Pradeep Jain v Union of India
·
Residence requirement of medical college
inconsistent with unity and integrity of India
·
Though given circumstance reservation on basis
of residence could be justified but it should not exceed 50% of the total seats
·
No reservation permissible on basis of residence
for post graduate courses such as M.S. and M.D.
·
Also allowed up to 50% reservation in higher
courses for student of same institute seeking admission in post graduate course
in the institute itself
Government of A.P. v. P.B. Vijaykumar
·
Andhra Pradesh government allowed for
reservation of women in following ways:-
o
Preference for women in jobs better suited for
them
o
Preference upto 30% for women in jobs for which
they are equally suited with man;
o
Direct recruitment to posts reserved exclusively
for women was upheld.
·
Court held that Article 15(3) is broad enough to
cover any special provisions for women including reservation in jobs.
Issues of Reservation
State of Madras v. Champakam Doraijan
·
Madras government passed an order which had
fixed the proportion of students of each community that could be admitted in
the state medical and engineering colleges.
·
The government contended that it had a duty
under Article 46 to protect people from social injustice.
·
The court held that the directive principles of state policy
have to conform to and run as subsidiary to the chapter of fundamental rights.
M. R. Balaji v. State Of Mysore (1962)
·
Considered the validity of reservation for OBC
for the first time and answered its validity in affirmative
·
Matter of national efficiency need to be
considered and thus reservation should be less than 50% - Article 335,
Constitution
·
Caste can be one of criteria with other criteria
such as poverty, place of habitation etc.
·
The court also held that since Article 15(4) is
an exception to 15(1) the reservation cannot exceed 50% as then the rule will
eat the exception.
·
Since Mysore scheme was entirely based on caste
it was struck down
T.Devadasan v. The Union Of India (1964)
·
Carry forward rule (vacancies which remained
unfilled due to non-availability of reserved category candidates be carried
forward to the next year) was implemented for SC and ST
·
Reservation thus reached 64% in a particular
year and was struck down
·
Court reiterated Balaji that reservation should
be less than 50%
Mandal Commission Report
·
Mandal Commission recognized 4000 classes
eligible for reservation
·
They wanted proportional reservation for OBC ie
52% and thus a total of 74% reservation (22% for SC & ST)
·
Balaji judgment was a hindrance in implementing
this
P. Rajendran v State of Madras
·
Court determined the test of backwardness which
was predominantly based on caste.
·
Reservation based only on caste without taking into
account social and educational backwardness of the caste in question would be
violative of Article 15 (1).
·
Caste is also a class of citizens and if the
caste as a whole is socially ad educationally backward, reservation can be made
in favour of such a caste on the ground that it is socially and educationally
backward class of citizens within the meaning of Article 15(4).
State Of Kerala v. N. M. Thomas (1975)
·
Developed difference between substantive and
formal equality
·
Rule 13A which was introduced sometime later,
gave temporary exemption from passing the departmental tests for a period of
two years. The rule also provided that an employee who did not pass the unified
departmental tests within the period of two years from the date of introduction
of the test would be reverted to the lower post and further said that he shall
not again be eligible for appointment under this rule. Proviso 2 to this rule
gave temporary exemption of two years in the case of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes candidates.
·
Found valid as per nexus test, object being
removal of backwardness
·
As long as legal classification (social, financial,
educational backwardness) is valid preference to any extent is valid till goal
is achieved (even upto 100%)
·
The majority of the court rejected that article
15(4) or 16(4) is an exception to article 15(1) or 16(1). The court asserted
that article 16(4) and 15(4) are emphatic assertions and directions to the
State to take effective affirmation steps to enforce the concept of equality as
lay down in article 14, 15 and 16.
Indra Sahwney v. Union of India (1992)
·
Mandal Commission report was not challenged but
VP Singh & Narsimha Rao government’s memo was challenged
·
Concept of ‘creamy layer’ advanced section of
OBC to not get reservation was implemented
·
Creamy layer not there for SC and ST
·
Caste cannot be sole factor but important factor.
·
Caste is
a Predominant Test of backwardness among Hindus. While classification on the
basis of caste was forbidden by 16(2), the use of caste was permissible for
identifying backward classes.
·
Reservation impermissible in promotion
o
Analogy was given - a medical student even if he
gets seat from reservation still need to pass exam
o
Also reservation for class and in case of
promotion it would work for individual rather than class (Certain individual
who have already received benefit of reservation will get the benefit of this
scheme)
·
Reservation cannot exceed 50%
·
Reservation cannot be given on exclusively
economic state
____________
·
Post Indra Sahwney, constitution was amended [Article
16(4)(a)] and reservation in promotion for SC & ST was allowed
·
Article 16(4)(a) was again amended in 2001 to
have retrospective effect
·
Article 16(4)(b) was inserted in 2000 so as to
remove 50% rule for ‘carry forward’ rule of filling backlog vacancies of SC
& ST
·
Also Balaji was focused more on education and
Indra Sahwney was focused on jobs
Ajit Singh (II) v. State of Punjab (1999)
·
Court discarded the consequential seniority for
SC & ST
·
Court said a person getting promotion due to
reservation cannot get the benefit of seniority as it will lead to double
benefits.
·
This was nullified by parliament through an
amendment made to Article 16(4)
TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002)
·
Unaided private educational institution asserted
their right under Article 19(1)(g) [right to occupation] to choose student of
their own choice and claimed that state cannot impose restriction on the same
·
The court upheld their contention
·
This case was upheld in P.A. Inamdar v. State Of
Maharashtra (2005)
·
This case was nullified by inserting Article
15(5) through an amendment to the constitution
·
Aided or unaided will have to provide
reservation if a law is made under Article 15(5) now
M.Nagaraj & Others v. Union Of India (2006)
·
Amendment made to constitution (Article 16(4)(a)
& (b)) were challenged on ground that they went against concept of
efficiency given in Article 335 of constitution and basic structure of
constitution
·
Court stated that Kesavananda held that
fundamental rights could be abridged but not destroyed and these amendments
were abridging fundamental rights so as to promote substantive equality through
affirmative actions.
·
Also held that each time State provides
reservation under Article 16(4)(a) it must present quantifiable data regarding
backwardness of class
Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008)
·
Upheld Indra Sahwney
·
Creamy layer to be excluded for OBC
·
Those who have achieved economic advancement
also need to be excluded as then they have achieved social advancement.
·
Poverty nexus is map for reservation in jobs and
educational institutions
U.P.Power Corp.Ltd. v. Rajesh Kumar (2012)
·
No quantifiable data was shown regarding
backwardness and the fact that efficiency won’t be affected wasn’t proved
(Article 335)
·
17th Constitution Amendment Bill
2012, seeks to do away with this quantifiable data test of Nagaraj
.jpg)
Posts
0 comments :
Post a Comment