New Delhi: Dealing with many petitions that raised the problem of bookings debated in promotion, the Supreme Court on Tuesday said it would not reopen the norms that were completed in the previous assessment that had ordered the exception of the cream layer, data that can be repanned on the backward class Government post and maintaining administrative efficiency.
This clarification comes repeatedly from the LN Rao justice bench, Saniv Khanna and BR Gavai while taking 132 petitions, who challenged various state legislates trying to get rid of the mandate of the three constitutional benches – Indra Sawney (which in 1992 ruled up a layer of cream for OBC and quota Limited at 50%), M Nagaraj (which in 2006 called for a measurable data to justify the level of order in promotion with the mandate that the quota may not run into administrative efficiency) and Jarnail Singh (which in 2018 was ruled on the re-consideration of the Nagraj and the exclusion of the cream layer Extended for SC / ST employees in promotion).
In 2019, in the assessment of Pavitra-II, SC has secured a settling concept.
In the decision of the Pavitra-I, SC has canceled the Karnataka Law that provides consequential seniority along with reservations in promotion as not constitutional about the reason the absence of a quantified data criteria, which is held mandatory by the Assessment of Nagaraj and Jarnail Singh.
However, in Pavitra-II, SC is diluted consistently insisting on the norm of data that can be measured in the adequacy of representation by enabling the criteria that will be fulfilled only by a country that says that in its opinion there is inadequate representation to continue with reservations in promotion.
In the case of Nagaraj, SC has decided that “the country is not bound to make reservations for SC / ST in terms of promotion.
However, if they want to use their wisdom and make these provisions, the state must collect data that can be displayed.
Theat from class and The inability of the class representation in public employment in addition to the adherence of article 335 (administrative efficiency) “.
At first, the bench Judge Rao-LED said, “We made it very clear that we would not reopen Nagaraj, Jarnail Singh or other jarnail.
Because the idea was to decide this petition in accordance with the law that had been lowered by this court.
We will continue for Hearing a petition on this basis.
“The Attorney General for KKV Venugopal said he fully agreed with the court and that almost all of these problems were covered by the SC assessment, including the assessment of the recent Pavitra case.
“I will provide a total reservation background from the beginning until the last assessment and court will find that almost every problem has been borne.
Only Tripura has a strange case.
If not, there is no room to reopen every assessment,” he said.
The bench is hearing the coupling petition that challenges 11 ratings from various HCS, which has canceled or decreases state legislation in the quota in the promotion in order because it is thought to be contrary to the scoring assessment, Bench will provide a background record of problems raised in this petition and how they are protected by Various assessments.
“Let the AG mark the problems and tell us about the judgment.
But we are very clear that we will not allow the argument to reopen the case or allow anyone to argue that the law set directly from Indra Sawhney Till Pavitra is wrong..
Scope This petition is to apply the law set by this court with the facts that emerge from each country.
We will continue only on that basis.
“