In a significant legal development, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has issued a directive restraining the government from proceeding with any promotions that do not duly consider candidates from the Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) categories. This order underscores the court's commitment to upholding the principles of equality enshrined in the Constitution of India and ensuring that the rights of reserved category employees are protected.
The case was brought before the court by petitioners Mohammad Jamal Sheikh and King Kumar, who represent engineers from various power corporations in Jammu and Kashmir, including the J&K Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Jammu Power Distribution Corporation Limited, and Kashmir Power Distribution Corporation Limited. These engineers belong to reserved categories such as SC, ST, Residents of Backward Area (RBA), Actual Line of Control (ALC), and Other Social Castes (OSC). The petitioners challenged a circular issued by the General Administration Department, which directed all administrative secretaries to keep slots meant for reserved employees vacant. They contended that this directive violated Article 16(4A) of the Constitution of India and the J&K Reservation Act, 2004, both of which mandate reservation in promotions.
Advocate Areeb Javed Kawoosa, representing the petitioners, argued that the government had failed to implement reservation in promotions for over a decade, despite clear statutory provisions mandating it. He referenced the Supreme Court's stay order in the case of Nasib Singh & Ors vs. State of J&K & Ors, which had put on hold a 2015 Division Bench ruling of the High Court that struck down reservation in promotions. Kawoosa further highlighted that the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jammu Bench, had already quashed the impugned circular in the case of Satish Chander vs. UT of J&K & Ors on December 17, 2024. He asserted that, with the Supreme Court's stay in place and the constitutional position clear post-2019 (when Article 16(4A) was made applicable to J&K), the government was legally obligated to implement reservation in promotions.
In response, Government Advocate Furkan Yaqub defended the impugned circular by citing the 2015 Ashok Kumar judgment, which had declared reservation in promotions unconstitutional. However, Justice M.A. Chowdhary observed that the Supreme Court had stayed the operation of the Ashok Kumar judgment, thereby reviving the provisions of the J&K Reservation Act, 2004, and the J&K Reservation Rules, 2005. Consequently, the court concluded that the government's failure to implement reservation in promotions was antithetical to the concept of equality laid down in the Constitution of India.
The court's decision to halt promotions without considering SC/ST reservations is a reaffirmation of the constitutional mandate to provide equal opportunity in public employment. Article 16(4A) of the Constitution explicitly empowers the state to make provisions for reservation in matters of promotion for SCs and STs, recognizing the historical disadvantages these communities have faced. The J&K Reservation Act, 2004, and the J&K Reservation Rules, 2005, were enacted to operationalize this constitutional mandate within the region.
The controversy surrounding reservation in promotions in Jammu and Kashmir has a complex legal history. In 2015, the High Court's Division Bench, in the Ashok Kumar case, declared certain provisions of the J&K Reservation Act and Rules unconstitutional, effectively halting reservation in promotions. This decision was based on the interpretation that such reservations violated the principles of equality and meritocracy. However, this judgment was challenged in the Supreme Court, which granted a stay on the High Court's decision, thereby reinstating the provisions for reservation in promotions.
Despite the Supreme Court's stay, the state government issued a circular directing administrative departments to keep slots meant for reserved categories vacant, pending the final adjudication of the matter. This circular led to a de facto freeze on promotions for reserved category employees, effectively denying them their rightful career advancements. The petitioners argued that this action was in direct contravention of the constitutional and statutory provisions guaranteeing reservation in promotions.
The Central Administrative Tribunal's decision in December 2024 to quash the impugned circular was a significant development. The CAT held that, in light of the Supreme Court's stay on the Ashok Kumar judgment, the provisions of the J&K Reservation Act and Rules remained in force, and the government was obligated to implement reservation in promotions. However, the government's inaction persisted, leading to the current litigation.
Justice Chowdhary's recent order emphasizes that the government's failure to implement reservation in promotions is not just a legal lapse but a violation of the fundamental principles of equality and social justice enshrined in the Constitution. By restraining the government from making any promotions without considering the rightful claims of SC/ST candidates, the court has sent a clear message about the imperative to uphold constitutional mandates and protect the rights of historically marginalized communities.
This ruling has far-reaching implications for the administrative practices in Jammu and Kashmir. It mandates the government to revisit its promotion policies and ensure compliance with constitutional and statutory provisions regarding reservations. The decision also serves as a precedent reinforcing the judiciary's role in safeguarding the rights of reserved category employees and ensuring that affirmative action policies are effectively implemented.
The court's intervention is particularly significant in the context of Jammu and Kashmir's unique socio-political landscape. The region has a diverse demographic composition, with various communities having distinct historical and socio-economic backgrounds. The implementation of reservation policies in promotions is a crucial mechanism to ensure that marginalized communities have equitable representation in public employment, thereby promoting social harmony and inclusive development.
Furthermore, this decision highlights the judiciary's proactive role in addressing systemic issues related to social justice and equality. By holding the government accountable for its obligations under the Constitution, the court has reinforced the principle that administrative actions must align with the broader goals of social equity and justice.
In conclusion, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court's order to halt promotions without considering SC/ST reservations is a landmark decision that reaffirms the constitutional commitment to equality and social justice.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.