Shimla, September 5, 2023 – The High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla, under the aegis of Justice Satyen Vaidya, set aside the decision of the Review Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) concerning the promotion of a clerk in the Police Department.
The case, Lajender Singh Pathania vs. State of H.P. and Others, revolved around the petitioner’s plea against the DPC’s decision to alter his promotion date to the post of Senior Assistant. The petitioner was initially promoted on 29.5.2010, effective from 24.8.2006. However, following a review DPC, his promotion date was changed to 30.7.2010.
Central to the case were the principles of reservation in promotion. The petitioner’s initial promotion was in line with the Supreme Court’s judgment in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212, which mandates the State to consider reservation in promotions based on quantifiable data regarding backwardness, inadequacy of representation, and overall administrative efficiency.
The Court observed that the DPC’s decision to review and alter the petitioner’s promotion date lacked clarity on the applicability of the M. Nagaraj judgment and other subsequent legal positions. The Court emphasized that when an administrative decision has significant consequences, it must be supported by clear reasons.
Justice Vaidya highlighted the evolution of the law on reservation in promotions, citing various judgments:
In Indra Sawhney 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 principle of adequate reservation in place of proportionate reservation was carved out and accordingly, reservation in promotion was set aside and kept alive only for a period of five years i.e. till 15.11.1997. By way of 77th constitutional amendment, Article 16 (4A) was brought into the statute book, which empowered the State to make provisions for reservation in the matters of promotion in favour of Scheduled Castes (SC) and ST, which in the opinion of the State were not adequately represented in the service under the State.
10. In R. K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab, (1995) 2 SCC 745 the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the principle of post-based reservation in place of vacancy-based reservation. Article 16(4B) was incorporated by 81stConstitutional amendment and it was provided that the State had power to carry forward the vacancies for reserved category to the next succeeding year or years and such class of vacancies would not be considered together with vacancies of the year in which they were to be filled up to determine the lien of 50% reservation of total number of vacancies of that year.
11. In S. Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, (1996) 6 SCC 580 Hon’ble Supreme Court declared that relaxation to reserved category in promotion was not permissible under Article 335 of the Constitution. Para 831 of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indira Sawhney’s case was reiterated. By way of 82nd Constitutional amendment, the proviso to Article 335 was added and the State was further empowered to make provision in favour of SC and ST for relaxation in qualifying marks in examination or lower the standard of evaluation for reservation in the matter of promotion in class or classes of service or posts in connection with the affairs of the union or the state.
12. In Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan, (1995) 6 SCC 684, Ajit Singh (I) (1996) 2 SCC 715 and Ajit Singh (II) (1999) 7 SCC 209, Hon’ble Supreme Court enunciated the catch-up principle by doing away with the norm of consequential seniority. Thereafter the 85thConstitutional amendment was brought and Article 16(4A) was amended, whereby the State was further vested with power to make provisions for reservation in the matter of promotion with consequential seniority to any class or classes of posts in the service under the State in favour of SC and ST which in the opinion of the State were not adequately represented in the service under the State.
13. The Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj (supra) then ruled that the right of reservation in the promotion was subject to availability of quantified data vis. the compelling reasons such as (i) backwardness (ii) inadequacy of representation and (iii) overall administrative efficiency.
14. In Jarnail Singh (I) (2018) 10 SCC 396, the Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court has again held that the State would not be required to collect data of backwardness of SC and ST, however, it was required to collect data of inadequacy of representation. Further in Jarnail Singh (II) (2022) 10 SCC 595 the operation of judgment in M. Nagaraj has been declared as prospective.”
The impugned order was completely silent on the applicability of the above aspect of the law.
Concluding the judgment, the Court quashed the DPC’s review decision and the subsequent order altering the petitioner’s promotion date. The respondents were directed to reconsider the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, taking into account his reply and the observations made in the judgment.
The case reiterates the principles governing reservation in promotions and serves as another precedent, emphasizing the importance of clear reasoning in administrative decisions.
—————————————————
Deven Khanna,
Advocate,
Direct (M): + 91 – 7018469792
Office: +91 – 0177 – 2674760
LawUmbrella 