SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(SC) 867

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Surinder Singh Nijjar, Pinaki Chandra Ghose, JJ.
H.P. Scheduled Tribes Employees Federation & ANR. – Appellants
Versus
Himachal Pradesh S.V.K.K. & Ors. – Respondents
Special Leave Petition (C.) No. 30143 of 2009 With Contempt Petition (C.) No. 91 of 2013 With Special Leave Petition (C.) No. 30143 of 2009
Decided On : 13-09-2013

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 16 - Parliament of India enacted Constitution Act, 1995 - quashed instructions - promotion - Filed against judgment and order passed by High Court of Himachal Pradesh - By said judgment order High Court allowed and thereby quashed instructions September issued by State of Himachal Pradesh - Said instructions made provision for reservation in promotions with consequential seniority in favor of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in all classes of posts in services State – Held, There was general consensus to carry out amendment in Constitution so as to enable State to continue scheme reservation in promotion for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as it existed since - View of above Government has reviewed position and has decided to move constitutional amendment to substitute clause of article with view to provide impediment free reservation in promotion to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and to bring certainty and clarity in matter - It is also necessary to give retrospective effect to proposed clause of article with effect from date of coming into force of that clause as originally introduced that is from day of June - Aforesaid leaves no manner of doubt that amendment is with view to provide impediment free reservation in promotion to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and to bring certainty and clarity in matter - Furthermore aforesaid proposed amendment is to be introduced with retrospective effect from June - View of above there can be no impediment in way of State Government to implement policy of reservation which existed till issuance of various instructions prior to making of Statement before this Court - Time to put an end to this charade this never ending process of extensions and hold State to honor its statements – Order accordingly

JUDGMENT

SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.

1. This Interlocutory Application No.6 was filed on 16th March, 2012, by the appellants herein in the S.L.P. (Civil) No. 30143 of 2009, seeking direction to the State of Himachal Pradesh to take a decision on the issue of reservation in promotions on basis of data already collected or submitted to Cabinet Sub Committee on 25th April, 2011 within a period of one month. For the purpose of adjudicating the present I.A., it would be pertinent to make a reference to facts concerning S.L.P. (Civil) No. 30143 of 2009 that was disposed of by this Court on 26th April, 2010.

2. SLP (Civil) No. 30143 of 2009 was filed against judgment and order dated 18th September, 2009 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. By the said judgment/order, the High Court allowed the CWP-T No. 2628 of 2008 and thereby quashed the instructions dated 7th September, 2007 issued by the State of Himachal Pradesh. The said instructions made provision for reservation in promotions with consequential seniority in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in all classes of posts in services under the State.

3. The aforesaid S.L.P. was disposed of on 26th April, 2010 by passing the following order:- "The State of Himachal Pradesh has issued a Circular on 07.09.2007 as regards the promotion of SCs/STs in the State service. The said circular was challenged by the respondent no.1 and the circular was quashed by the High Court by the impugned judgment. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the circular issued on 07.09.2007 has since been withdrawn as the State intends to collect more details with regard to representation of SCs/STs and to pass appropriate orders within reasonable time i.e. approximately within three months after collecting necessary details and datas. The petitioner would be at liberty to take appropriate steps, if any adverse order is passed. This Special Leave Petition and the Contempt Petition are thus disposed of finally."

4. Although the present I.A.No.6 is filed in the disposed of SLP, it would be appropriate to notice the manner, in which the order dated 16th April, 2010 came to be passed.

5. On 27th November, 1972, Government of India issued instructions vide letter No. 27-2/71-Estt(SCT), whereby provision was made for providing reservation in promotion for the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. On 24th April, 1973, State of Himachal Pradesh issued instructions vide Letter No. 2-11/72-DP (Appt.), whereby reservation was provided for promotion of employees. On 9th/13th August, 1973, State of Himachal Pradesh issued instructions vide Letter No 2-11/72-DP (Apptt.), and thereby, followed the Reservation policy of the Union Government relating to promotion for the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It may be mentioned here that the Reservation Policy of the Union Government was set out in Letter/Order dated 2nd March, 1972, 24th March, 1972 and 11th August, 1972, 28th October 1972, 30th January, 1973 and 12th March, 1973.

6. Meanwhile on 31st October, 1988, this Court in the case of Karam Chand Vs. Haryana State Electricity Board & Ors., (1989) Supp 1 SCC 342 approved the grant of consequential seniority in promotions given to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The State of Himachal Pradesh, by instructions vide letter No. PER (AP-II) F (1)-1/87 dated 31st January, 1989, introduced Reservation Roster in both direct recruitment and promotions.

7. Later, a Constitution Bench of this Court in Indra Sawhney & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., 1992 (Supp) 3 SCC 217 held that reservation in promotion is not permissible under Article 16(4) of Constitution and directed to discontinue such reservations after 5 years. Thereafter, in R.K. Sabharwal & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 1995 (2) SCC 745 this court held that the operation of roster must stop running when the prescribed quota of posts have been occupied by the reserved category. It was in this backdrop that the Parli


















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top