HC quashes UP govt order related to SC,ST quota in promotions
In a setback to Uttar Pradesh government, the Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court on Tuesday quashed its order providing reservation in promotions to state employees belonging to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes.
Lucknow: In a setback to Uttar Pradesh
government, the Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court on Tuesday
quashed its order providing reservation in promotions to state
employees belonging to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes.
A bench comprising justices Pradip Kant and Rituraj
Awasthi pronounced the judgement while disposing of 50 writ
petitions challenging the `UP government servants seniority
rules (3rd) amendment 2007` whereby the state government had
inserted Rule 8A.
The court quashed all seniority lists prepared by the
various departments under the provision which provided for
consequential seniority along with promotion for the SC/ST
The court has also directed the government and various
departments to make fresh seniority lists in accordance with
"We further clarify that in case the state government
decided to provide reservation in promotion to any class or
classes of posts in the services under the state, it is free
to do so after undertaking the exercise as required under the
constitutional provisions, keeping in mind the law laid down
in the M Nagaraj case," the bench said.
Petitioners counsel Vivek Raj Singh told PTI that
the court has held that reservation cannot be provided in
promotions to government employees and the "original seniority
should be taken into account for it".
All the petitioners in the case belonged to the
general category, Singh added.
In M Nagaraj case, the Supreme Court has held, "...the
State is not bound to make reservation for SCs/STs in matters
of promotions. However, if they wish to exercise their
discretion and make such provision, the State has to collect
quantifiable data showing backwardness of the class and
inadequacy of representation of that class in public
employment in addition to compliance with Article 335.
"It is made clear that even if the State has
compelling reasons, as stated above, the State will have to
see that its reservation provision does not lead to
excessiveness so as to breach the ceiling limit of 50 per cent
or obliterate the creamy layer or extend the reservation
indefinitely," it had said.