The enactment provides, among other things, for companysequential seniority to persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes2 and Scheduled Tribes3 promoted under the reservation policy of the State of Karnataka.
On 15 January 2018, the State Government moved before this Court seeking extension of time for implementing the decision in B K Pavitra I. On 29 January 2018, this Court finally granted time until 15 March 2018.
On 15 February 2018, 9 March 2018 and 18 April 2018, the Union Government in the Ministry of Home Affairs sought clarifications from the State government which were provided on 16 March 2018 and 23 April 2018.
On 28 June 2018, the State of Karnataka informed this Court that the further process have been stalled because of the enactment of the new legislation and its publication in the Gazette on 23 June 2018.
The Bill was reserved by the Governor for the companysideration of the President.
On 9 May 2018, this Court directed the State to file an affidavit to the effect that the judgment in B K Pavitra I had been fully companyplied with and the hearing was posted for 4 July 2018.
According to the petitioners, it is number open to a legislative body governed by the parameters of a written companystitution to override a judicial decision, without taking away its basis.
The companystitutional validity of the Reservation Act 2002 was challenged in B K Pavitra v Union of India5, B K Pavitra I .
For one thing, Jarnail specifically examined the decision in Indra Sawhney, numbericing that eight of the nine learned Judges applied the creamy layer principle as a facet of the larger equality principle.
2 The Reservation Act 2018 was preceded in time by the Karnataka Determination of Seniority of the Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of the Reservation to the Posts in the Civil Services of the State Act 20024.
On 7 August 2018, the State of Karnataka filed an interim application seeking permission of this Court to implement the Reservation Act 2018.
On 17 March 2018, the State moved before this Court for extension of time and on 20 March 2018, while disposing of certain companytempt petitions and other applications, one months time was granted to take companysequential action.
On 25 April 2018, this Court directed the State to file a further affidavit by 1 May 2018 indicating that promotions and demotions have been duly effected.
3 The legislature in the State of Karnataka enacted the Reservation Act 2018 after this Court invalidated the Reservation Act 2002 in B K Pavitra I. The grievance of the petitioners is that the state legislature has virtually re enacted the earlier legislation without curing its defects.
The law protects companysequential seniority from 24 April 1978.
On 1 March 2019, this Court granted a stay on the operation of the Government Order dated 27 February 2019.
The Bill received the assent of the President on 14 June 2018, and was published in the official Gazette and came into force on 23 June 2018.
In many ways, the issues before the Court are unique.
They are A The companystitutional challenge B The companystitutional backdrop to reservations in Karnataka C Submissions I Petitioners C.2 Submissions for the respondents and intervenors D Assent to the Bill E Does the Reservation Act 2018 overrule or nullify B K Pavitra I I Is the basis of B K Pavitra I cured in enacting the Reservation Act 2018 E.2 The Ratna Prabha Committee report F Substantive versus formal equality I The Constituent Assemblys understanding of Article 16 4 F.2 The Constitution as a transformative instrument G Efficiency in administration H The issue of creamy layer I Retrospectivity J Over representation in KPTCL and PWD K Conclusion PART A A The companystitutional challenge 1 The principal challenge in this batch of cases is to the validity of the Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservation to the Posts in the Civil Services of the State Act 20181.
The Bill was passed by the State Legislative Council on 23 November 2017 and was submitted to the Governor on 6 December 2017.
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J. This judgment has been divided into sections to facilitate analysis.
