{"id":933,"date":"2019-09-24T15:37:24","date_gmt":"2019-09-24T10:07:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/railsamachar.com\/english\/?p=933"},"modified":"2019-09-24T15:37:25","modified_gmt":"2019-09-24T10:07:25","slug":"political-parties-consider-scs-and-sts-as-vote-bank-shanti-bhushan","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/railsamachar.com\/english\/?p=933","title":{"rendered":"\u201cPolitical parties consider SCs and STs as vote bank\u201d -Shanti Bhushan"},"content":{"rendered":"

SC Questions Quota In Promotions For Kith & Kin of Affluent SC\/ST Employees<\/strong><\/p>\n

Reservation in promotions violated the right to equality and equal opportunities in public employment<\/strong><\/p>\n

New Delhi:<\/strong>\u00a0The Supreme Court questioned the logic behind granting quota in promotions<\/strong>\u00a0in government jobs to the kith and kin of affluent persons among the SC and ST communities who have been holding high official positions.<\/p>\n

Supreme Court questioned the logic behind granting quota in promotions in government jobs to the kith and kin of affluent persons among the SC and ST communities who have been holding high official positions.<\/strong><\/p>\n

A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Deepak Misra posed the query as to\u00a0why the \u2018creamy layer\u2019 principle,<\/strong>\u00a0used to exclude affluent other backward classes (OBCs) people from enjoying the fruits of reservation, cannot be made applicable to deny quota benefits in promotion to those affluent among the Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST).<\/p>\n

\u201cReservation at the entry level. No problem.<\/strong>\u00a0Suppose, \u2018X\u2019 by virtue of the reservation becomes the Chief Secretary of a state. Now, will it be logical to treat his or her family members as backward to grant reservation in promotion which would provide accelerated seniority,\u201d the bench, which also comprised Justices Kurian Joseph, R F Nariman, S K Kaul and Indu Malhotra, said.<\/p>\n

During the day-long hearing, a battery of lawyers led by Attorney General K K Venugopal, Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, senior advocates Indira Jaising, Shyam Divan, Dinesh Dwivedi and P S Patwalia, vehemently supported quota in promotion for the SC\/ST communities and sought that the five-judge bench judgement of 2006 in the M Nagaraj case should be reconsidered by a larger bench.<\/p>\n

The 2006 verdict had said that the states are bound to provide quantifiable data on the backwardness of SC\/ST communities, the fact about their inadequate representation in government jobs and the overall administrative efficiency before providing quota in promotion to those belonging to these communities.<\/p>\n

However, senior lawyer and former Law Minister Shanti Bhushan and senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan opposed the quota in promotions saying it violated the right to equality and equal opportunities in public employment, which was also a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cOnce you are a Class-I officer, you cease to belong from the backward class\u2026 Reservation in promotion for IAS officers will be in teeth of the right to equality which is also part of the basic structure of Constitution,\u201d Shanti Bhushan said, adding that \u201cpolitical parties consider SCs and STs as vote bank\u201d.<\/strong><\/p>\n

At the outset, Patwalia, appearing for Tripura and Bihar, said the 2006 verdict needed to be reconsidered.<\/p>\n

He referred to the nine-judge bench verdict in the Indira Sawhney matter, popularly known as the Mandal case, and said the creamy layer concept was applicable to the OBCs and cannot be made applicable to SC\/STs in the grant of quota in promotions.<\/p>\n

The bench referred to Article 335 of the Constitution and said the government can relax the qualifying marks for SC\/ST candidates, but the issues were could there be reservation after a person enters a job and the application of the creamy layer principle for these communities as well.<\/p>\n

Senior advocate Nidhesh Gupta, representing Madhya Pradesh, said the Nagraj judgement negated the law laid down in the Mandal judgement with regard to the \u2018opinion of the state\u2019 concerning \u201cadequacy of representation in the services under the state\u201d.<\/p>\n

Referring to the Mandal case, he said that Article 16 (4) (which provides power to the state to grant quota) \u201cmade it clear that the question whether a backward class of citizens is not adequately represented in the services under the State is a matter within the subjective satisfaction of the State.\u201d<\/p>\n

The bench said if there was \u201cadequate representation\u201d of a community in jobs, then the court may question the idea behind granting quota benefits in promotions to SCs and STs.<\/p>\n

Senior advocate Dinesh Dwivedi referred to the constitutional scheme and said that backwardness was \u201cimplicit\u201d in them and the fact that these communities were notified as SCs and STs, was ground enough to infer their backwardness and no quantifiable data was required.<\/p>\n

The bench said if some members of a community notified as SC or ST, have come up, then was the court not justified in asking the question to state government. It said there was \u201cno problem\u201d with the grant of quota at the entry level.<\/p>\n

Senior advocate Indira Jaising favoured the quota on promotion and questioned the 2006 verdict on various grounds including the fact that the state will have to provide \u201ccompelling reasons\u201d in support of the grant of quota.<\/p>\n

Source: PTI<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

SC Questions Quota In Promotions For Kith & Kin of Affluent SC\/ST Employees Reservation in…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":934,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"koo_publish_custom_meta":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-933","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-main-story"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/railsamachar.com\/english\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/09\/SUPREME-COURT-OF-INDIA.jpg?fit=312%2C161&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/railsamachar.com\/english\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/933","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/railsamachar.com\/english\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/railsamachar.com\/english\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/railsamachar.com\/english\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/railsamachar.com\/english\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=933"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/railsamachar.com\/english\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/933\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":935,"href":"https:\/\/railsamachar.com\/english\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/933\/revisions\/935"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/railsamachar.com\/english\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/934"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/railsamachar.com\/english\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=933"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/railsamachar.com\/english\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=933"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/railsamachar.com\/english\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=933"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}