The decades-old conundrum within the State bureaucracy over reservation in promotion seems to have got stuck in another tricky knot.
A case in the Supreme Court pertaining to Punjab is casting a fresh shadow with general category employees seeking changes in the current policy on reservation in promotion based on the court observations. Meanwhile, the body representing SC/ST employees has opposed any changes. The bureaucracy has been bitterly divided after the 2017 Supreme Court ruling in B.K. Pavithra case, which led to redrawing of the seniority list. This resulted in demotion of about 3,800 SC/ST officials/employees and later developments, including the enactment of the Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservation (to the posts in the Civil Services of the State) Act, 2017, and the apex court upholding the validity of the Act that is referred as the B.K. Pavithra II case. AHIMSA, the body representing general category employees, recently petitioned Chief Minister Basavaraj Bommai to bring changes to the reservation in promotion after the apex court on January 28 made certain observations in a case related to Punjab. The court, while refusing to lay down any yardstick for determining the inadequacy of representation for granting promotion to SCs/STs, has held cadre as the unit for purpose of collection of quantifiable data for giving promotion quotas. Karnataka introduced reservation in promotion in 1978. Based on the population figures, SCs and STs get prescribed reservation of 15% and 3%, respectively, when the promotion list is drawn. AHIMSA has argued that the State should have quantifiable data to show inadequacy of representation of persons belonging to SC/ST communities in each cadre and operate roster of reservation only till such time as the prescribed percentage of representation is reached for the SC/ST. It has also sought exclusion of creamy layer among the SC/ST as in the case of other backward classes in direct recruitment. The immediate effect has been that the departmental promotion committees which were drawing lists of promotion based on the reservation in promotion Act could end up confused with the new arguments and lack of clarity. The Planning Department is among the first to approach the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms seeking clarification. More departments are expected to follow suit that is likely to lead to piling up of promotions. Contrarily, in some departments where the DPCs had been set up before the court observations, are processing the promotions, raising questions of legality about such process, government sources said. However, the State Government is yet to clarify its stand on the issue. Efforts to reach out to Chief Secretary P. Ravikumar failed. Meanwhile, the Karnataka State Government SC/ST Employees Association president D. Chandrashekaraiah termed the demand of general category employees as “efforts to create unnecessary confusion by wrong interpretation“. He argued that vacancy-based reservation policy in Karnataka had not exceeded the prescribed limit. Quoting from the data released by the Department of Planning and Statistics, he pointed out that the percentage of SC/ST officers/employees among these 7.7 lakh State Government employees as of March 2020 was 11.24% and 3.18%, respectively. “This figure includes those who came on merit and also those who were recruited under the reservation quota. Despite this, the total strength does not exceed the prescribed quota,” he added. He argued, “The case does not affect Karnataka. There are 131 applications pertaining to the issue concerning the Centre and different States that are pending the Supreme Court. Reservation in promotion policy cannot be reviewed in State each time. The 1992 Supreme Court nine-judge Bench order in the Indra Sawhney case is the basis for us. Subsequently, the court has clarified in the 1995 R.K. Sabharwal case too.” As it is, he pointed out that there is an anomaly in implementing the reservation in promotion after B. K. Pavithra II case, and several departments are yet to implement it. He said: “Reservation in promotion should be considered comprehensively. AHIMSA is creating confusion and the latest from the apex court is not even a final judgment.” On the demand for roster to operate only till the prescribed limit is achieved, he said: “Merit should also be considered. In such a scenario, the same rule — if applied to all — will hurt general category employees who are recruited under the reservation for other backward communities and minorities where no such capping exists.”
