Source: https://blog.scconline.com/post/tag/reservation/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 04:15:38+00:00

Document:
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of CJI Ranjan Gogoi and Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ refused to pass any order on whether the issue of 10 per cent reservation for economically weaker sections across all classes will be referred to a Constitution bench. It said it will hear the matter on March 28.
The Court has asked senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for the petitioner, to file a short note of the points which they have raised in their application.
Various petitions have been filed by parties including organisations like Janhit Abhiyan and Youth For Equality, challenging the validity of the Constitution (103 Amendment) Act, 2019, which paved the way for grant of quota to poor belonging to general category.
The petition, filed by Youth For Equality, has sought the quashing of the Act saying that the economic criterion cannot be the sole basis for reservation. It says that the said law violates basic feature of the Constitution as reservation on economic grounds cannot be limited to the general categories and the 50 per cent ceiling limit cannot be breached.
The quota as per the new law will be over and above the existing 50 per cent reservation to SCs, STs and Other Backward Classes (OBCs). The Constitution (103 Amendment) Act, 2019 was passed by the Rajya Sabha on 09-01-2019 as The Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty- fourth Amendment) Bill, 2019, and was assented to by the President on 12-01-2019.
A similar plea has been filed by businessman Tehseen Poonawalla seeking to quash the law, saying that backwardness for the purpose of reservation cannot be defined by “economic status alone”.
Karnataka High Court: The Bench of S. Sunil Dutt Yadav, J. allowed a civil writ petition challenging State’s notification dated 10-08-2018 which stipulated reservation for various wards of Mangaluru City Corporation in the upcoming elections.
Petitioners, being aspirant candidates who intended to contest elections in various wards, contended that the impugned notification failed to adhere to guidelines mentioned in the Government Order dated 02-02-2015 specifying reservation policy and matrix; and principle of rotation envisaged under Article 243-T of the Constitution of India; and also the legislative mandate under Section 7(4) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. It was pointed out that there had been no change in the constitution of wards and there was a clear repetition in reservation for the same categories.
Respondent challenged maintainability of the petition contending that jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution could not be exercised as the only remedy available to the petitioner was to approach before the Election Commission. However, the same was dismissed holding that there was no legislation providing for reservation and rotation and in absence of the same Court was competent to exercise jurisdiction.
Punjab and Haryana High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Rajiv Narain Raina, J., dealt with a case where the matter was to distinguish the judgment and order passed in case of Kashmir Chand Kamboj v. State of Haryana, 2015 SCC OnLine P&H 14518 which covered facts and law in favour of petitioner related to same advertisement and description of post.
Facts of the case were that the minimum scores for general category candidate was 200/400 and for OBC was 180/400. After the results were declared a resolution was issued by Haryana Staff Selection Commission whereby the minimum marks was decreased with a purpose to call 3 times the number of candidates for the interview. This affected the candidates who secured the earlier assigned minimum marks. Court referred the case of T.N. Computer Science B.Ed Graduate Teachers Welfare Society (I) v. Higher Secondary School Computer Teachers Assn. , 2009 (14) SCC 517 wherein it was held that recruitment guidelines are sacrosanct and should be followed. In view of the above, High Court concluded that after eligibility criteria had already been issued then Commission cannot alter the criteria before the interview. But since, in Kashmir Chand Kamboj case selection was not set aside and thus, he was entitled to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the SC/OBC category.
Punjab and Haryana High Court: The Division Bench comprising of Mahesh Grover and Mahabir Singh Sindhu, JJ., addressed the issue whether a person who had been issued a certificate of Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe and Backward Classes by one State take benefit of reservation in another state.
The facts of the case were such that the petitioner who had applied for M.B.B.S course questioned the selection at the Government Medical College and Hospital. The petitioner contended that candidates belonging to reserved category in states of Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan having been issued certificate of Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe should get benefit of reservation in their respective State and not in UT, Chandigarh. In favour of the above contention, the case of Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2016) 13 SCC 105 was referred according to which no person could take dual benefit by invoking reservation in two states by virtue of the fact that the person has migrated from one state to another.
Supreme Court: The Vacation Bench comprising of Adarsh Kumar Goel and Ashok Bhushan JJ., allowed the Centre to go ahead with the reservation in promotion for employees belonging to the cadre of SC/ST in accordance to law.
Centre had stated various submissions for explaining their concern on the whole process of promotion being “standstill” due to the various orders passed by the High Courts and apex court. The government also cited the cases on the issue of quota in promotion in government jobs by placing the apex court’s decision in M Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 would be applicable, as in reference to the said case, creamy layer concept cannot be applied to the ST/SC for promotions as decided in the verdict of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India; 1992 Supp (3) SCC 210 and E.V Chinnaiah v. State of A.P; (2005) 1 SCC 394.
ASG Mahinder Singh also referred to an order passed on May 17th in which it was said that “pendency of petition before it shall not stand in the way of the Centre taking steps for the promotion”. He also mentioned Article 16 (4A) of the Constitution, which enabled the state to provide reservation in matters of promotion to SC/ST which in its view was not effectively represented for services.
By a decision of the Supreme Court in M Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 212, the constitutional validity of Article 16(4), (4A) and (4B) was upheld.
Subsequent to the pronouncement of law in M Nagaraj, there were decisions by the Supreme Court stating that the government could not blindly provide for reservation in promotions, in favour of SCs and STs unless, prior thereto, the requisite exercise, to acquire quantifiable data regarding lack of representation of SCs and STs in public services was undertaken.
Kerala High Court: A Division Bench comprising of Antony Dominic, CJ and Dama Seshadri Naidu, J. decided a writ appeal, wherein the Court upheld the validity of the prospectus providing 1% reservation to Other Backward Hindus (OBH) for the admission in post-graduate medical courses, as against the government order providing 3% reservation for medical courses.
The said prospectus was assailed by the respondent in Writ Petition No. 34862 of 2016 as being vitiated by fraud. The learned Single Judge rejected the case of the respondent. He, however, held the said prospectus to be arbitrary, illegal, unfair and in violation of the Government Order as mentioned hereinabove. This judgment was challenged by the petitioner in the instant appeal.
Supreme Court: Stating that educational institutions are bound to reserve seats from persons suffering from disability, the bench of Dr. AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, JJ directed that all those institutions which are covered by the obligations provided under Section 32 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 shall comply with the provisions of Section 32 while making admission of students in educational courses of higher education each year.
Insofar as law colleges are concerned, intimation in this behalf shall be sent by those institutions to the Bar Council of India (BCI) as well. Other educational institutions will notify the compliance, each year, to the UGC. It will be within the discretion of the BCI and/or UGC to carry out inspections of such educational institutions to verify as to whether the provisions are complied with or not.
UGC should constitute a committee consisting of persons from amongst Central Advisory Board, State Advisory Boards, Chief Commissioner of State Commissioners appointed under the Disabilities Act. The said committee will prepare a detailed study for making provisions in respect of accessibility as well as pedagogy and would also suggest the modalities for implementing those suggestions, their funding and monitoring, etc by June 2018.
The aforementioned committee will also consider feasibility of constituting an in-house body in each educational institution (of teachers, staff, students and parents) for taking care of day to day needs of differently abled persons as well as for implementation of the Schemes that would be devised by the Expert Committee.
Supreme Court: The bench of J.S. Khehar, CJ and Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J held that the Government jobs and admissions secured in the reserved category on the basis of fake caste certificates cannot be held valid even if the certificates are found to be fake after a long delay.
The Court was hearing the appeal against the judgment of Bombay High Court where it was held that if a person continues in service for a long period of time and the certificate is found to be fake at a later stage then, he or she may be allowed to continue in the service.
Disagreeing with the Bombay High Court, the Court clarified that the order of the Court shall not be made applicable retrospectively.
Supreme Court: The bench of Dipak Misra and A.M. Khanwilkar, JJ directed the State of Gujarat to give 50 per cent reservation to the in-service candidates for admission to post-graduate medical diploma courses as per the regulations of the Medical Council of India. The reservation is to be granted in the second round of counselling, starting tomorrow for admissions in PG courses. The Court also asked the State Government to define remote rural or difficult areas in which the in-service medical officers will be working.
The in-service medical candidates had challenged the State’s order of granting only 25 per cent reservation to the in-service candidates for admission in PG medical diploma courses. The candidates had pleaded that as per regulation VII of the MCI Regulations, 2000, it is mandatory for the state to reserve 50 per cent of the total seats of government medical college in Post Graduate Diploma Courses for medical officers in the government service, who has served at least 3 years in remote and/or difficult areas.
The Gujarat High Court had, on 05.05.2017, dismissed the petition of in-service medical petitioners on the ground that it was not mandatory for the State Government to follow the rules and regulations issued by the Medical Council of India, particularly the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000.
High Court of Rajasthan: Amidst the clamour surrounding the issue of reservation of Gujjars, the Bench comprising of MN Bhandari and JK Ranga , JJ., while examining the issue where a challenge is made to the Notification dated 16th October, 2015 issued by the State Government and Rajasthan Special Backward Classes Act, 2015, upheld the challenge against the report submitted by the Other Backward Classes commission recommending 5% reservation, exceeding the ceiling of 50 per cent under the Constitution mandate , to Gujjars and four other caste under the category of Special Backward Classes for appointment in public services and admission in the educational institutions.
The petitioner has moved to the court since the notification and Act of 2015 are against Article 16(4B) of the Constitution as the State Government cannot reserve vacancies of a year beyond 50% and if the Act of 2015 is given effect to, reservation would be beyond the ceiling of 50 per cent i.e. against the vacancies of a year. The petitioner further contends that there exist discrepancies in the report of SBC Commission as 82 castes were identified for consideration and the recommendation has been made only to the extent of 5 castes hence the report of SBC Commission, so as the notification and Act of 2015 should be rejected and set aside .
However, the respondents urged about the limited scope of judicial review in case of a report being prepared by an expert body therefore, such a report cannot be examined by the court until and unless the report reflects a perverse or impossible view and not merely on the basis of insufficiency of data. Further, the respondent contended that the ceiling of reservation beyond 50 % is upheld by the court in various landmark judgments hence the argument of the petitioners about ceiling of 50 per cent on reservation in services is not tenable.
Supreme Court: Refusing to interfere with the 10% concession granted by the State of Rajasthan to reserved category candidates in TET by the letter dated 23.03.2011 as on that basis, two recruitment tests have been conducted and candidates who have been selected are now teaching for last number of years, the Court said that the State should bring the relaxation within reasonable limits for future selections as very high percentage of relaxation may amount to compromising with quality which may not be conducive to maintaining standards of education. The Court noticed that except for the State of Andhra Pradesh, no other State has granted such wide range of concessions as the State of Rajasthan did in its letter dated 23.03.2011 and hence, said that in order to impart quality education, we need those teachers who are processed of essential aptitude and ability to meet the challenges of teaching at the primary and upper primary levels.
By guidelines dated 11.02.2011, it was specified that the minimum pass percentage of TET is 60, however, later by a communication dated 23.03.2011, relaxation to the reserved category candidates was granted in minimum pass marks in the TET. The candidates belonging to SC/ST, OBC, SBC and women belonging to General category were to be given 10% relaxation in pass marks in TET. Many candidates belonging to the General category filed writ petitions in the High Court of Rajasthan challenging their selection on the ground that minimum percentage for passing TET was 60% and, therefore, all those candidates belonging to the reserved categories who secured less than 60% in TET could not be declared as having passed TET and were, therefore, ineligible to participate in the selection process.
The Bench of Dr. A.K. Sikri and R.K. Agrawal, JJ said that giving of desired concessions to the reserved category persons ensures equality as a levelling process, however, on the other hand, when it comes to selection process such reserved category candidates have to compete with general category candidates wherein due regard for merit is given. Therefore, only those candidates belonging to reserved category who are found meritorious in selection are ultimately appointed. The Court said that no concession becomes available to the reserved category candidate by giving relaxation in pass marks in TET insofar as recruitment process is concerned. It only enables them to compete with others by allowing them to participate in the selection process. Hence, the reserved category candidates who secured more marks than marks obtained by the last candidate selected in general category, would be entitled to be considered against unreserved category vacancies.
Those reserved category candidates who secured pass marks on the application of relaxed standards as contained in the extant policy of the Government in its communication dated March 23, 2011 to be treated as having qualified TET examination and, thus, eligible to participate in the selection undertaken by the State Government.
Migration from reserved category to general category shall be admissible to those reserved category candidates who secured more marks obtained by the last unreserved category candidates who are selected, subject to the condition that such reserved category candidates did not avail any other special concession. It is clarified that concession of passing marks in TET would not be treated as concession falling in the aforesaid category.
Madhya Pradesh High Court: In an order passed by Sujoy Paul J. upholding the law laid down by the Supreme Court, it was held that the Reserved Category candidates are entitled to be considered against the posts for the General Category and the only requirement shall be that such candidate should be eligible in all respects except for the caste.
In the instant case, two petitions were put before the Court for consideration. In the first petition the petitioner, who was a SC category candidate had been given compassionate appointment against a General category post initially, but the appointment had been cancelled by an order for the reason that no posts in the “SC category” had been vacant. In the second petition, the petitioner being an ST category candidate was denied appointment on the grounds that no post in the “ST category” had been lying vacant.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.