranjan Senapati, ‘Reservation Policy in India – Dimensions
and Issues’ (2006) 1 Indian Institute of Dalit Studies.
 Vikram Singh, ‘Case Comments On Indra Sawhney v Union of India- A review’ 1993
(Vol. 5) Manupatra
 Karmjit Kaur, ‘Reservation in Services’ (2014) Volume2, Issue 12, Asian Journal of
Multidisciplinary Studies
 Aishwarya Murali, ‘Reservation in Promotions in India – Is it a fulfillment of Social
Justice Aims’ (2012)
 Y. SRINIVASA RAO, ‘RESERVATIONS IN INDIA’
 Dipanjan Roychoudhary, ‘ RESERVATION IN PROMOTIONS IN INDIA’
 Neer Varshney, ‘EQUALITY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE: IS AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
IN INDIA JUSTIFIED?’ (2013) OIDA International Journal of Sustainable Development
 Bobby Kunhu, ‘The Silence on 'Reservations in Promotions' in a caste-based social
polity’
http://roundtableindia.co.in/index.php?
option=com_content&view=article&id=8023:deaf-and-dumb-media-misses-a-landmark-
judgement&catid=119&Itemid=132
 Utkarsh Anand, ‘SC clears 3% reservation for disabled in jobs, promotions’, The Indian
Express (New Delhi), September 12, 2014
 Anup Surendranath, ‘Winning the case for promotion quotas’, THE HINDU, September
6, 2012
 Madhav Khosla, 'Promotion quota seeks equality of outcome', The Hindu, September 12,
2012
 ‘SC/ST boost on promotion’, The Telegraph, New Delhi, July 19 2012
 ‘Rajya Sabha passes promotion quota bill to provide reservations in promotions for SCs,
STs’, THE ECONOMIC TIMES, Dec 17, 2012
 ‘Quota Bill sails through Rajya Sabha’, Livemint, Dec 17 2012
 R Jagannathan, ‘Why quotas for promotions are a bad, bad idea’, Firstpost, Aug 23, 2012
 ‘No reservation in promotion without survey of backwardness: Supreme Court’, Law-in-
Perspective, 11 Dec 2010
 ‘S. Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, (1996) 6 SCC 580 declared per incurium’,
http://blog.scconline.com, 31. July 2014
 http://blog.scconline.com/post/2014/07/31/s-vinod-kumar-v-union-of-india-1996-6-scc-
580-declared-per-incurium.aspx
 ‘Concerns with the 117th Constitution Amendment Bill on Reservations in Promotions’,
http://lawandotherthings.blogspot.in/2012/09/concerns-with-117th-constitution.html

You might also like