B.K.PAVITRA AND ORS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Author: Sameer Afzal Ansari, III year of B.A.,LL.B. from Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University
Background
In tthis tcase, tconcerning tthe tconnection tbetween treservations tin advancements tfor tschedule tcastes tand tschedule ttribes tand tissues tof status. The trealities twere tthat tin t2002, tthe tterritory tof tKarnataka tauthorized ta law tspecifying tessentially tthat tconsiderable tstatus twould tfollow tupon tthe advancements tof tSCs/STs trepresentatives. tIn taccordance tthat tif ta treserved class tworker tfor twas t(A) tadvanced tbefore ta tprogressively tsenior tpartner (B) tby tideals tof tA thaving ta tplace twith tthe tsaved tclassification, tat tthat point tin tthe tmore tsignificant tlevel tpost, tA twould tnow tbe thigher rankingtthan tB teven twhen tinevitably, tthe tlast twould tget tadvanced ttoo.
Facts of the case
The tAct taccommodates taward tof tsignificant trank tto tthe tgovernment employees thaving ta tplace twith tschedule tcastes tand tschedule ttribes advanced tunder treservation tstrategy. tIt tlikewise tshields tnoteworthy trank previously tagreed tfrom t27th tApril, t1978 tonwards. The tlegitimacy tof tAct was ttested tunder tthe twatchful teye tof tthis tCourt tby tmethod tof twrit petition t(civil) tNo.61 tof t2002 tnamed tM. tNagaraj tvs. tAssociation tof tIndia.[1] The tappeal twas treassigned tby thigh tcourt tas twrit tpetition t(civil) no.14672 tof t2010. tThe thigh tcourt tby tthe tcondemned tverdict thas theld the Act tto tbe tlegitimate. It twill tbe tfitting tto tsee tthe tverifiable tnetwork pertinent tto tdecide tthe tdiscussion. tThe tstrategy tof treservation tin advancement twas tpresented tin tthe tstate tof tKarnataka tvide tgovernment order tdated t27th tApril, t1978.
Issues Raised
Regardless tif tthe tlegitimacy tKarnataka tdetermination tof tseniority tof tgovernment temployers twho tare tpromoted ton tbasis tof tReservation tAct, t2002.
Regardless tif tstate tgovernment thas tindicated tthe tconvincing treasons, tto tbe tspecific, tbackwardness, tdeficiency tof tportrayal tand tregulatory teffectiveness tbefore tmaking tarrangement tfor tbooking tfor tschedule tcastes tand tschedule ttribes tin tissues tof tadvancement tand twith trespect tto twhether tthe tdegree tof treservation tgiven tto tadvancement tfor tthe tpeople thaving ta tplace twith tscheduled tcastes tis tdefended.
Petitioner’s Argument
As tper tthe tpetitioner, tthe tSCs/STs tgot tadvancement tearly tand tby tvirtue of tsignificant trank, tlevel tof tSCs/STs twas ta tlot thigher tthan tthe tallowed rate tand tevery tsingle ttop tposition twere tprobably tgoing tto tbe ttopped toff by tSCs/STs tcompetitors twithout tgeneral tlegitimacy tgetting tto thigher positions. The tcourt tapplying tthe tlevels tset tdown tin tthe tAjit Singh Januja vs. State of Punjab tand tR.K. Sabharwal vs. State of Punjab tgave ta tcourse to tstate tof tKarnataka tto tagain ttry tthe trank tand tmake tfurther tmove tin the tlight tof tthe tsaid tsettlement.[2][3] The tgeneral tlegitimacy tpromotee would tarrive tat tthe tthird tlevel tjust tat t56 tyears told tand tresign tbefore arriving tat tthe tfourth tlevel. tThis twould tbring tabout topposite tsegregation and tportrayal tof tsaved tclass twould textend tbetween t36% tto t100%. The conflict traised tfor tthe tbenefit tof tpetitioner twas tthat taward tof considerable trank tfor tadvanced tby tmethod tof treservation tinfluenced effectiveness tof torganization tand twas tviolate tarticle14 tand tarticle16. The stand tof tpetitioner tthat tSCs/STs tcompetitors tarrive tat tlevel tfour tat t45 years tor tbecome tchief tengineers tby t49 tyears tor tthere tis tconverse segregation thas tbeen tdenied.
Respondent’s Argument
The taccommodation tfor tthe tbenefit tof tstate twas tthat tbooking tto tSCs and STs tto tthe tdegree tof t15% tand t3% tindividually twould tnever tbe tsupposed to tbe tover tthe ttop ttaking tinto taccount tdynamic tincrement tin tpopulace of tSCs tand tSTs. The t85th tAmendment toffered topportunity tto tstate tto accommodate treservation tin tadvancement twith tsignificant tposition tunder article t16 tif tbackwardness, tdeficiency tof tportrayal tand toverall effectiveness was tjustified. If tthe tstate tneglects tto trecognize tand tquantify tthe tover three tfactors, tthe tbooking tcan tbe tinvalid. Since treservation thad tnot surpassed t15% tand t3% tfor tSCs tand tSTs twhile tpopulace tof tthe tsaid classes had texpanded, tthere twas tsatisfactory tthought tof tthe tover tthree tvariables of tbackwardness, tdeficiency tof tportrayal tand toverall teffectiveness.
Judgement
The tcourt treceived ta trespectful tdisposition ttowards tthe tstate’s tassortment of tinformation, tand tits tdeductions tfrom tthe tinformation tit thad tgathered. The texplanation tbehind tthis tis tthat tthe tmotivation tbehind tthe tactivity was tfor tthe tgoverning tbody tto thave tthe toption tto tsuccessfully tpropel the established tobjective tof tconsiderable tfairness. tAs tit twas tthe tcourt perceived tthe tsignificant tpoint tthat tprotected tobjectives tare tto tbe progressed tby tevery tone tof tthe tthree twings tof tstate, tand tthat tin tvarious settings, tthe tessential tobligation tregarding tthat tlies tupon tvarious twings.
In tthe tparticular tinstance tof treservations, tthat tobligation thas tbeen tset upon tthe tassembly. tThus, tin tthe tspace tof treservations, tthe tCourt twould just tsurvey tthe tState’s temotional tfulfillment ton tthe trespectful tlimit tof levelheadedness tand tnon-discretion. tThis trule tof tconcession twon’t thave any tsignificant tbearing tto teach tcircumstance twhere ta tlaw tis ttested tand state tconjures tinformation tassortment tand texamination tto tlegitimize itself. For ta tsituation twhere tfor tinstance tthe ttest tis tbased ton tan tinfringement of tsocial tliberties, tcourt tmay twell tchoose tfor tadopt ton ta tmore interventionist tstrategy tto tthe tdependability tof tinformation. tIn tthe particular tsetting tof treservations, thowever, tgiven tthe tsacred tcontent, tand the taway tfrom tof tstate, tthis tthe tcourt’s tmethodology thas ta tlot tto suggest it.
By tre-establishing tthe tlaw tthat thad tbeen theld tto tbe tillegal, tand tdoing tit retroactively tfor tsure. tIt twas tcontended tthat tthe tbill thad tbeen twrongly sent tfor tpresidential tconsent. tIt twas tcontended tthat tthe tinvestigation based ton twhich tthe tlaw twas tpassed twas timperfect. tIt twas tcontended that the tlaw twas tunlawful ton tthe tgrounds tthat tit tneglected tto treject tthe smooth tlayer. tThe tcourt tbasically torchestrated tand trehashed texisting tlaw peruses tkeen tregarding tthe tmatter tmay tperuse tthe tjudgment tfor ta reasonable tand tclear tpiece tof tthe tstandards.
Critical Analysis
The tidea tof tproficiency twith tassorted tvariety tof tportrayal tand comprehensiveness. tIn tany tsituation tthe tprotected tidea tof tproductivity fell prey tto tthe tliberal texcitement tof tperusing tin tbroad tideas tof tdecent variety tand tcomprehensiveness tin tall tstructures. tIn tmy tperspective, tthis re-evaluation thas tminimal thypothetical tor tlegitimate tpremise tas tassorted variety tand tequivalent tportrayal tcan’t tbe tconflated twith tproductivity. tIt might tbe tnoticed tthat tthe tbenchmark tfor tdecreeing tpeople tacross tareas, can tbe tof tsubjective tor tquantitative tnature tor ta tblend tof tboth. tThe truth to tbe ttold tthe tover tdependence ton tsubjective tbenchmarks tin tmaking ta decision tabout tlegitimacy tin tthe tpublic teye, tas tlooked tto tbe tpropounded in tthe tcase, tfrequently tprompts tpropagation tof tclasses tand tprevents social versatility.
It tvery twell tmay tbe tcontended tthat tit twas tthe tover tdependence ton subjective tbenchmarks tthat tpropagated tthe tposition tframework tand tstill sustains tnepotism tin tthe tlegal tframework. tThe tsubjectivity tand tprudence empowers timmaterial tand tunquantifiable tcomponents twhich tsustain nepotism tin tdifferent tstructures. tIt tis tthe tmodernization tof tframeworks that thas thelped tus tmove tfrom ta tsignificantly tsubjective tto tsignificantly quantitative tinstrument tof tdeclaring tmerit, twhich thas tbeen tan timpetus for tsocial tversatility tacross tfields. tConsequently, tproductivity tand quantitatively tperceptible tlegitimacy tgo tconnected tat tthe theap, tand tany separation tfor tthe tsake tof tcomprehensiveness tof tmeaningful tuniformity is really ta tstage tin treverse.
In tthe tcase, tinspite tof tthe tsentiment tin tJarnail tbeing tnew tin tthe tbrains of teverybody, tthe tCourt theld tthat tthe tidea tof tsmooth tlayer thas tno significance tto tthe taward tof timportant trank.It tmight tbe tnoticed tthat significant tstatus thas tno timportance twithout tthe tsetting tof treservation tin advancements tand tthe tsubjective tprohibition tis ta tvital tprerequisite tfor any tbooking tin tadvancement testablishment tto tbe tarticle t14 tand tarticle t16 agreeable. tThe tunmitigated texceed tof tthe tproportion tof tJarnail tSingh’s by expressing tthat tthis tcase tis trestricted tto timportant tstatus tis tonly tcrafty.[4]
[1] tAIR t2007 tSC t71 [2] tAIR t1996 tSC t1189 [3] tAIR t1995 tSC t1371 t(1995) t2 tSCC t745 [4] tAIR t2018 t10 tSCC t396