Reservation Policy For SC/ST In Promotion Can Be Framed Only On Basis Of Yardstick Fixed By SC For Collecting Quantifiable Data: Chhattisgarh HC

The Chhattisgarh High Court recently ruled that the reservation policy for SC/ST in promotions must be established based on quantifiable data and in accordance with Article 16(4A) and (4B) of the Constitution.

The division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal held, “Reservation Policy for SC and ST in Promotion can be framed only on the basis of yardstick fixed for collecting quantifiable data by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various authoritative pronouncements and also based on the provisions contained in Article 16(4A) and (4B) of the Constitution of India.”

The case in brief

The occasion to hold this arose while the Court was dealing with a batch of petitions challenging three notifications of the State Government dated 31.10.2019, 22.10.2019, and 30.10.2019, alleging them to be violative of Articles 14 and 16(4A) of the Indian Constitution.

The three notifications in brief were: Notification of October 31, 2019: Respondent No.3, Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited, adopted the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Promotion) Rules, 2003, as amended by their notification dated 22.10.2019.

Notification of October 22, 2019: The State Government amended the reservation percentages to 13% for Scheduled Castes and 32% for Scheduled Tribes, from the previous 15% and 23% respectively.

Notification of October 22, 2019: The state government amended the 100-point reservation roster in line with the revised reservation percentages.

It was specifically pleaded by the petitioners that the three notifications were contrary to the provisions of Articles 14 and 16(4A) of the Constitution and in violation of orders issued by the Supreme Court and this Court.

The petitioners' primary contention was that the amendment (vide Notification of October 22, 2019) was implemented without adhering to the directives issued by the Coordinate Bench and without obtaining quantifiable data, as mandated by law.

Advocate Anand Dadariya, counsel for the petitioners, contended that the State's issuance of the notification dated 22.10.2019 without first collecting quantifiable data violates Articles 14 and 16(4A) and (4B) of the Indian Constitution, as well as orders from this Court and the Supreme Court.

It was emphasized that although a committee was established on July 17, 2020, to gather quantifiable data, this occurred subsequent to the issuance of the amendment, contradicting established legal principles set by the Supreme Court.

It was further argued that the Committee's formation on 17.07.2020 and subsequent submission of its report on 17.10.2021 indicate an arbitrary exercise of authority.

Additionally, it was stated that the State must collect data based on specific job categories. Yet, the Committee made decisions without obtaining this data, relying solely on the number of vacant positions reserved for SC and ST categories in direct appointments and promotions.

On the other hand, Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde, representing the respondents, argued that the State possessed quantifiable data before enacting the Promotions Rules of 2003. He emphasized that the State's decision wasn't made without such data.

He pointed out that long before the Supreme Court's judgments in the cases of M. Nagaraj and Jarnail Singh's - I, there existed the Chhattisgarh Public Service (Reservation for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe & Other Backward Classes) Act of 1994. This legislation detailed vacancy positions and employment statistics within the State and mandated the preparation and submission of an annual report to the Vidhan Sabha under Section 19.

Senior Counsel Hegde also argued that the state thoroughly understood the specific requirements of various social groups. This knowledge was acknowledged and formally documented in reports submitted to the Court.

High Court's observations

Having heard both sides' submissions, the Court drew upon the precedent set in R.K. Sabharwal and Others v. State of Punjab & Others (1995), where the Supreme Court's Constitutional Bench had extensively addressed the requirements for implementing reservation in promotions. It discussed the necessity of quantifiable data to demonstrate the backwardness of a particular class, the extent of reservation, and the representation of that class in public employment vacancies.

The Top Court, in the said judgement, had also deliberated on the 50% ceiling limit for reservation quota outlined in Article 16 (4A) and (4B) of the Constitution of India.

The Court observed that considering the precedents set by R.K. Sabharwal, M. Nagaraj, and Jarnail Singh – I, a Co-ordinate Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court issued an order on 04.02.2019, which invalidated Rule 5 of the Promotion Rules, 2003, and directed the State Government to revise its rules or policies in alignment with the legal framework established by the Supreme Court in the M. Nagaraj and Jarnail Singh – I cases.

Moreover, the Court emphasized that the order dated February 04, 2019, remained unchallenged by any of the parties involved in a higher forum. As a result, the Court determined that the order had reached a state of finality.

This indicated that any data or information available to the State Government before 04.02.2019 was superseded by the order, and subsequently, the State Government was required to reassess and gather quantifiable data to determine the percentage of reservation, adhering to the legal standards set forth by the Supreme Court in the M. Nagaraj and Jarnail Singh – I cases.

However, the same was not done, the Court noted as it observed that the State first issued the notification of amended Promotion Rules, 2023 and thereafter, constituted the Committee to collect the quantifiable data, which, the Court held, was against the law laid down by Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases as also the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court in WA No. 409 of 2013 and other batch of matters.

"If the State was having the necessary data, there would be no necessity to constitute the Committee on 17.07.2020 for collection of quantifiable data, but here the Committee has been constituted, who inspite of collecting the quantifiable data, only compiled the data which has already been available with the State. Further more, the data, which are said to already available with the State, has not been produced in the present case that these are the data's available with the State," the Court observed.

For the foregoing discussions, the Court found the impugned notification dated October 22, 2019, to be perverse and declared it ultra vires to the provisions contained under Articles 14 and 16 (4A) and (4B) of the Constitution of India. It was issued in contravention of orders passed by the Supreme Court and the Co-ordinate Bench of the HC.

Consequently, the State Government was directed to rework / reframe the subject Promotion Rules and to notify the same within three months in light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj's case, Jarnail Singh's—I case, B.K. Pavitra's—II case, and Jarnail Singh's—II case.

Against this backdrop, quashing all three Notifications, the Court noted that the respondent Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited (CSPHCL) would be required to issue a promotion order per the existing promotion rules applicable to the department.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Chh) 11