Evolution of Reservations in Promotions: A Historical Journey”

by

HISTORY OF RESERVATIONS IN PROMOTIONS:

The question of reservations in promotions has a chequered history. In General Manager, S. Rly. v. Rangachari1 , a constitution bench in a 3:2 decision held that reservations in promotions were permissible. They were not merely restricted to initial appointments, but also selected posts subsequently.2 This was a decision rendered during the era when apex court’s understanding of Articles 15(4) and 16(4) was that such provisions were exceptions to the rule under Articles 15(1) and 16(1). However, this interpretation underwent a change3 , as elucidated in State of Kerala v N.M. Thomas4 , wherein K.K. Mathew, J. opined:

“If equality of opportunity guaranteed under Article 16 (1) means effective material equality, then Article 16 (4) is not an exception to Article 16 (1). It is only an emphatic way of putting the extent to which equality of opportunity could be carried viz., even up to the point of making reservation”.5

In Indra Sawhney v Union of India6 , a nine-judge constitution bench, equipped with this interpretation, revisited the question of reservations in promotions. Question No. 7 was unambiguously cast: “Whether Article 16 permits reservations being provided in the matter of promotions?” Eight out of nine justices considered the issue, and held that the view expressed in Rangachari (supra) was erroneous, and that reservations in promotions were impermissible under Article 16.

It is thus discernible that in Indra Sawhney (supra), apex court ruled that reservations under Article 16 for backward classes of citizens were limited only to initial appointments, and did not extend to promotions. The rationale for such a conclusion was that reservations in promotions would have a deleterious effect on the efficiency of services: firstly, they would stifle the spirit to work amongst the reserved candidates, and would amount to creation of a permanent separate category. Secondly, such reservations would generate a feeling of despondence and heartburn among general category candidates. Thirdly, reservations in promotions would violate the rule of equality.

To negate the declaration of the court in Indra Sawhney (supra), Parliament introduced an amendment to Article 16 of the Constitution, by inserting clause (4-A) by the 77th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1995. Clause (4-A) reads as follows:

“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 favour 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.”

Additionally, the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the 77th
Constitutional Amendment Act, 1995, reads as follows:
“The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes have been enjoying the
facility of reservation in promotion since 1955. The Supreme Court in its
judgment dated 16th November, 1992 in the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union
of India, however, observed that reservation of appointments or posts under
Article 16(4) is confined to initial appointment and cannot extend to
reservation in the matter of promotion. This ruling of the Supreme Court
will adversely affect the interests of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes. Since their representation in services in the States have not reached the required level, it is necessary to continue the existing dispensation of providing reservation in promotion in the case of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. In view of the commitment of the Government to protect the interests of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, the government has decided to continue the existing policy of reservation in promotion for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. To carry out this it is necessary to amend Article 16 of the Constitution by inserting a new clause (4-A) in the said article to provide for reservation in promotion for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.”

Thus, reservations in promotions were extended to members of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes alone.

References:

  1. General Manager, S. Rly. v. Rangachari, (1962) 2 SCR 586.
  2. Id., para 27.
  3. The dissenting opinion of Subba Rao, J. in T. Devadasan v. Union of India, (1964) 4 SCR 680 was affirmed in State of Kerala v N.M. Thomas, (1976) 2 SCC 310.
  4. State of Kerala v N.M. Thomas, (1976) 2 SCC 310.
  5. Ibid., para 78.
  6. Indra Sawhney v Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217.