reservation is not right any govt is free to not give sc st obc or any type of reservation

 

Reservation is not a fundamental right says Supreme Court

see an article in hindu paper

february  11 2020

Reservation as right: on Supreme Court judgment

    
It is quite understandable that a recent Supreme Court judgment , that there is no fundamental right to claim reservation in promotions, has caused some political alarm. The received wisdom in affirmative action jurisprudence is that a series of Constitution amendments and judgments have created a sound legal framework for reservation in public employment, subject to the fulfilment of certain constitutional requirements. And that it has solidified into an entitlement for the backward classes, including the SCs and STs. However, the latest judgment is a reminder that affirmative action programmes allowed in the Constitution flow from “enabling provisions” and are not rights as such. This legal position is not new. Major judgments — these include those by Constitution Benches — note that Article 16(4), on reservation in posts, is enabling in nature. In other words, the state is not bound to provide reservations, but if it does so, it must be in favour of sections that are backward and inadequately represented in the services based on quantifiable data. Thus, the Court is not wrong in setting aside an Uttarakhand High Court order directing data collection on the adequacy or inadequacy of representation of SC/ST candidates in the State’s services. Its reasoning is that once there is a decision not to extend reservation — in this case, in promotions — to the section, the question whether its representation in the services is inadequate is irrelevant.
see   another news of india today dated 11 june 2020

The Supreme Court on Thursday once again said that right to reservation is not a fundamental right while rejecting pleas challenging the Centre’s decision to not grant 50% reservation to OBCs in Tamil Nadu medical colleges.

HIGHLIGHTS

• Supreme Court on Thursday once again said that right to reservation is not a fundamental right
• The apex court said so while rejecting pleas challenging the Centre’s decision to not grant 50% reservation to OBCs in Tamil Nadu medical colleges
• SC has refused to entertain a bunch of pleas filed by various political parties against the Centre's decision

now  jujment and case

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No. 1226 of 2020 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 23701 of 2019] Mukesh Kumar & Anr. .... Appellant(s) Versus The State of Uttarakhand & Ors. …. Respondent(s) WITH Civil Appeal No. 1227 of 2020 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 22640 of 2019] Civil Appeal No. 1228 of 2020 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 25508 of 2019] Civil Appeal No. 1229 of 2020 [Arising out of Dy. No.39572 of 2019 @S.L.P. (Civil) No. 3668 of 2020] Civil Appeal No. 1230 of 2020 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 27715 of 2019] Civil Appeal No. 1231 of 2020 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 28039 of 2019] Civil Appeal No. 1232 of 2020 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 27735 of 2019] Civil Appeal No. 1233 of 2020 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 28947 of 2019] J U D G M E N T L. NAGESWARA RAO,

 now  judjment

16. The direction that was issued to the State Government to collect quantifiable data pertaining to the adequacy or inadequacy of representation of persons belonging toScheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Government services is the subject matter of challenge in some appeals before us. In view of the law laid down by this Court, there is no doubt that the State Government is not bound to make reservations. There is no fundamental right which inheres in an individual to claim reservation in promotions. No mandamus can be issued by the Court directing the State Government to provide reservations. It is abundantly clear from the judgments of this Court in Indra Sawhney, Ajit Singh (II), M. Nagaraj and Jarnail Singh (supra) that Article 16 (4) and 16 (4-A) are enabling provisions and the collection of quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in public service is a sine qua non for providing reservations in promotions. The data to be collected by the State Government is only to justify reservation to be made in the matter of appointment or promotion to public posts, according to Article 16 (4) and 16 (4-A) of the Constitution. As such, collection of data regarding the inadequate representation of members of the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes, as noted above, is a pre requisite for  providing reservations, and is not required when the State Government decided not to provide reservations. Not being bound to provide reservations in promotions, the State is not required to justify its decision on the basis of quantifiable data, showing that there is adequate representation of members of the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes in State services. Even if the underrepresentation of Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes in public services is brought to the notice of this Court, no mandamus can be issued by this Court to the State Government to provide reservation in light of the law laid down by this Court in C.A. Rajendran (supra) and Suresh Chand Gautam (supra). Therefore, the direction given by the High Court that the State Government should first collect data regarding the adequacy or inadequacy of representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Government services on the basis of which the State Government should take a decision whether or not to provide reservation in promotion is contrary to the law laid down by this Court and is accordingly set aside. Yet another direction given by the High Court in its judgment dated  15.07.2019, directing that all future vacancies that are to be filled up by promotion in the posts of Assistant Engineer, should only be from the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, is wholly unjustifiable and is hence set aside

from above discussion it is clear that general calass are 60 percent if they form their own party government and that govt can scrap all type of reservation govt is not bound to give reservation

see  another case 

to under stand why reservation is not right briefly discussed in this jujment that on the poulation basis seat were reserved only in loksabha and vidhansabha and  and that reservation was right

but that was only for ten year

the case is given below

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.30621 OF 2011 JARNAIL SINGH & OTHERS … PETITIONERS VERSUS LACHHMI NARAIN GUPTA & OTHERS …RESPONDENTS

 now juj,ment

20. The learned Attorney General also requested us to lay down that the proportion of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to the population of India should be taken to be the test for determining whether they are adequately represented in promotional posts for the purpose of Article 16(4-A). He complained that Nagaraj (supra) ought to have stated this, but has said nothing on this aspect. According to us, Nagaraj (supra) has wisely left the test for determining adequacy of representation in promotional posts to the States for the simple reason that as the post gets higher, it may be necessary, even if a proportionality test to the population as a whole is taken into account, to reduce the number of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in promotional posts, as one goes upwards. This is for the simple reason that efficiency of administration has to be looked at every time promotions are made. As has been pointed out by B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.’s judgment in Indra Sawhney (1) (supra), there may be certain posts right at the top, where reservation is impermissible altogether. For this reason, we make it clear that Article 16(4-A) has been couched in language which would leave it to the States to determine adequate representation depending upon the promotional post that is in question. For this purpose, the contrast of Article 16(4-A) and 16(4-B) with Article 330 of the Constitution is important. Article 330 reads as follows: ―330. Reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the House of the People.—(1) Seats shall be reserved in the House of the People for— (a) the Scheduled Castes; (b) the Scheduled Tribes except the Scheduled Tribes in the autonomous districts of Assam; and] (c) the Scheduled Tribes in the autonomous districts of Assam. (2) The number of seats reserved in any State or Union territory for the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes under clause (1) shall bear, as nearly as may be, the same proportion to the total number of seats allotted to that State or Union territory in the House of the People as the population of the Scheduled Castes in the State or Union territory or of the Scheduled Tribes in the State or Union territory or part of the State or Unionterritory, as the case may be, in respect of which seats are so reserved, bears to the total population of the State or Union territory. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (2), the number of seats reserved in the House of the People for the Scheduled Tribes in the autonomous districts of Assam shall bear to the total number of seats allotted to that State a proportion not less than the population of the Scheduled Tribes in the said autonomous districts bears to the total population of the State. Explanation.—In this article and in Article 332, the expression ―population‖ means the population as ascertained at the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published: Provided that the reference in this Explanation to the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published shall, until the relevant figures for the first census taken after the year 2026 have been published, be construed as a reference to the 2001 census.‖ It can be seen that when seats are to be reserved in the House of the People for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the test of proportionality to the population is mandated by the Constitution. The difference in language between this provision and Article 16(4-A) is important, and we decline the invitation of the learned Attorney General to say any more in this behalf.