New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved verdict on a batch of petitions challenging the validity of the Constitutional amendments, providing for quotas to the weaker sections in society in promotions in government jobs.

A five-Judge Constitution Bench, comprising Chief Justice Y.K. Sabharwal, Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, Justice S.H. Kapadia, Justice C.K. Thakker and Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan, reserved the judgment at the conclusion of arguments spread over several days on the validity of the 77, 82, 83 and 85th amendments.

The 77th amendment was brought to do away with the Supreme Court ruling in the Mandal Commission case restricting quotas to appointments as opposed to promotions. Article 16 (4A) was inserted to provide for reservation in promotions for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes; the 82nd amendment was intended to do away with the provision in Article 335 that allowed reservation, subject to "efficiency of administration" (the government brought this amendment in 2000 to allow reservation by lowering the standards of evaluation); the 83rd amendment was brought in to do with job reservation in certain States and the 85th amendment widened this scope to provide for reservation in promotions even for the Other Backward Classes.

The petitioners contended that the amendments affected the efficiency of services, which was of paramount importance to national development and existence. They argued that a promotion was earned on the basis of seniority or good performance. "In the case of reserved candidates it is given not on account of seniority, good performance or competitive merit, but merely for their birth in a community favoured with reservation. Reservation, if allowed at each successive stage of promotion, enables a reserved category candidate to take a jump over the general category candidate at every subsequent stage of promotion. It would result in leapfrogging and would have disastrous effects on efficiency of the administration."

They contended that injustice, inequity and inequality were writ large on the face of the impugned amendments, which sought to destroy the constitutional constraints interposed by judicial decisions. They sought to promote the vices of carry-forward vacancies, accelerated promotion, no catch-up principle, consequential seniority, and mutilation of principle of merit and efficiency. The petitioners submitted that reservation ought not to be allowed as intergenerational retribution, retaliation and a system of penalties. "It has to be kept in mind that reservation is meant to be a means to an end and cannot be allowed to become an end in itself," they said and sought a declaration that these amendments were unconstitutional, invalid and null and void.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail