IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that while reservation in promotions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is constitutionally permissible, it must be implemented with clear guidelines and based on a demonstrable need for such reservations, ensuring compliance with the principles of equality and non-arbitrariness.

JUDGMENT :

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE, SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

In this batch of writ petitions, the constitutional validity of Eighty-Fifth Amendment Act, 2001 has been challenged primarily on the ground that the amended Article 16(4-A) violates the right to equality under Article 14 and the right to equal opportunity in service under Article 16 of the Constitution. The petitioners are aggrieved by refixation of their seniority in the cadre pursuant to the Resolution No.1862 dated 31st March 2003 which was issued by the State of Jharkhand to give effect to Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution. Therefore, the petitioners have also challenged their respective seniority/civil list on a similar ground of violation of Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution. For example, the petitioners in W.P(S) No.5882 of 2003 have challenged the provisional gradation list vide Notification dated 15th March 2003 whereunder their seniority has gone down the list to their prejudice. Similarly, in WP(S) No.3963 of 2006 the petitioners have challenged the provisional gradation list dated 29th June 2006 on a similar ground.

2. The petitioners have also questioned the Resolution dated 31st March 2003 issued by the State of Jharkhand adopting the office memorandum issued by the Union of India.

3. In W.P(S) No. 5882 of 2003, the petitioners have made the following prayers:

i. for quashing/setting aside the 85th Amendment Act 2001, Article 16(4A) whereby and whereunder the Constitution of India has been amended to the effect that 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 class of position in the service under the state in favour of the scheduled case and the scheduled tribe which, in the opinion of the state are not adequately represented in the service under the state.

ii. For also quashing/setting aside the circular dated 31.3.2002 issued under the signature of the respondent no.2 whereby and whereunder the State of Jharkhand had adopted the memorandum dated 21.1.2002 issued by Union of India.

iii. For also quashing/setting aside the notification dated 15.3.2003 issued by the Government of Bihar whereby and whereunder the provisional gradation list has been prepared taking into consideration the 85th Amendment in the Constitution of India which is clearly prejudicial to the interest of the petitioners in view of the fact that the juniors to the petitioners have become senior.

iv. For issuance of any other appropriate direction for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner.”

4. There is an unanimity at the Bar that the constitutional validity of Eighty-Fifth Amendment Act, 2001 after having been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “M. Nagaraj v. Union of India” (2006) 8 SCC 212 cannot be debated before this Court. However, the petitioners seek to challenge the Resolution dated 31st March 2003 on the ground that the instructions/directions contained thereunder are unguided, arbitrary and do not confirm to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “M. Nagaraj”, “Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta” (2018) 10 SCC 396 (hereinafter referred to as “Jarnail Singh-I”) and other cases.

5. Mr. Rahul Kumar, the learned counsel who appears for the petitioners in WP(S) Nos.3963 of 2006 and 109 of 2017 takes this Court through the history of reservation in service. The learned counsel has referred to “General Manager, S. Rly. v. Rangachari” (1962) 2 SCR 586 wherein the majority decision was that reservation in promotions is permissible. Then came “State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas” (1976) 2 SCC 310 which held that Article 16(4) is not an exception to Article 16(1). It was in “Indra Sawhney v. Union of India” 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 where the majority opinion held that the view expressed in “Rangachari” was erroneous and that reservatio