Matter won’t go to 7-judge bench

NEWDELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused a plea from the government to reconsider a 2006 ruling which, the government says, has held up efforts to provide reservation for members of SC/ST communities in government jobs.

The appeal relates to what is referred to as the Nagaraj judgment in 2006, when the top court said reservations in quotas can be provided on the basis of three conditions: that there was quantifiable data of the backwardness of a caste, that there was quantifiable data that the caste was underrepresented in the particular cadre, and the performance of the candidate being considered for promotion.

The government sought that that ruling, which was delivered by a five-judge bench, now be reconsidered by a seven-judge bench. In addition, the government also sought that the concept of creamy layer – the practice of excluding people who are wellto-do from reservations – be done away with.

The court denied the requests, but said one of the yardsticks laid down in the 2006 ruling – that of

needing to gather quantifiable data for backwardness – does not hold. “Collecting quantifiable data to determine backwardness of the SC/ST communities as laid down in the Nagaraj judgment was bad in law,” the order said.

The court also said the ‘creamy layer’ concept of the Other Backward Classes (OBC) community will apply in the matter of promotions for SCs and STs.

“The whole object of reservation is to see that backward classes of citizens move forward so that they may march hand in hand with other citizens of India on an equal basis. This will not be possible if only the creamy layer within that class bag all the coveted jobs in the public sector and perpetuate themselves, leaving the rest of the class as backward as they always were,” said the order by the bench on Wednesday.

The court also said that the administrative efficiency will continue to be a factor while the reservation policy is applied.

Several high courts had struck down decisions for reservation in promotions, prompting many states to move the Supreme Court. The matter was then referred to a five-judge bench after the Centre sought a reconsideration of the Nagaraj case.

The Centre had argued that Nagaraj judgment was non-implementable and had brought promotions to a standstill.