RAJBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of CWP Nos. 25512 of 2012, 5551, 8058, 9523, 16963, 16977, 17156, 17755, 19930, 20398, 21064, 21183 and 21274 of 2013 and 12460 of 2014, involving the issue regarding reservation in promotion.

(2.) In the bunch of petitions, challenge has been made to the instructions dated 28.2.2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2013 policy'), issued by the Government of Haryana, providing 20% reservation in promotion in Class-III and Class-IV posts to Scheduled Castes employees. A direction has also been sought for taking appropriate action in terms of the judgment of this Court in CWP No. 17280 of 2011 Prem Kumar Verma and others v. State of Haryana, decided on 7.8.2012, affirmed in LPA No. 1352 of 2012 Devender Sachdeva and others v. Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and others, decided on 10.10.2012, vide which the earlier instructions on the subject dated 16.3.2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2006 policy') were set aside, but still the benefits granted to some of the employees on the basis of the 2006 policy, which had been set aside, were not withdrawn.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that vide Eighty- Fifth Constitutional Amendment, Article 16 (4A) was added in the Constitution of India, which provided that nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from making any provision for reservation in matters of promotion, with consequential seniority, to any class or classes of posts in the services under the State in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. The validity of the constitutional amendment was under consideration before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj and others v. Union of India and others, 2006 8 SCC 212, wherein while referring to earlier judgments on the issue of reservation, Hon'ble the Supreme Court opined that the impugned provision of Article 16 (4A) of the Constitution of India is an enabling provision. The State is not bound to make provision for reservation for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes in the matter of promotion. However, if this discretion is to be exercised, the State has to first collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that class in public appointment in addition to compliance of Article 335 of the Constitution of India. The submission is that the State Government had issued the 2006 policy providing for reservation in promotion and as a consequence accelerated promotions were granted to the members of Scheduled Castes category. The same were challenged before this Court in Prem Kumar Verma's case , wherein while referring to judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj's case , this court set aside the 2006 policy. It was opined in the aforesaid judgment that the State had not carried out any exercise in conformity with the observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj's case for grant of accelerated seniority and promotion to reserved category employees.