Court Cases Related to Reservation in

India
Indian Judiciary has pronounced some Judgments upholding reservations and some judgments for fine tuning its
implementations. Lot of judgments regarding reservations have been modified subsequently by Indian parliament
through constitutional amendments. Some judgments of Indian judiciary has been flouted by state and central
Governments. Given below are the major judgments given by Indian courts and its implementation status:[1][2]

1990: Syndicate Bank SC & ST Employees Association (Through its General Secretary Sh K S
Badalia) & Others Vrs. Union of India & Others {1990 SCR(3) 713; 1990 SCC Supl. 350}: The Apex
Court of the country held that reservation is applicable and available in selection method of
promotions of Group-A/Class-1 Officers up to highest (Scale VII :General Manager) level and the
Govt of India have committed mistake in not giving reservation to SC & ST Officers w.e.f. 01st
January, 1978, the date from which the policy of reservation in Promotions was introduced/
implemented in Public Sector Banks. This judgment was implemented half heartedly only in
Syndicate Bank up to April 1993. This historic and landmark judgment couldn't be implemented in
other banks/Departments due to bad leadership in the SC & ST Employees Associations/
organizations of some banks like SBI, UCO Bank, Allahabad Bank, etc. because instead of getting
this judgment implemented in their banks they, based on this judgment, filed Writ Petitions in
Supreme Court and High Courts where they failed. To get this judgment implemented in all Banks,
PSUs and Govt. Departments Mr. KS Badalia has struggled hard but he couldn't get any support
from any Association, Organization and Political leader.
Year Judgement Implementation Details

Court pronounced that

caste based reservations
as per Communal Award
violates Article 15(1).
1st constitutional amendment (Art. 15 (4)) introduced to make judgement
1951 (State of Madras Vs. Smt. invalid.
Champakam Dorairanjan
AIR 1951 SC 226)

Court put 50% cap on

reservations in Almost all states except Tamil Nadu (69%, Under 9th schedule) and Rajasthan
(68% quota including 14% for forward castes, post gujjar violence 2008) has
1963 M R Balaji v Mysore AIR
not exceeded 50% limit. Tamil Nadu exceeded limit in 1980. Andhra Pradesh
1963 SC 649 tried to exceed limit in 2005 which was again stalled by high court.

Supreme court in Indira

Sawhney & Ors v. Union of
India. AIR 1993 SC 477 :
1992 Supp (3)SCC 217
1992 upheld Implementation of Judgement implemented
separate reservation for
other backward classes in
central government
jobs.[3][4]

Ordered to exclude Creamy All states except Tamil Nadu implemented. Recent Reservation bill for
layer of other backward providing reservations to other backward classes in educational institutions
classes from enjoying also has not excluded Creamy layer in some states. (Still under the
reservation facilities. consideration of Standing committee).
Ordered to restrict All states except Tamil Nadu followed.
reservations within 50%
limit.

Declared separate
reservations for
Judgement implemented
economically poor among
forward castes as invalid.

In General Manager, S. Rly.
v. Rangachari AIR 1962 SC
36, State of Punjab v.
Hiralal 1970(3) SCC 567,
Akhil Bharatiya Soshit
Karamchari Sangh
(Railway) v. Union of India
(1981) 1 SCC 246 it was
held that Reservation of
appointments or posts
under Article 16(4)
included promotions. This
was overruled in Indira
Sawhney & Ors v. Union of
India. AIR 1993 SC 477 :
1992 Supp (3) SCC 217
and held that Reservations
cannot be applied in
promotions. Union of India
Vs Varpal Singh AIR 1996
SC 448, Ajitsingh Januja &
Ors Vs State of Punjab
AIR 1996 SC 1189,
Ajitsingh Januja & Ors Vs
State of Punjab & Ors AIR
1999 SC 3471, M.G.
Badappanavar Vs State of
Karnataka 2001 (2) SCC
666.
Ashok Kumar Gupta: Vidyasagar Gupta Vs State of Uttar Pradesh. 1997 (5)
SCC 201
77th Constitution amendment (Art 16(4 A) & (16 4B) introduced to make
judgement as invalid. M. Nagraj & Ors v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 2007
SC 71 held the amendments constitutional. 1. Art. 16(4)(A) and 16(4)(B) flow
from Art. 16(4). Those constitutional amendments do not alter structure of
Art. 16(4). 2. Backwardness and inadequacy of representation are the
controlling/compelling reasons for the state to provide reservations keeping
in mind the overall efficiencies of state administration. 3. Government has to
apply cadre strength as a unit in the operation of the roaster in order to
ascertain whether a given class/group is adequately represented in the
service. Roaster has to be post specific with inbuilt concept of replacement
and not vacancy based. 4. If any authority thinks that for ensuring adequate
representation of backward class or category, it is necessary to provide for
direct recruitment therein, it shall be open to do so. 5. Backlog vacancies to
be treated as a distinct group and are excluded from the ceiling limit of 50%.
6. If a member from reserved category gets selected in general category, his
selection will not be counted against the quota limit provided to his class and
reserved category candidates are entitled to compete for the general
category post. 7. The reserved candidates are entitled to compete with the
general candidates for promotion to the general post in their own right. On
their selection, they are to be adjusted in the general post as per the roster
and the reserved candidates should be adjusted in the points earmarked in
the roster to the reserved candidates. 8. Each post gets marked for the
particular category of candidate to be appointed against it and any
subsequent vacancy has to be filled by that category alone (replacement
theory). R K Sabharwal Vs St of Punjab AIR 1995 SC 1371 : (1995) 2 SCC
745. The operation of a roster, for filling the cadre-strength, by itself ensures
that the reservation remains within the 50% limit.

In Union of India Vs Varpal By 85th Constitution amended Consequential Seniority was inserted in Art 16
Singh AIR 1996 SC 448 (4)(A) to make the judgement invalid.
and
M. Nagraj & Ors v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 2007 SC 71 held the
Ajitsingh Januja & Ors Vs amendments constitutional. Jagdish Lal and others v. State of Haryana and
State of Punjab AIR 1996 Others (1997) 6 SCC 538 it held that the date of continuous officiation has to
SC 1189 it was held that a be taken into account and if so, the roster- point promotees were entitled to
roster point promotees the benefit of continuous officiation.
getting the benefit of
accelerated promotion
would not get
consequential seniority
and the seniority between
the reserved category
 candidates and general
candidates in promoted
category shall be
governed by their panel
position. This was
overruled in Jagdish Lal
and others v. State of
Haryana and Others
(1997) 6 SCC 538 it held
that the date of continuous
officiation has to be taken
into account and if so, the
roster- point promotees
were entitled to the benefit
of continuous officiation.
Ajitsingh Januja & Ors Vs
State of Punjab & Ors AIR
1999 SC 3471 overruled
Jagdish Lal M G
Badappanvar Vs St of
Karnataka 2001(2) SCC
666 : AIR 2001 SC 260
held that roster promotions
were meant only for the
limited purpose of due
representation of
backward classes at
various levels of service
and therefore, such roster
promotions did not confer
consequential seniority to
the roster point promotee.

S. Vinodkumar Vs. Union of

By the Constitution (82nd) Amendment Act a proviso was inserted at the end
India 1996 6 SCC 580 held
of Art 335.
that relaxation of qualifying
marks and standard of M. Nagraj & Ors v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 2007 SC 71 held the
evaluation in matters of amendments constitutional.
reservation in promotion
was not permissible

2010 Suraj Bhan Meena Vs.

State of Rajasthan. Held
that, in view of M. Nagraj &
Ors v. Union of India and
Ors. AIR 2007 SC 71, if the
state wants to frame rules
with regard to reservation
in promotions and
consequential seniority it
has to satisfy itself with
quantifiable data that is
there is backwardness,
inadequacy of
representation in public
 employment and overall
administrative inefficiency
and unless such an
exercise was undertaken
by the state government
the rules in promotions and
consequential seniority
cannot be introduced.
Reservation in promotion
is dependent on the
inadequacy of
representation of members
of SC, ST and backward
classes and subject to the
condition of ascertaining
whether such reservation
was at all required. As no
exercise was undertaken
to acquire quantifiable
data regarding in
adequacy of
representation. The
Rajasthan High Court
rightly quashed the
notifications providing for
consequential seniority
and promotion to the
members of SC and ST
communities and the same
does not call for any
interference. S.
Balakrishnan Vs. S.
Chandrasekar (28/2/2005)
The Government of Tamil
Nadu Vs. Registration
Department SC/ST
(9/12/2005) The Madras
High Court has held that
reservation in promotion is
available only to SC and
ST and not to backward
class (OBC) and most
backward class (MBC)
Sudam Shankar Baviskar
Vs. Edu. Off. (Sec), Z.P.
Jalgaon 2007 (2) MhLJ
802. Held that
consequential seniority is
not available to VJNT.

2010 UOI v/s. S.

 Kalugasalamoorthy
Held that when a person is
selected on the basis of
his own seniority, the
scope of considering and
counting him against
reserved quota does not
arise.

Tamil Nadu Reservations put under 9th Schedule of the constitution.

I.R. Coelho (Dead) by LRS. Vs. State of T.N. 2007 (2) SCC 1 : 2007
AIR(SC) 861 Held, Ninth Schedule law has already been upheld by the
court, it would not be open to challenge such law again on the principles
declared by this judgment. However, if a law held to be violative of any rights
Supreme court advised
in Part III is subsequently incorporated in the Ninth Schedule after 24 April
1994 Tamil Nadu to follow 50%
limit 1973, such a violation/infraction shall be open to challenge on the ground
that it destroys or damages the basic structure as indicated in Article 21 read
with Article 14, Article 19 and the principles underlying thereunder. Action
taken and the transactions finalized as a result of the impugned Acts shall
not be open to challenge.

2005 In Unni Krishnan, J.P. & 93rd constitutional amendment introduced Art 15(5).
Ors. Vs. State of Andhra
Ashoka Kumar Thakur vs. Union of India[5] 1. The Constitution (Ninety-Third
Pradesh & Ors. (1993 (1) Amendment) Act, 2005 does not violate the "basic structure" of the
SCC 645), it was held that Constitution so far as it relates to the state maintained institutions and aided
right to establish educational institutions. Question whether the Constitution (Ninety-Third
educational institutions Amendment) Act, 2005 would be constitutionally valid or not so far as
can neither be a trade or "private unaided" educational institutions are concerned, is left open to be
business nor can it be a decided in an appropriate case. 2."Creamy layer" principle is one of the
profession within the parameters to identify backward classes. Therefore, principally, the "Creamy
meaning of Article 19(1) layer" principle cannot be applied to STs and SCs, as SCs and STs are
(g). This was overruled in separate classes by themselves. 3. Preferably there should be a review after
T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. ten years to take note of the change of circumstances. 4. A mere graduation
State of Karnataka (2002) (not technical graduation) or professional deemed to be educationally
8 SCC 481, P.A.Inamdar v. forward. 5. Principle of exclusion of Creamy layer applicable to OBC's. 6.
State of Maharashtra 2005 The Central Government shall examine as to the desirability of fixing a cut
AIR(SC) 3226 Supreme off marks in respect of the candidates belonging to the Other Backward
court ruled that Classes (OBCs) to balance reservation with other societal interests and to
reservations cannot be maintain standards of excellence. This would ensure quality and merit would
enforced on Private not suffer. If any seats remain vacant after adopting such norms they shall
Unaided educational be filled up by candidates from general categories. 7. So far as
institutions. determination of backward classes is concerned, a Notification should be
issued by the Union of India. This can be done only after exclusion of the
creamy layer for which necessary data must be obtained by the Central
Government from the State Governments and Union Territories. Such
Notification is open to challenge on the ground of wrongful exclusion or
inclusion. Norms must be fixed keeping in view the peculiar features in
different States and Union Territories. There has to be proper identification of
 Other Backward Classes (OBCs.). For identifying backward classes, the
Commission set up pursuant to the directions of this Court in Indra Sawhney
1 has to work more effectively and not merely decide applications for
inclusion or exclusion of castes. 8. The Parliament should fix a deadline by
which time free and compulsory education will have reached every child.
This must be done within six months, as the right to free and compulsory
education is perhaps the most important of all the fundamental rights (Art.21
A). For without education, it becomes extremely difficult to exercise other
fundamental rights. 9. If material is shown to the Central Government that
the Institution deserves to be included in the Schedule (institutes which are
excluded from reservations) of The Central Educational Institutions
(Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 (No. 5 of 2007), the Central
Government must take an appropriate decision on the basis of materials
placed and on examining the concerned issues as to whether Institution
deserves to be included in the Schedule of the said act as provided in Sec 4
of the said act. 10. Held that the determination of SEBCs is done not solely
based on caste and hence, the identification of SEBCs is not violative of
Article 15(1) of the Constitution.

Relevant Cases

1. See Arts 12, 14, 15, 16, 19, 335 of the Constitution of India.
2. State of Madras Vs. Smt. Champakam Dorairanjan AIR 1951 SC 226
3. General Manager, S. Rly v. Rangachari AIR 1962 SC 36
4. M R Balaji v. State of Mysore AIR 1963 SC 649
5. T. Devadasan v Union AIR 1964 SC 179.
6. C. A. Rajendran v. Union of India AIR 1965 SC 507.
7. Chamaraja v Mysore AIR 1967 Mys 21
8. Barium Chemicals Ltd. Vs Company Law Board AIR 1967 SC 295
9. P. Rajendran Vs. State of Madras AIR 1968 SC 1012
10. Triloki Nath Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir AIR 1969 SC 1
11. State of Punjab vs. Hira Lal 1970(3) SCC 567
12. State of A.P. Vs U.S.V. Balram AIR 1972 SC 1375
13. Kesavanand Bharti v St of Kerala AIR 1973 SC 1461
14. State of Kerala Vs N. M. Thomas AIR 1976 SC 490 : (1976) 2 SCC 310
15. Jayasree Vs. State of Kerala AIR 1976 SC 2381
16. Minerva Mills Ltd Vs Union (1980) 3 SCC 625 : AIR 1980 SC 1789
17. Ajay Hasia v Khalid Mujib AIR 1981 SC 487
18. Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh Vs Union (1981) 1 SCC 246
19. K. C. Vasant Kumar v. Karnataka AIR 1985 SC 1495
20. Comptroller & Auditor-General of India, Gian Prakash Vs K. S. Jaggannathan (1986) 2 SCC 679

Syndicate Bank SC & ST Employees Association (Through its General Secretary Sh K S Badalia) & Others Vrs. Union of
India & Others {1990 SCR(3) 713; 1990 SCC Supl. 350}:

1. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs A. P. State Electricity Board (1991) 3SCC 299

2. Indira Sawhney & Ors v. Union of India AIR 1993 SC 477 : 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217
3. Unni Krishnan v. State of A.P. and Ors. (1993 (1) SCC 645)
4. R K Sabharwal Vs St of Punjab AIR 1995 SC 1371 : (1995) 2 SCC 745
5. Union of India Vs Varpal Singh AIR 1996 SC 448
6. Ajitsingh Januja & Ors Vs State of Punjab AIR 1996 SC 1189
7. Ashok Kumar Gupta: Vidyasagar Gupta Vs State of Uttar Pradesh. 1997 (5) SCC 201
8. Jagdish Lal and others v. State of Haryana and Others (1997) 6 SCC 538
 9. Chander Pal & Ors Vs State of Haryana (1997) 10 SCC 474
10. Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh Vs. Faculty Association 1998 AIR(SC)
1767 : 1998 (4) SCC 1
11. Ajitsingh Januja & Ors Vs State of Punjab & Ors AIR 1999 SC 3471
12. Indira Sawhney Vs. Union of India. AIR 2000 SC 498
13. M G Badappanvar Vs St of Karnataka 2001(2) SCC 666 : AIR 2001 SC 260
14. T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481
15. NTR University of Health Science Vijaywada v. G Babu Rajendra Prasad (2003) 5 SCC 350
16. Islamic Academy of Education & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2003) 6 SCC 697
17. Saurabh Chaudri & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2003) 11 SCC 146
18. P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra 2005 AIR(SC) 3226
19. I.R. Coelho (Dead) by LRS. Vs. State of T.N. 2007 (2) SCC 1 : 2007 AIR(SC) 861
20. M. Nagraj & Ors v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 2007 SC 71
21. Ashok Kumara Thakur Vs Union of India. 2008
22. K. Manorama Vs Union of India.(2010) 10 SCC 323.
23. Suraj Bhan Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan (2011) 1 SCC 467.

References
1. [1] (http://www.savebrandindia.org/pil_article.htmlw.savebrandindia.org)
2. IndianExpress.com :: Court, quota and cream (http://www.indianexpress.com/story/14983.html)
3. "Indra Sawhney Etc. vs Union Of India And Others, Etc. on 16 November, 1992" (http://www.indiankanoon.org/do
c/1363234/). IndianKanoon.org. Retrieved 22 August 2012. "(4) Reservation being extreme form of protective
measure or affirmative action it should be confined to minority of seats. Even though the Constitution does not lay
down any specific bar but the constitutional philosophy being against proportional equality the principle of
balancing equality ordains reservation, of any manner, not to exceed 50%." ,"Reservation in promotion is
constitutionally impermissible as, once the advantaged and disadvantaged are made equal and are brought in
one class or group then any further benefit extended for promotion on the inequality existing prior to be brought in
the group would be treating equals unequally. It would not be eradicating the effects of past discrimination but
perpetuating it."
4. "BJP's OBC pitch: How stronger new backward classes panel will function" (http://indianexpress.com/article/explai
ned/bjps-obc-pitch-how-stronger-new-backward-classes-panel-will-function-4617203/).
5. Supreme Court Judgement (http://www.rishabhdara.com/sc/view.php?case=22294) Ashoka Kumar Thakur vs.
Union of India

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?

title=Court_Cases_Related_to_Reservation_in_India&oldid=877418502"

This page was last edited on 8 January 2019, at 15:03 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using
this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.