Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court considered a batch of appeals arising from judgments of the Uttarakhand High Court concerning reservation in promotions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the Public Works Department. The background involved the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994, which was extended to Uttarakhand with modified percentages. The High Court of Uttarakhand in Vinod Prakash Nautiyal had declared Section 3(7) of the 1994 Act unconstitutional, following this Court's decision in U.P. Power Corporation v. Rajesh Kumar. Subsequently, the State Government on 05.09.2012 decided to fill all posts without providing any reservation to SCs and STs. This decision was challenged, and the High Court initially struck it down, but later in review, modified its order, directing the State to collect quantifiable data regarding inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs and to take a decision on providing reservation within four months. The legal issues were whether the State is obligated to collect quantifiable data before deciding not to provide reservation, and whether the High Court could direct such collection. The appellants, including the State of Uttarakhand, argued that there is no fundamental right to reservation, and Articles 16(4) and 16(4-A) are enabling provisions. They contended that the State has discretion to decide not to provide reservation, and no data collection is required for such a decision. The respondents, representing reserved category employees, argued that the State cannot refuse to collect data and is obligated to provide reservation. The Supreme Court analyzed the enabling nature of the constitutional provisions and held that the State is not bound to provide reservation. It relied on M. Nagaraj and Suresh Chand Gautam to conclude that collection of quantifiable data is required only when the State decides to provide reservation, not when it decides against it. The Court found that the High Court's direction to collect data and take a decision was impermissible. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order dated 15.11.2019 and dismissed the writ petitions filed by the reserved category employees, upholding the State's decision of 05.09.2012 to not provide reservation in promotions.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Reservation in Promotions - Article 16(4) and 16(4-A) of the Constitution of India - Enabling Provisions - The State is not bound to provide reservation in promotions; Articles 16(4) and 16(4-A) are merely enabling provisions. The State has the discretion to decide whether to provide reservation or not. (Paras 1-10) B) Constitutional Law - Collection of Quantifiable Data - Requirement for Providing Reservation - The collection of quantifiable data regarding inadequacy of representation is required only when the State decides to provide reservation, not when it decides against it. The State cannot be directed to collect data for the purpose of deciding whether to provide reservation. (Paras 8-10) C) Constitutional Law - Direction to Collect Data - Impermissibility - The High Court erred in directing the State Government to collect quantifiable data regarding inadequacy of representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and to take a decision on providing reservation within four months. Such a direction is contrary to the law laid down in Suresh Chand Gautam v. State of U.P. (2016) 11 SCC 113. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the State Government is obligated to collect quantifiable data regarding inadequacy of representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes before deciding not to provide reservation in promotions, and whether the High Court could direct the State to collect such data and take a decision.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's order dated 15.11.2019, and dismissed the writ petitions filed by the reserved category employees. The Court held that the State is not obligated to collect quantifiable data when it decides not to provide reservation, and the High Court could not direct the State to collect data and take a decision.
Law Points
- Article 16(4) and 16(4-A) are enabling provisions
- no fundamental right to reservation
- State not bound to provide reservation
- collection of quantifiable data required only when State decides to provide reservation
- no direction can be given to State to collect data for deciding whether to provide reservation
