New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday refused to “put every benchmark” for giving reservations at promotion to scheduled caste and tribes scheduled in government work.
A three judge led by Judge Nageswara Rao said countries were obliged to collect data about the irrimacy representation of SCS / ST.
“On the basis of the argument, we have divided submissions to six points.
One of them is a benchmark.
In the light of Jarnail Singh and Nagaraj, we have said we cannot lie in any benchmark.” In connection with the unit to collect quantitative data, we say that the state is obliged to collect quantitative data, “said the bench, it also consisted of Judge Sanjiv Khanna and BR Gavai.
The APEX court said the information gathering about inseparable representation of SCS / ST could not be with reference to all services or classes but must be relatable for classes / promotional posts that promotions are searched.
“Cadres, which must unit for quantitative data collection in relation to promotional posts, will have mean if data related to the SC / ST representation is by referring to all services , “said the bench.
Regarding proportional representation and adequacy test, the upper court said it had not gone to this aspect and had left it with S TATES to assess the insufficient representation of SCS / ST in promotion after paying attention to relevant factors.
The APEX court has ordered its decision on October 26 2 021.
The Center previously asked the court to lay a definite and firm foundation for the Indian Union and countries to carry out promotional reservations for SCS and ST in government work.
Venugopal KK Attorney General, appearing for the center, has been delivered that SC / ST has been ruled out from the mainstream for years and “we must bring an equalizer (in the form of orders) for the interests of the state to give them the same opportunity”.
“If you don’t lay down the decisive ground that is certain that countries and unions will follow, there will be a lot of litigation.
Will never end this problem like what the reservation principle must be made …” AG said.
The bench has been mentioned earlier that it will not reopen its decision on the issue of ordering bookings in promotions for SCS and ST and say it is for countries to decide how they will apply the same thing.
Venugopal has been referred to the decision of the right apex court from Indra Sawhney’s decision in 1992, known as the case of the Mandal Commission to Jarnail Singh 2018.
Mandal Judgment has ruled out the quota in promotion.
Venugopal said that until 1975, 3.5 per SCS percent and 0.62 percent of St.
was in government work and this was the average number.
In 2008, the SCS and ST figures in government work rose to 17.5 and 6.8 percent respectively, which were still low and the quota was justified, he said.
In 2018, five constitutional judges bench refused to refer to the 2006 judgment in the case of M Nagraj, where the concept of the cream layer was extended to SCS and ST to the larger seven bench judges for review.
It has also paved the way for quota grants for promotion in government work for SCS and ST and has been modified 2006 judgment to the extent that countries will not be asked for “quantitative data collect” reflecting retardation among this community to justify the quota in promotion.
The Supreme Court refused to put benchmarks to provide reservations in promotion to SCS / STS
