Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Chh) 246

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
RAMESH SINHA, CJ., RAVINDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL, J.
S. Santosh Kumar S/o V. Sridhar – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPS No. 3600 of 2020, WPPIL No. 91 of 2019, WPS No. 9778 of 2019, WPS No. 839 of 2020, WA No. 286 of 2021
Decided on : 16-04-2024

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Yogeshwar Sharma, Mr. Anand Dadariya, Ms. Ayushi Agrawal, Mr. Abhishek Gupta & Amiya Bhushan, Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate, Mr. Tribhuwan Das, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr.Sanjay Hegde, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Dr. Manoj Gorkela, Special Counsel, and Mr. Pranjal Kishore, Advocate, Mr. Arvind Panda, Mr. D.L. Dewangan, Advocate, Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate, Dr. K.S. Chauhan, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Nasimuddin Ansari, Mr. Ajit Kumar Ekka, Mr. Alhilesh Dalpat, Mr. Tribhuwan Das, Mr. Anchal Kumar Matre, Mr. Ravi Maheshwari and Mr. Piyush Bhoi, Advocates

Reservation in promotions requires justified evidence of inadequacy of representation; the State must gather quantifiable data to validate such provisions as per constitutional mandates.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16(4A), and (4B) - Challenged the Notifications amending reservation percentages for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in promotions - Notifications quashed as ultra vires due to lack of quantifiable data supporting claims of inadequacy of representation - The state must collect such data prior to enacting rules on reservations. (Paras 31 and 32)

(B) Reservation in Promotions - Necessity for demonstrating justified backwardness and inadequacy of representation before implementing reservations as supported by Supreme Court precedents - Court emphasized that the operation of rosters must adhere strictly to cadre strength and not merely vacancy positions. (Paras 20, 21, and 24)

Facts of the case:
The respondents challenged the validity of three notifications issued by the State of Chhattisgarh regarding promotions for SCs and STs, asserting they violated constitutional provisions for reservation due to lack of required data, leading to arbitrary decisions. (Paras 5 and 10)

Findings of Court:
Notifications did not follow the mandate from the Supreme Court regarding data collection and were thus ruled to be unjustified and quashed. The state was directed to reformulate the Promotion Rules within three months. (Paras 31 and 32)

Issues: Were the notifications regarding the amended reservation percentages for promotions properly justified under the constitutional framework, and had the state collected the requisite data for validity? (Para 8)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that lack of proper data collection regarding representation of SCs and STs violated the constitutional right to equality; reservations could not be justified solely based on assertions without robust data, as mandated by Supreme Court rulings. (Paras 27 and 28)

Result: Notifications related to promotion rules were quashed; the state was instructed to rework its policies accordingly.

Table of Content
1. clubbed hearings for similar issues in various writ petitions. (Para 1 , 2)
2. challenge to the validity of notifications. (Para 4 , 5)
3. need for quantifiable data for reservation. (Para 6 , 18 , 19 , 21)
4. requirement of quantifiable data before issuing promotion rules. (Para 10 , 12)
5. arguments against the state’s notification. (Para 14 , 16)
6. quashing of notifications and directives. (Para 31 , 32 , 34 , 40)
7. validation of petitions following the main order on promotion rules. (Para 33 , 36)

JUDGMENT :

Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

1. Heard Mr. Yogeshwar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner in WPPIL No. 91/2019, Mr. Anand Dadariya, Ms. Ayushi Agrawal, Mr. Abhishek Gupta & Mr. Amiya Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioners in WPS No. 9778/2019, Mr. Parag Kotecha, learned counsel for the petitioners in WPS No. 839/2020 and Mr. Tribhuwan Das, learned counsel for the appellants in WA No. 286/2021. Also heard Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Senior Advocate assisted by Dr. Manoj Gorkela, Special Counsel, Government of Chhattisgarh and Mr. Pranjal Kishore, learned counsel, appearing for the State/respondents, Mr. Arvind Panda holding the brief of Mr. D.L. Dewangan, learned counsel, appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 5 in WPS No. 9778/2019 and respondent Nos. 3 to 6 in WPS No. 839/2020, Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.3 in WA No. 286/2021 and Dr. K.S. Chauhan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Nasimuddin Ansari, Mr. Ajit Kumar Ekka, Mr. Akhilesh Dalpat, Mr. Tribhuwan Das, Mr. Anchal Kumar Matre, Mr. Ravi Maheshwari and Mr. Piyush Bhoi, learned counsel, appearing for the respective intervenors.

2. Since all these writ petitions i.e. WP(PIL) No. 91/2019, WP(S) Nos.9778/2019, 839/2020 and 3600/2020 and writ appeal i.e. WA No.286/2021 arise out of similar issues, they are being clubbed and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

3. WP(S) No. 9778 of 2019 is taken as the lead case and the parties & proceedings are referred to as given therein except where it is separately mentioned, depending on the context.

4. The Challenge in this writ petition are the Notification dated 31.10.2019 (Annexure-P/1), Notification dated 22.10.2019 (Annexure-P/2) and Notification dated 30.10.2019 (Annexure-P/3) to be declared as ultra vires to the provisions contained under Article 14 and 16(4A) of the Constitution of India and also in contravention of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court. The reliefs claimed in the writ petition are as follows :

10.2. To issue an appropriate writ or order and declare that the notification dated 31.10.19 (Annexure P-1), 22.10.19 (Annexure P-2) and notification dated 30.10.19 (Annexure P-3) are bad in law and ultra vires to the provisions contained under Article 14 and 16 (4A) and in contravention of orders passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Hon’ble Court.

10.3. To issue an appropriate writ or order and quash the notification dated 31.10.19 (Annexure P-1), 22.10.19 (Annexure P-2) and notification dated 30.10.19 (Annexure P-3) and grant all other consequential benefits.

10.4. Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.”

5. The notification dated 31.10.2019 (Annexure P-1) is issued by the respondent No.3 Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited by which they have adopted with immediate effect the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Promotion) Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Promotion Rules, 2003’) as amended by its notification dated 22.10.2019. The notification dated 22.10.2019 is issued by the State of Chhattisgarh, by which the said Promotion Rules, 2003 has been amended and the percentage of reservation was amended as 13% for Scheduled Castes and 32% for Scheduled Tribes in place of 15% for Scheduled Castes and 23% for Scheduled Tribes. The notification dated 30.10.201