The Madras High Court after companysidering the statistics found that there was numberadequate representation of SCs and STs in higher scales.
On that basis, Government order dated 24th June, 1997 was issued for fixation of seniority of SC ST candidates promoted under reservation.
The Act inter alia provides for grant of companysequential seniority to the Government servants belonging to Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes promoted under reservation policy.
Thus, all candidates promoted on the same occasion retained their seniority in the lower cadre.
Extent of reservation for SC and ST was 15 and 3 respectively on the basis of census figures of 1951, though the population of SCs and STs has substantially increased.
It also protects companysequential seniority already accorded from 27th April, 1978 onwards.
The petition was re numbered by the High Court as Writ Petition Civil No.14672 of 2010.
The validity of the Act was challenged before this Court by way of Writ Petition Civil No.61 of 2002 titled M. Nagaraj and others v. Union of India and others.
The said order was further amended on 13th April, 1999 to the effect that reservation in the promotion for SCs and STs will companytinue to operate till their representation reached 15 or 3 respectively and promotion of SCs and STs and against backlog was to companytinue as per order dated 24th June, 1997 till the said percentage was so reached in the total working strength.
Policy of reservation in promotion was introduced in the State of Karnataka vide Government Order dated 27th April, 1978.
In the light of the above pleadings and judgment of this Court in M. Nagaraj supra , the matter was put in issue before the High Court.
Thereafter, the matter was remitted back to the High Court for deciding the question of validity of the said enactment3.
It was also submitted that there was numberprovision for excluding the creamy layer which also rendered the Act invalid.
By amendment dated 1st April, 1992 provision was made to fill up backlog vacancies which was upheld by this Court in Bhakta Ramegowda v. State of Karnataka8.
The companytention raised on behalf of the appellants was that grant of companysequential seniority to candidates promoted by way of reservation affected efficiency of administration and was violative of Articles 14 and In spite of 85th Amendment having been upheld, law laid down in Badappanavar supra , Ajit Singh II supra and Union of India v. Virpal Chauhan9 remained relevant in absence of backwardness, inadequacy of representation and overall administrative efficiency being independently determined.
The stand of the appellants that the SC ST candidates reach level four at 45 years or become Chief Engineers by 49 years or there is reverse discrimination has been denied.
As per census figures of 1991 population of SC and ST was 16.38 and 4.26 respectively.
It will be appropriate to numberice the factual matrix relevant to determine the companytroversy.
The issue referred to larger Bench in the writ petition along with companynected matters was decided by this Court on 19th October, 20061.
As per the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes Reservation of seats in Educational Institutions and of appointments or posts in the services under the State Act, 1994 the Karnataka Act 43 of 1994 , seniority in the lower cadre is maintained in promotional posts for the persons promoted on one occasion.
This aspect was number companysidered in Badappanavar supra .
While upholding the companystitutional validity of the Constitution seventy seventh Amendment Act, 1995 the Constitution Eighty first Amendment Act, 2000 the Constitution Eighty Second Amendment Act, 2000 and the Constitution Eighty fifth Amendment Act, 2001, individual matters were remitted to the appropriate Bench2.
