MUKESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
L.NAGESWARA RAO,J. -
(1.)The Controversy in the above Appeals pertains to the reservations to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in
promotions in the posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in Public
Works Department, Government of Uttarakhand.
(2.)The Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward
Classes) Act, 1994 (for short "the 1994 Act") provided for
reservation in public services and posts in favour of persons
belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other
Backward Classes of citizens. Section 3(1) of the said Act
stipulated reservation at the stage of direct recruitment.
According to Section 3(7) of the 1994 Act, the Government
Orders providing reservation for appointment to public posts
filled up by promotion which were existing on the date of
commencement of the 1994 Act shall continue till they are
modified or revoked. After the formation of the State of
Uttarakhand in 2001, the Uttar Pradesh Public Services
(Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward
Caste Reservation) Act, 1994 was made applicable to the
State of Uttaranchal by a Notification dated 30.08.2001 with
a modification in the percentage of reservations. 21%
reservation for Scheduled Castes was modified to 19% and
2% for Scheduled Tribes was increased to 4%. Likewise, 21% reservation provided in the 1994 Act for Other Backward Classes was altered to 14%.
(3.)A Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Mukund Kumar Shrivastava v. State of
U.P., (2011) 1 ALL LJ 428 upheld the validity of Rule 8-A of the Uttar Pradesh
Servants Government Seniority Rules, 1991 (for short "the
Seniority Rules") which dealt with consequential seniority of
persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes. Later, in Prem Kumar Singh v. State of U.P., (2011) 3 ALL LJ 343
another Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad, Lucknow Bench held that the judgment in
Mukund Kumar Shrivastava (supra) is per incuriam and
not a binding precedent. In Prem Kumar Singh's case
(supra), the High Court declared Section 3(7) of the 1994
Act and Rule 8-A of the Seniority Rules unconstitutional.
While declaring the correctness of the judgments of the
High Court, this Court by its judgment in Uttar Pradesh
Power Corporation v. Rajesh Kumar, (2012) 7 SCC 1 held that Section
3(7) of the 1994 Act is unconstitutional insofar as it is contrary to the dictum in M. Nagaraj & Ors. v. Union of
India & Ors, (2006) 8 SCC 212.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.