Selection, merging from reserved to general category cannot be grudged as excessive representation: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court last week held that the selection and merging of those from reserved categories into the general category as per merit cannot be grudged on the ground that there is excess representation of persons from reserved categories [B Gurumurthy v. State of Karnataka]..Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav was hearing a plea by officers of the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL) from the general category who took issue with their seniority in relation to those promoted based on reservation.The single-judge said that the operation of the scheme to correct inadequacy of representation under the Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government Servants Promoted on the basis of Reservation (to the posts in the civil services of the State) Act, 2018 did not result in excessive reservation.“...where candidates from the reserved category become eligible on the basis of their own merit and seniority to claim benefits of promotion then their selection/promotion will not eat into the extent of reserved category but will find its place in the unreserved category on parity with General Category candidates in the Open Category,” the Court held..Even otherwise, Justice Yadav opined, the aspect of inadequacy or impact on efficiency are matters left to the wisdom of the State, and courts cannot substitute their decision for that of the government.“The courts exercise power of judicial review and may intervene in circumstances, necessitating intervention and adjudication only in response to action of the State, and cannot enter into the arena exclusively within the domain of the State.”.The petitioners in the case claimed that the candidates from the reserved category were promoted in violation of the roster and contrary to the prevailing reservation policy and rules, as it was in excess of the stipulated quota.Government orders from 1997 and 1999 were brought to light which provided that reservation in promotion for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe categories would not exceed 15 per cent and 3 per cent respectively.The petitioners had also pointed out that the KPTCL failed to adopt the application of roster on post basis and continued to operate the roster on vacancy basis, in violation of the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of RK Sabharwal v. State of Punjab. It was argued that a 2019 circular issued by the State in the form of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) did not mention adherence to the judgment. Further, it was highlighted that the FAQs section had the effect of bringing back officials who were demoted without conducting any required review..On the contrary, the State government argued that the revision of the seniority list in terms of the provisions of the 2018 Reservation Act would lead to a reversion of officers belonging to the general category..On examining the issues, the Court first concluded that the call for evaluation of inadequacy by the petitioners at every stage of fresh promotion was contrary to the policy reflected in the government orders and the Reservation Act.While dealing with this issue, the case of BK Pavitra v Union Of India was also referred to where it was observed that providing of reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes was not at odds with the principle of meritocracy..The single-judge went on to agree that the 2019 circular did contain certain ambiguities with regard to the adherence to the direction in the case of RK Sabharwal.Thus, it was ordered that the order be withdrawn with liberty to pass a fresh order containing comprehensive guidelines keeping in mind all judgments of the apex court enunciating the law relating to the issue.“This would go a long way in removing the avoidable ambiguity in implementation of the Reservation Act, 2018,” the Court reasoned.This direction was made in the context of the State government's submission that the Reservation Act would prevail over the notifications.“The observations are made in the context of calling upon the State for removal of ambiguity in executive instructions to ensure that the Reservation Act, 2018 validity of which has been upheld by the Apex Court is implemented in its letter and spirit without giving rise to unnecessary litigation.”.With these directions, the petitions were disposed of..Advocates Kumar Parimal, Suvarna ML, and Puttegowda K appeared for the petitioner.The respondents were represented by Senior Advocates Dhyan Chinnappa and S Sriranga, as well as Advocates MC Nagashree, Sumana Naganand, Arihant R Sungay, Vijaya Kumar VB, KS Anasuyadevi and Reuben Jacob.Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi was amicus curiae..[Read judgment]