‘Efficiency’ & promotion quota

Why in news?
  • Supreme Court has upheld a Karnataka law that provides for seniority as a consequence of promotion via reservation.
  • This news discusses past arguments around this, and how SC has settled the debate on ‘efficiency’ in Art 335.
More in news
  • Background:
    (1) A two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court recently pronounced a historic judgment on reservation in promotions in favor of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
    (2) The court was dealing with a 2018 Karnataka law that provided for reservation with consequential seniority.
    (3) In B K Pavitra (2017), a similar law was struck down by a Bench of Justice A K Goel and Justice U U Lalit.
    (4) The central government brought a law to overturn the judgment.
  • History of quota in promotions:
    (1) In 1963, the government notified that there shall be no reservation in promotions to Class I and Class II positions.
    (2) In State of Kerala vs N M Thomas (1975), the Supreme Court extended the benefit of reservation to promotions, while upholding a rule giving a two-year extension to pass a special test for promotion of SC/ST employees.
    (3) In Indra Sawhney (1992), a nine-judge Bench held that in future there should be no reservation in promotions.
    (4) In the 1992 case, the court saved promotions already made and allowed continuance of promotions for another five years from the date of judgment.
    (5) Parliament responded with the 77th Amendment in 1995 to overturn the judgment.
  • What is the catch-up rule?
    (1) Many general candidates who were recruited along with SC/ST candidates, or were senior to them, were frustrated when their SC/ST colleagues became senior to them due to reservation in promotion.
    (2) To address this, the Supreme Court in 1995 held that once a general candidate is promoted, he would become senior to an already promoted SC/ST candidate if he/she had been senior in the lower cadre.
    (3) This was termed the “catch-up” rule.
  • Consequential seniority rule:
    (1) In 1999, Karnataka enacted the law laying down that reservation in promotion would continue until representation of SCs and STs reached 15% and 3% respectively.
    (2) Parliament intervened in 2001, with the 85th Constitutional Amendment that retrospectively came into effect from June 17, 1995, simultaneously with the 77th Amendment incorporating consequential seniority for SCs/STs promoted under reservation in promotions.
    (3) The two Amendments were challenged in M Nagraj (2006) but the Supreme Court held both to be valid.
  • Is there any need to prove backwardness of SC/STs?
    (1) It said Article 16(4A) is just an enabling provision if state wants to provide for reservation in promotion it must meet the requirement of collection of quantifiable data on three aspects: backwardness of the class, inadequacy of representation, and that general efficiency of services not be affected.
    (2) In fact, the backwardness of SCs needs no quantitative proof; the fact that certain castes are notified as SCs is the ultimate proof.
    Interpretation of efficiency:
    • Views of justice Chandrachud:
      (1) The Article 335 not only protects reservation in promotion, but also allows for lowering the standards of evaluation.
      (2) This recognizes the need for creating a level playing field.
      (3) Thus, in the name of efficiency fetters are not to be put in the path of correcting historical wrongs and injustices.
    • Efficiency in inclusive sence:
      (1) Efficiency of administration must be defined in an inclusive sense, where diverse segments of society find representation as a true aspiration of governance by and for the people.
      (2) Inclusion together with the recognition of plurality and diversity of the nation constitutes a valid constitutional basis for defining efficiency.
    • Not an Anti-merit:
      (1) Reservation is not necessarily anti-merit; a system that produces or continues with inequalities is anti-merit.
      (2) A system that promotes substantive equality really promotes merit.
      (3) Inclusion and reflection of social diversity in the state’s institutions furthers, and does not diminish, the cause of merit.
    Source
    Indian express



Posted by Jawwad Kazi on 21st May 2019
<< Previous Next >>