Decided on March 19,2020

B.K. Pavithra Appellant
UNION OF INDIA Respondents


DR.DHANANJAYA Y.CHANDRACHUD,J. - (1.)On 10 May 2019, this Court delivered its judgment in B.K. Pavitra and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (2019) 16 SCC 129 ('B.K. Pavitra II'), upholding the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservations (to the Posts in the Civil Services of the State) Act 2018 ['Reservation Act 2018']. The conclusion which was arrived at by the Court is extracted below:
"144. For the above reasons, we have come to the conclusion that the challenge to the constitutional validity of the Reservation Act 2018 is lacking in substance. Following the decision in B.K. Pavitra I, the State government duly carried out the exercise of collating and analysing data on the compelling factors adverted to by the Constitution Bench in Nagaraj. The Reservation Act 2018 has cured the deficiency which was noticed by B.K. Pavitra I in respect of the Reservation Act 2002. The Reservation Act 2018 does not amount to a usurpation of judicial power by the state legislature. It is Nagaraj and Jarnail compliant. The Reservation Act 2018 is a valid exercise of the enabling power conferred by Article 16 (4A) of the Constitution."

(2.)277 applicants are before this Court in three Miscellaneous Applications ['MAs']. The reliefs sought in the lead MA are thus:
"(a) Direct the State of Karnataka to implement 'post based reservation' in terms of the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab - (1995) 2 SCC 745 and to re-work all promotions on 'post' basis before any further action.

(b) Direct the State of Karnataka to apply 'creamy layer' and to exclude individuals belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes who no longer require reservation under Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution with a further direction to the State to apply creamy layer at entry level to disqualify those who were creamy layer at that stage and to conduct the exercise from 17th June, 1995, i.e. the date of the Seventy Seventh Amendment.

(c) Restrain the State and its instrumentalities from taking any action where, no exercise is undertaken for that service or cadre on adequacy or where there is adequacy of representation particular when every specific application of order in relation to each cadre must be Nagaraj compliant."

Similar reliefs have been sought by the applicants in the other two MAs.

(3.)Dr Rajeev Dhavan, learned Senior Counsel prefaced his arguments by submitting that:
(i) The present MA is for directions and not for review of the recent judgment of this Court in B.K. Pavitra II; and

(ii) The directions which have been sought emanate from the judgment of this Court in B.K. Pavitra II.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.