New Delhi: The center and several state governments on Tuesday asked the Supreme Court to hear problems related to reservations in the promotion of the scheduled tribes (SCS) and the scheduled tribes (STS) which argued that some appointments were jammed.
Judge L Nageswara Rao, Sanjiv Khanna and BR Gavai said that it was not open to reconsider his decision about giving reservations in promotion to SC / ST as a country to decide how they apply it.
The total number of 133 petitions arising from various countries is registered in front of the peak court today.
Countries argue about alleged obstacles in giving reservations in promotion to SCS and STS caused by ambiguity in norms to implement reservations in promotion.
The bench directs the state government’s advocate to identify their distinctive problems and submit them within two weeks.
Senior Advocates, Indira Jaising, appeared for one of the applicants, said, “Various high courts disrupted the guidelines framed by the state government about ordering in promotions and that many of these guidelines had also been shocked.” There was no uniformity in the Supreme Court’s decision and the High Court about this problem.
“State of Maharashtra has a post that is provided de-reserve and thus meets posts with people from the category without exhibitions,” Jaising said.
Venugopal KK Attorney General emerged for the Center said, “Government problems are that there are three temporary court orders that fainted two say that promotion can continue to be made, while one high court has issued a quo status command on promotion.” AG argues that recently, the center is limited to making almost 1,400 promotions based on ad-hoc based on seniority without considering the principle of ordering, to ensure that the department function is not affected.
Venugopal was further added, “The disgust petition has been put forward against the Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs for this ad-hoc promotion, even though they are made based on written opinions provided by the Attorney General.” The APEX court now posted this problem to hear on October 5.