Q. With reference to reservations in promotions in government jobs, consider the following statements:
1. The Nagaraj case (2006) relates to the issue of reservations in promotions.
2. The Supreme Court has upheld the application of creamy layer principle to members of the Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe communities in promotions.
3. State is not bound to make reservations for SC/ST in the matter of promotions.
4. A state has to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the class to provide reservation in promotions to the SC/ST communities.
How many statements given above are correct?
Exp) Option c is the correct answer.
Statement 1 is correct. The Nagaraj case (2006) in Supreme Court relates to the issue of reservations in promotions for the SC and ST communities.
Statement 2 is correct. The court in M. Nagaraj case had upheld the application of creamy layer principle to members of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe communities in promotions. In this case applying the creamy layer concept in SC/ST reservation in promotions, the Supreme court reversed its earlier stance in the Indra Sawhney case (1992), in which it had excluded the creamy layer concept on SCs/ STs (that was applicable on OBCs).
Statement 3 is correct. The five-judges Bench in Nagaraj case upheld the constitutional validity of all 77th, 81st, 82nd, and 85th constitutional amendments enabling reservation of SC/ST communities in promotions, but made certain directives for the states:
- State is not bound to make reservations for SC/ST in the matter of promotions.
- It stated that if a State wants to provide reservation to the SC/ST communities in promotions:
- It has to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the class.
- Show inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment in addition to compliance of Article 335.
- State needs to ensure that its reservation provision does not lead to excessiveness- breaching the ceiling-limit of 50%, or destroying the creamy layer principle.
Statement 4 is incorrect: In Jarnail Singh v L.N. Gupta (2018) case, SC refused to refer the Nagaraj judgment to a higher bench but later altered the decision by saying that states will not be required to present quantifiable data of backwardness of SC/ST communities.
| Important Tips The term ‘Creamy layer’ was first mentioned in the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in the Indra Sawhney case (1992). Supreme Court in 2020 ruled that reservation in the matter of promotions in public posts is not a fundamental right, and a state cannot be compelled to offer the quota if it chooses not to |
