MUKESH KUMAR VS STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

MUKESH KUMAR VS STATE OF UTTARAKHAND[1]

CONCEPT OF RESERVATION

Reservation Policy in India is a process of reserving a certain percentage of seats the maximum limit is 50 percent for a specific class, for example, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, and so on in Government educational institutions, government jobs.

The policy of Reservation an age-old policy being practiced in India. Its source has its underlying foundations from the old times when the act of untouchability caste system and Varna system was predominant in the general society

These sections have confronted historical injustice because of their identity which is related to caste. As a quota-based governmental policy regarding minorities in society, the reservation can likewise be seen as Positive Discrimination. In India, it is represented by government policies and strategies and it is supported by the Indian Constitution.

JUDGMENT

The Supreme Court decided that the state governments are will undoubtedly fill vacancies as per the rules for the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes. The court hears the case and gave the decision over a group of appeals by Mukesh Kumar relating to SC and ST reservation in promotion in the posts of Assistant Engineer Civil in Public Works Department, Uttarakhand Govt. The Supreme Court wouldn't give directions to the Uttarakhand state government to give reservation to these candidates for filling vacancies. Since the accessibility of reservation is contingent upon the discretion. Thus, the court didn't give the writ of mandamus to give directions

The current judgment made a settled law that the state government can't be directed to give reservations for appointments in public posts, and they are not bound to make reservations in matters of promotions for the Scheduled Cast and Scheduled Tribes. Hence, an individual can't claim reservation, as his fundamental right. It is the discretion of the state government to choose whether reservations are needed in appointment and promotions. The judgment made the provisions related to reservation optional and not mandatory. If a state government wishes to make provisions for the reservation to SC/STs in promotions, the state needs to collect quantifiable data indicating the backwardness of the class and the insufficiency of representation of that class in the general society. Various High Courts, following Nagaraj, have struck down reservations in promotions subsequent to applying these necessities.

The concerned state should show, for each situation, the presence of compelling reasons which incorporate backwardness, the deficiency of representation of that particular class in the society, and efficiency of overall administrative prior to making provisions for reservation. The court additionally held that these provisions are simply empowering provisions.

This can be seen as a break from the understanding of employment reservation. The Supreme Court's prior decision setting the quota cap at 50 percent of the total vacancies was interpreted as a compulsory rule for the legislature to reservations in all appointments for Scheduled Cast or Scheduled Tribes and Other backward class applicants.

CONCLUSION

Supreme Court interpreted Article 16 to give discretionary or optional power to the state government to decide whether quotas are needed in appointment and promotions in government positions. Since, Constitution enables the state to accommodate the reservation of seats for Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes applicants in the above issues, if, in the assessment of the state, they are inadequately represented in the state public administrations. The decision of the state government to give reservation to Scheduled Cast and Scheduled Tribes in the promotion to a specific public post whenever challenged shall be amendable to judicial review and would need to put the information and prove under the steady gaze of the court that reservation was important and doesn't influence the efficiency of administration.

The policy of Reservation in India was adopted with reason to uplift certain castes who were enslaved to atrocities, social, and financial backwardness because of the prevalent dominance of the caste framework in Hindu Society.

This explanation has someplace lost its essence in modern times, and the castes that should be benefitted are not receiving proper benefits, and the others are receiving the benefits of the policy of the reservation that is not meant for it. Today, the reservation system has recently become a tool for politicians to increase their vote banks.

Reservation through a caste-based system or framework has become repetitive in the modern world and is taking away great opportunities from the individuals who are oppressed or underprivileged in economical terms. The reservation framework just divides the society which leads to discrimination and clashes between various sections since it is oppressive and doesn't discover its basis in casteism. It is the opposite of communal living. Reservation benefits, whenever provided, should be limited to a limit of two kids for each family, regardless of the number of children they have in their family, which would help in the regulation of the population in OBCs which will in the long run result in a decrease in their representation, offering a route to the principle of equality. An individual of the general category may suffer financially just as much as an individual from an OBC, nonetheless, under the criteria for reservation only the individual who belongs to OBC gets the opportunity of reservation in an educational institution or a government job.

Author - GAURAV PUROHIT

AMITY UNIVERSITY RAJASTHAN

5TH SEMESTER

REFERENCES

· Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951.

· Article 15 of Constitution of India 1950

· Article 16 of Constitution of India 1950.

· https://blog.ipleaders.in/reservation-policy-india/.

· https://www.drishtiias.com/to-the-points/Paper2/reservation-in-india.

[1] Mukesh Kumar V.s State Of Uttarakhand 2020 Latest Caselaw 129 SC.