1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.61 OF 2002

M.NAGARAJ & ORS. ... PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S)

WITH W.P.(C)NO.62/2002, W.P.(C)NO.134/2002, W.P.(C)NO.135/2002, W.P.(C)NO.226/2002,  W.P.(C)NO.227/2002,  W.P.(C)NO.255/2002,  W.P.(C)No.266/2002,  W.P.(C)No.298/2002  W.P.(C)NO.299/2002,  W.P.(C)NO.294/2002,  W.P.(C)NO.319/2002,  W.P.(C)NO.386/2002,  W.P.(C)NO.387/2002,  W.P.(C)NO.320/2002,  W.P.(C)NO.338/2002,  W.P.(C)NO.482/2002,  W.P.(C)NO.483/2002,  W.P.(C)NO.485/2002,  S.L.P.(C)Nos.4915/4919/2003,  Cont.Petn.(C)No.505/2002  in  W.P.(C)NO.61/2002,  Cont.Petn.(C)No.553/2002  in  W.P.(C)NO.266/2002,  Cont.Petn.(C)No.570/2002  in  W.P.(C)No.255/2002,  Cont.Petn.(C)No.122/2003  in  W.P.(C)NO.61/2002,  Cont.Petn.(C)No.127/2003  in  W.P.(C)NO.61/2002,  Cont.Petn.(C)No.85/2003  in  W.P.(C)No.255/2002,  C.A.Nos.12501- 12503/1996,  S.L..P.(C)NO.754/1997,  SLP(C)No.19689/1996  WITH  CONT.PETN.(C)No.404/2004  in  W.P.(C)No.255/2002  AND  SLP(C)NO.14518/2004

O R D E R

WITH  W.P.(C)No.61/202,  W.P.(C)NO.62/2002,  W.P.(C)NO.134/2002,  W.P.(C)NO.135/2002,W.P.(C)NO.226/2002,  W.P.(C)NO.227/2002,  W.P.(C)No.266/2002,  W.P.(C)No.298/2002,   W.P.(C)NO.255/2002,  W.P.(C)NO.299/2002,  W.P.(C)NO.294/2002,  W.P.(C)NO.319/2002,  W.P.(C)NO.386/2002,  W.P.(C)NO.387/2002,  W.P.(C)NO.320/2002,  W.P.(C)NO.338/2002,  W.P.(C)NO.482/2002,  W.P.(C)NO.483/2002,  W.P.(C)NO.485/2002:  

These Writ Petitions, under Article 32, have been filed  

challenging Constitution(Eighty Fifth) Amendment Act, 2001. In terms  

of the said amendment, the State of Karnataka passed an enactment  

giving  benefit  to  its  employees.   The  said  enactment  was  also  

challenged subsequently by amending the Writ Petitions. The main  

challenge against various Constitutional amendments was dealt with  

by  this  Court  in  M.Nagaraj  &  Ors. Vs.  Union  of  India  &  Ors.,  

reported in (2006) 8 SCC p.212. The said Constitutional amendment

2

was upheld by this Court with certain observations vide the above  

judgment.   During  the  course  of  the  pendency  of  these  Writ  

Petitions, on 08.04.2002, this Court passed the following order:

“......Insofar  as  interim  relief  is  concerned,  the  respondents  shall  not  revert  the  petitioners  nor  affect  their  standing  in  the  seniority  list  and  promotion, pay etc.  At the same time, it shall be  open  to  the  respondents  to  promote  those  who  are  benefited by the impugned amendment but so that it  does not affect the petitioners in any manner and  subject to the result of the writ petitions....”

   The  State  of  Karnataka  and  some  of  the  respondents  moved  for  

variation/modification of this interim order and this Court passed  

the following order on 11.11.2002, in supersession of the earlier  

order :

“....These  writ  petitions  involve  the  constitutionality of Article 16(4A).  The Court, by  an interim order, has directed  not to revert any of  the  petitioners  from  their  existing  placement  nor  affect their standing in the seniority list, but at  the same time the provisions of Article 16(4A) can be  implemented and by virtue of that provision if some  of the reserve category candidates are entitled to  promotion, they shall be promoted.  The obvious idea  being the Court should not stay the operation of a  constitutional provision.  The State finds difficulty  in implementing the order on the ground that there  does  not  exist  sufficient  vacancy  of  posts  in  a  particular  cadre  to  give  effect  to  the  provisions  contained in Article 16(4A).  This being an interim  arrangement, we direct that they should apply to the  number  of  vacancies  available  in  a  cadre  to  give  effect  to  the  promotional  policy  and  undoubtedly,  such a promotion can be granted only when the State  makes a provision for reservation in terms of Article  16(4A).  In view of the fact that the implementation  of interim order may cause a lot of chaos in the  service, it is just and proper that the matter should  be finally heard and disposed of and we, therefore,  direct that this batch of writ petitions be listed  before  a  Constitution  Bench  in  the  month  of  February,2003.....”

3

We have made it clear in the judgment of Nagaraj (supra) that “We  

have  not  examined  the  validity  of  individual  enactments  of  

appropriate States and that question will be gone into in individual  

writ petition by the appropriate bench in accordance with law laid  

down by us in the present case”.  Therefore, in our opinion, it is  

desirable that these matters  be considered by the High Court in the  

light of the above observations.  In view of the above, we transfer  

these matters to the file of the Division Bench of High Court of  

Karnataka at Bangalore to be dealt with by it in accordance with  

law. The interim orders of 08.04.2002 and 11.11.2002 shall hold good  

for a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of records.

The Registrar is directed to send all connected records to  

the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore immediately.  Needless to  

say that the High Court will consider the same as expeditiously as  

possible. In the meanwhile, the petitioners would be at liberty to  

move  the  High  Court  within  four  weeks  for  appropriate  interim  

relief, if any, in these proceedings.

All these matters are disposed of accordingly.

Cont.Petn.(C)No.505/2002  in  W.P.(C)NO.61/2002,  Cont.Petn.(C)No.553/2002  in  W.P.(C)NO.266/2002,  Cont.Petn.(C)No.570/2002  in  W.P.(C)No.255/2002,  Cont.Petn.(C)No.122/2003  in  W.P.(C)NO.61/2002,  Cont.Petn.(C)No.127/2003  in  W.P.(C)NO.61/2002,  Cont.Petn.(C)No.85/2003  in  W.P.(C)No.255/2002  WITH  Cont.Petn.(C)No.404/2004 in W.P.(C)No.255/2002:

The  Contempt  Petitions  are  dismissed  as  withdrawn  with  

liberty to move the High Court, if so advised.

C.A.Nos.12501-12503/1996: The Civil Appeals are dismissed as withdrawn with liberty  

to move the High Court.

4

SLP(C)NO.14518/2004:

The Special Leave Petition is dismissed as having become  

infructous.

SLP(C)No.754/1997, SLP(C)No.19689/1996 & SLP(C)Nos.4915-4919/2993:

The  Special  Leave  Petitions  are  dismissed  as  withdrawn  

with liberty to move the High Court.

..................CJI (K.G. BALAKRISHNAN)

...................J. (DEEPAK VERMA)

...................J. (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)

NEW DELHI; 18TH MARCH, 2010