Summary
Answering common questions in promotion-reservation litigation, the Court required cadre-specific quantifiable data on inadequate SC/ST representation and periodic review at reasonable intervals fixed by government. It declined to prescribe a uniform adequacy yardstick or population-proportion test. M. Nagaraj was declared prospective to avoid unsettling longstanding promotions. The approval of group-wise data in B.K. Pavitra II was held contrary to binding precedent; individual cases remained for hearing.
Issues
- What unit and criteria govern data on inadequate representation for reservation in promotion.
- Whether a fixed review period or population-proportion formula should be prescribed.
- Whether M. Nagaraj operates prospectively and group-wise data approved in B.K. Pavitra II accords with precedent.
Provisions considered
- Article 16(4A), Constitution of IndiaThe enabling power required quantifiable data regarding inadequacy in the cadre to which promotion is made; the Court declined a uniform judicial formula. (¶¶ 11-16, 28-31, 45-47)
- Article 142, Constitution of IndiaThe Court invoked its power to mould relief when declaring M. Nagaraj prospective to avoid disruption of longstanding promotions and seniority. (¶ 33-42)
Held
- Determining inadequacy involves local conditions and relevant administrative factors. The State retains discretion to set criteria, subject to case-specific judicial scrutiny of the supporting quantifiable data. No universal yardstick was prescribed, and the Court declined the invitation to make national population proportion the governing test. (¶¶ 11-16, 30)
- The relevant unit is the cadre or grade/category of promotional posts, not the entire service or an aggregate group comprising different cadres. Representation data must relate to the cadre to which promotion is sought. (¶¶ 17-29, 45-47)
- Data supporting reservation in promotion must be reviewed periodically. The interval must be reasonable, but government was left to fix it; the Court did not impose the suggested ten-year interval or decide to discontinue reservations. (¶ 31)
- The Supreme Court can give a ruling prospective effect through relief fashioned under Article 142. The contrary general observation in M.A. Murthy was obiter. M. Nagaraj was declared prospective to avoid unsettling promotions and seniority dating back over a long period. The prior removal of the requirement to prove SC/ST backwardness remained recognised. (¶ 32-42)
- Sampling may have statistical uses, but aggregating groups does not establish inadequacy within each promotional cadre. B.K. Pavitra II’s approval of group-wise rather than cadre-wise collection was held contrary to M. Nagaraj and the earlier Jarnail Singh ruling. No merits of any individual case were decided; the matters were listed for further hearing. (¶ 43-49)
Result
Common issues answered; individual merits left open and matters listed for further hearing on 24 February 2022.