[Reservation in promotion for SC/STs] Court cannot lay down yardstick for determining adequacy of representation: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday held that it cannot lay down any yardstick for determining adequacy of representation of Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribes (SC/ST) communities in services for which reservation in promotion is being granted to such communities [Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta].

A Bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao, Sanjiv Khanna and BR Gavai held that the concerned State government is obliged to collect such data as laid down in the 2006 judgment of the Supreme Court in M Nagaraj v. Union of India.

"We have held we cannot lay down any yardstick to determine inadequacy of representation. State is obligated to collect quantifiable data regarding SC/ST representation. We have left it to state to assess yardstick to determine inadequacy of representation of SC/ST," the Court held.

The Court also clarified that 'cadre' should be considered as unit for collection for quantifiable data and not the entire service.

"Collection of information regarding inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs cannot be with reference to the entire service or ‘class’/‘group’ but it should be relatable to the grade/category of posts to which promotion is sought," the judgment said.

Collection of quantifiable data is mandatory apart from assessment of inadequacy of representation after a periodic review is done, the Court added.

The Court also ruled that the judgment in Nagaraj will have prospective effect and the judgment in DK Pavitra 2 with regard to collection of quantifiable data is in contradiction to Nagaraj judgment.

- Court cannot lay down yardstick for determining adequacy of representation;

- State has to collect quantifiable data regarding SC/ST representation in services;

- 'Cadre' should be considered as unit for collection for quantifiable data and not the entire service;

- Time period for review regarding the data should be reasonable which will again be upto the States to decide.

- M Nagaraj judgment will have prospective effect;

- DK Pavitra 2 judgment with regard to collection of quantifiable data is in contradiction to M Nagaraj judgment.

- So far as proportionate representation and test of inadequacy is concerned, the court did not go into these issues. It was left to States.

The judgment came on a batch of petitions filed by different States which had moved the top court seeking clarifications on Nagaraj judgment.

In Nagaraj judgment, which was rendered by a 5-judge Constitution Bench, the Supreme Court had upheld grant of reservation in promotions for SC/ST communities.

However, it had laid down the following three conditions to be satisfied for States to extend such reservations:

- State should show backwardness of the class which is being granted reservation;

- The Inadequacy of representation of such class in the service; and

- Compliance with Article 335 of the Constitution of India which provides that reservation should be taken into consideration, consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration.

In 2018, there was an attempt to make the Court re-examine the Nagaraj judgment but the Court upheld the same and held that the judgment need not be reconsidered by a seven-judge Bench.

Later, however, when certain States which tried to implement reservation for SC/STs, the High Courts struck it down saying that the conditions mandated by Nagaraj were not complied with.

They then approached the Supreme Court.

The top court while hearing the matter said that it will not re-consider Nagaraj but agreed to issue clarifications on the conditions laid down by Nagaraj.

[Read Judgment]