Mukesh Kumar v\s The State of Uttarakhand


Bench: L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta
PETITIONER\APPELLANT- Mukesh
RESPONDENT- The State of Uttarakhand
Date of Judgment: 7.2.2020
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 1226 of 2020

Facts:
The state government of Uttarakhand on 5th September 2012 made a decision that all posts in
public services in the state shall be filled up without providing any reservations to Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes in promotion for the posts of assistant engineer (civil) in the
public works department government of uttarakhand [1]. A petition was filed before the high
court which struck down the proceeding made by the state government. However the high
court realised flaws in its judgement on the review and modified that this state was applies to
collect quantifiable data state government to decide based on the data.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court includes a group of appeals with the same subject matter and
decided to dispose of them altogether.

Issue:
 Whether the state is bound to provide reservations in public post of the candidates of
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled tribes?
 Is it applicable to reservation for those classes in promotion also?
 Whether the right to claim reservation is a fundamental right?
 Whether the decision by the state government not to provide reservation can only on
the basis of quantifiable data relating to the adequacy of representation?

Contentions of the Parties:
Petitioners: The petitioners claimed for the reservation as the fundamental right under
Article 16(4) and 16(4-A) of the Constitution of India and pitched in favour of it by arguing
for the upliftment of the members of the scheduled caste and scheduled tribes. They
challenged that the privilege to uniformity ensured to each resident is vanquished if the
booking isn't given. The guidance further fought that the state can't decline to give reservation
until the state releases its obligation to gather quantifiable information with respect to the
sufficiency or insufficiency of portrayal in the public posts and the cycle was not trailed by
the state along these lines violate of Article 16 of the Constitution. It was presented that
according to the information gathered by the council after the judgment of the court in M.

Nagaraj and Ors. v. Association of India and Ors (2006) 8 SCC 212, there was insufficiency
in the portrayals of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes in the taxpayer driven
organizations, and the public authority is limited by the judgment and the report, it needs to
give the booking.

Respondents: The respondents’ counsel contended that there is no inherent compulsion on
the part of the state to provide reservation as the Articles 16(4) and 16(4-A) of the
Constitution are merely enabling provisions and the decision of not providing reservation was
taken after due consideration. They challenged based on the M. Nagaraj case that there was
no need to give the reservation if the state has chosen not to give so and in the event that the
state needs to give reservation, at that point the quantum of the equivalent could be chosen by
establishing a board and based on that report the state can choose the equivalent and likewise
presented that the court has no capacity to guide the state to give reservation.

JUDGEMENT:
The court pointed out to the main issue of contention and restricted itself to the issue of
whether the State Government will undoubtedly reserve a spot openly posts and whether the
choice by the State Government not to give reservations can be just founded on quantifiable
data. The court cleared its stance over the issue of Article 16 (4) and 16 (4-A) over the
fundamental right to reservation over promotion also, denied the equivalent by depending
upon the judgment in Ajit Singh (II) v. the State of Punjab, (1999) 7 SCC 209 and added that
the previously mentioned arrangements are the empowering arrangements and optional with
respect to the state. The court added by alluding to the M. Nagaraj judgment that the
prudence is in the possession of the state to give reservation openly posts and couldnt be
guided by the court to give reservation in this perspective anyway the choice of giving the
booking out in the open posts and advancements can be tested over the quantum of seats
saved and must be defended on premise of the quantifiable information of portrayal of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

The data collected by the State government is only to justify to provide reservation to those
classes of people and not otherwise. Not being bound to provide reservations in promotions,
the State is not required to justify its decision on the basis of quantifiable data, showing that
there is an adequate representation of members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
in State services. It additionally put aside the course given by the High Court on 15.07.2019
that all future opening that are to be topped off by advancement in the posts of Assistant
Engineer should just be from the individuals from Scheduled Casts and tribes as it is entirely
unjustified.

The court also held the last judgment of the High Court as flawed where it strikes down the
2012 notification on basis of Indra Sawhney and Jarnail Singh Judgements as the notification
was for the promotions only and based on the recommendations of the committee which held
the representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The bench went on to declare
that the judgments in Indra Sawhney, Ajit Singh (II), M. Nagaraj, and Jarnail Singh cases
only regarded the need of showing quantifiable data to justify the quantum of reservation
provided by the state and not in a case where the state denies the reservation as the
reservation is not a fundamental right when it comes to promotions.

Comment:
This case is a landmark judgment to determine the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes
under the scope of Article 16(A) and 16(4)(A) of the Indian Constitution and determining the
constitutional validity of undoubtedly unveil reservations in the post on the advancements to
the individuals from Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes.
Further the Court decided that there is no principal right individual to guarantee reservation in
advancement in the public posts even no mandamus can be given by the court coordinating
the State Government for giving the booking in the public fills in as the state has caution in
giving in reservation.


The assortment of information by the state Government is just made for defending the
booking in the matter of arrangement and advancement for the public post according to
Article 16(4) and 16(4A) of Indian Constitution.
[1] https://www.legalbites.in/case-summary-mukesh-kumar-v-state-of-uttarakhand/
[2] 16 (4-A) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/211089/ (Article16(a))