O.A. No. 1470/2014 and M.A. No. 1247/2014. Case: Ravi Shankar Singh Vs Union of India. Central Administrative Tribunal
| Case Number | O.A. No. 1470/2014 and M.A. No. 1247/2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Yogesh Sharma, Advocate and For Respondents: Shailendra Tiwari, Advocate |
| Judges | G. George Paracken, Member (J) and Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Articles 16(4-A), 16(4-B), 16(4A), 16(4B), 335 |
| Judgement Date | January 13, 2015 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Order:
G. George Paracken, Member(J), (Principal Bench, New Delhi)
1. This Original Application has been filed by the Applicants challenging the impugned Annexure A-1 order dated 14.06.2012 and Annexure A-2 order dated 27.12.2012 to the extent of granting reservation in promotion and also for a direction to the Respondents to treat all the posts as unreserved and to fill up the same without applying reservation.
2. The brief facts of the case: By the impugned Annexure A-1 order dated 14.06.2012, the second Respondent, namely, the General Manager (P), Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi, decided to hold selection by promotion from Group C to Group B post of AOM against 30% quota vacancies for the year 01.12.2011 to 03.11.2013 in the Traffic (Transportation), Northern Railway. By the said letter, out of the 4 posts available for promotion, one post each has been reserved for SC and ST candidates. By the impugned Annexure A-2 order dated 27.12.2012, the said respondent has decided to hold written test for the aforesaid promotion to form a panel of 4 vacancies.
3. The Applicants have challenged the aforesaid impugned orders on the ground that it was issued in violation of the Apex Court judgment in the case of M. Nagaraj and Others v. Union of India and Others JT 2006 (9) SC 191. The Applicants have also relied upon an earlier common order of this Tribunal in OA No. 755/2012 and connected cases Shri A.K. Tiwari and Others v. U.O.I. through Secretary, Railway Board, Railway Bhawan, New Delhi and Others decided on 22.04.2014. The relevant part of the said judgment reads as under:--
"14. We have heard the counsel for the parties in all these OAs. We have also perused the documents filed by the parties available on record. The question of reservation in promotion is already a settled issue. The five judges Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in M. Nagaraj & Others v. Union of India & Others JT 2006 (9) SC 191, 2006 (8) SCC 2112 held that reservation in promotion per se is not unconstitutional. Therefore, it has upheld the provisions for reservation in promotion for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes with consequential seniority as contained in Article 16(4A) and Article 16(4B) of Constitution. The said Article reads as under:--
(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.
(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 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.
But such reservation is subject to the condition that the State shall form its opinion that the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are not adequately represented in the service. The relevant part of the Apex Courts judgment in the aforesaid case is as under:--
122. However, in this case, as stated, the main issue concerns the "extent of reservation". In this regard the concerned State will have to show in each case the existence of the compelling reasons, namely, backwardness, inadequacy of representation and overall administrative efficiency before making provision for reservation. As stated above, the impugned provision is an enabling provision. The State is not bound to make reservation for SC/ST in matter 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 of Article 335. It is made clear that even if the State has compelling reasons, as stated above, the State will have to see that its reservation provision does not lead to excessiveness so as to breach the ceiling-limit of 50% or obliterate the creamy layer or extend the reservation indefinitely.
15. Again in its judgment in Suraj Bhan Meena and Another v. State of Rajasthan and Others (2011) 1 SCC 467, the Apex Court reiterated the conditions precedent for reservation of posts in promotion as inadequacy of representation of members of SCs and STs and ascertainment of the necessity of such reservation. Further, the said judgment held the notifications providing for promotion of members of SCs and STs with consequential seniority issued by State Government without first acquiring quantifiable data regarding inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs in public services has been rightly set aside by High Court. The relevant part of the said judgment reads as under:--
64. Ultimately, after the entire exercise, the Constitution Bench held that the State is not bound to make reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates in matters of promotion but if it wished, it could collect quantifiable data touching backwardness of the applicants and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment for the purpose of compliance with Article 335 of the Constitution.
65. In effect, what has been decided in M. Nagaraj's case (supra) is part recognition of the views expressed in Virpal Singh Chauhan's case (supra), but at the same time upholding the validity of the 77th, 81st, 82nd and 85th amendments on the ground that the concepts of "catch-up" rule and "consequential seniority" are...
To continue reading
Request your trial