Rohtas Bhankar & Ors v. Union of India (2014) 8 SCC 872

Author: Anchal Saini

Edited by- Biraj Kumar Sarkar 

ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

Case analysis on Rohtas Bhankar Ors v. Union of India. In this case applicants seek a direction to declare the instructions issued by O.M as unconstitutional and issue an appropriate order reserving seats for SC/ST, So, the main issue whether reservation for promotion is obligatory or mere discretion of government has been discussed in this case.

Keywords:

SC/ST, relaxation of standards, constitution of India, qualifying marks.

CASE DETAILS

Judgment Cause Title / Case Name Rohtas Bhankar & Ors Vs. Union Of India
Case Number Civil Appeal No. 6046-6047 of 2024
Court Supreme Court Of India
Quorum / Constitution of Bench Constitutional Bench
Author / Name of Judges R.M LODHA, CJI

ROHINTON

FALI  NARIMAN,

A.K. SIKRI,

J. CHELAMESWAR, JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR
Citation ( 2006 ) 8 SCC212
Legal Provisions Involved Article 16 (4) of Indian constitution.

Article-335 of constitution of India.

77th amendment act of constitution of India.1

82nd amendment act of constitution of India.

 

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

This case is just a reiteration of what was already held in the earlier decision in both cases Indra Sawhney2 And Kuldip Singh3. Both the cases have underlined the importance of article 16 as well as article 16(4A). So, the issue whether reservation for promotion is obligatory or just a mere discretion of government has been addressed in this case.

The applicants challenges the instructions issued by government on July 22, 1997 “that withdrew the provisions for lower qualifying marks and lesser standard evaluation for SC/ST in departmental competitive exams for promotion”.

Applicants argued that the instructions given were unconstitutional and issue an appropriate order for reserving 15% of posts for SC and 7 and 172% of posts for ST in the stenographers (Grade B/Grade I) Limited Departmental Competitive Examination.

Applicants prayed to be promoted on the basis of instructions that were issued to them for LDCR, 1996, and also to declare the result of LDCR as illegal, as they relied on the amendment of Indian constitution i.e. Article-16 (4A) which allows reservation in promotions for SC/ST.

FACTS OF THE CASE                                                                                                             

Prior to the 1997 instructions, there were provisions regarding reserved category candidates to be promoted with lower qualifying marks as per OM dated 23.12.1970. And 21.1.1971. In 1970, the Department of personnel had issued an office of memorandum relaxing the standards for SC/ST candidates in departmental competitive examination and confirmation examination. This memorandum remained in effect around 17 years.

The case challenged the government’s instructions dated 22 July, 1997 that withdrew the policy providing lower qualifying marks and lesser standard evaluation for SC/ST In 1970, the Department of personnel had issued an office of memorandum relaxing the standards for SC/ST candidates in departmental competitive examination and confirmation examination. This memorandum remained in effect around 17 years. In departmental competitive examinations for promotion.

The removal of these relaxed standards were based on the judgment of Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar V. Union of India (1996)4, in this case supreme court held that such relaxation in promotion is not permissible under Article355 of Indian Constitution.[1]

LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

  • Whether the order withdrawing the relaxed standard for SC/ST instructions was constitutional?
  • Whether order for reserving 15% of posts for SC and 7 and 172% of posts for ST in the can be prescribed for the promotion of the SC/ST candidate?

Arguments from appellant/ petitioner

It was submitted by the counsel for petitioner:

  1. “That the relaxation of qualifying standards for SC/ST candidates in departmental competitive and confirmation examinations, as per office memorandum of 1970 was constitutionally valid”. Hence the withdrawal of such relaxation for SC/ST candidates is the violation of the constitutional provision given in Article-16(4A).
  2. The “Supreme Court’s earlier judgment in Ram Bhagat Singh vs. State of Haryana (1990) and superintending Engineer Public Health vs. Kuldip Singh (1997) which upheld the provision of lower qualifying marks for reserved category candidates.
  • Contended that “earlier judgment of Supreme Court rulings in Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India (1992) which recognized the validity of providing concessions to SC/ST candidate in promotions, should take precedence over precedence”.

Arguments from respondent / defendant

It was submitted by the counsel for respondent:

  1. That “the government’s instruction dated July 22, 1997, is valid and in line with constitution”.
  2. The “Supreme Court’s earlier judgment in Ram Bhagat Singh vs. State of Haryana (1990)5 and superintending Engineer Public Health vs. Kuldip Singh (1997) did not have the benefit of binding Indra Sawhney precedent and hence, should not take precedent”.
  3. Pointed out “the judgment of Supreme Court in S. Vinod Kumar vs. Union of India (1996)6. In which court held that relaxation in qualifying marks for reserved category in promotion is not permissible”.

RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

Constitution of India

  1. Article 16(4): – “Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favor of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State.”7
  2. Article 335 :- “ The claims of the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes shall be taken into consideration, consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration, in the making of appointments to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State.8
  3. 77th Amendment Act: – Added article 16(4A) which states that “ Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for reservation in matters of promotion to any class or classes of posts in the services under the State in favor of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes which, in the opinion of the State, are not adequately represented in the services under the State”.

JUDGEMENT

Supreme Court ruled in the favor of Union of India.

The court held that government’s instruction was dated July 22, 1997, that withdrew the relaxation in qualifying marks and standards for SC/ST candidates, were in the accordance with the constitution.

The court relied on judgment in cases in Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India, S. Vinod Kumar vs. Union of India (1996). Also court noted that Supreme Court ruling cited by the petitioners, such as Ram Bhagat Singh vs. State of Haryana did not have benefit of binding Indra Sawhney precedent and hence could not take precedence.

Conclusion

Supreme Court concluded that the withdrawal of relaxation in qualifying marks and standards for SC/ST candidates in departmental competitive examinations for promotion was valid.

REFERENCES

(1)       Constitution of India (1950).

(2)       Indra Sawhney vs Union Of India And Others; 1992. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1363234/.

(3)       Superintending Engineer,Public Health vs Kuldeep Singh & Ors; 1997. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1076926/#:~:text=By%20reason%20of%20the%20provisions,Fundamental%20Right%20to%20equality%20of.

(4)       S.Vinod Kumar And Anr vs Union Of India And Ors; 1996. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/151907/.

(5)       Ram Bhagat Singh And Anr vs State Of Haryana And Anr On; 1990. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/144235/.

(6)       Kumar, S. V. S.Vinod Kumar And Anr vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 October, 1996.

Important Statutes Referred

Constitution of India (1950)