http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: S.VINOD KUMAR AND ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       01/10/1996

BENCH: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, K.S. PARIPOORNAN

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T B.P.JEEVAN REDDY,J.      Leave granted. Heard the counsel for the parties.      In  Indra  Sawhney  etc.  v.  Union  &  Ors.etc.  [1992 Suppl.(3) S.C.C.215],  this Court  had, while declaring that Article 16(4)  does not contemplate or permit reservation in the matter  of promotions,  declared that  for  the  several reasons stated  therein, the reservations already made shall continue for  a period  of five  years from  the date of the said judgment.   In  Para 829  [at Page 747] of the majority judgment,  it  was  directed  that  "our  decision  on  this question shall  operate only  prospectively  and  shall  not affect  promotions   already  made,  whether  on  temporary, officiating  or   regular/permanent  basis.  It  is  further directed that  wherever reservations are already provided in the matter  of promotion-be  it Central  Services  or  State Services, or for that matter services under any corporation, authority or body falling under the definition of ’State’ in Article 12-such reservations shall continue in operation for a period  of five  years from  this day".  Then, in the next para, Para  831, the  majority judgment  made the  following observations:      "We must also make it clear that it      would not  be impermissible for the      State  to  extend  concessions  and      relaxations to  members of reserved      categories   in   the   matter   of      promotion without  compromising the      efficiency of  the  administration.      The relaxation  concerned in  State      of Kerala  v. N.M.Thomas  (1976)  2      SCC 310, and the concessions namely      carrying forward  of vacancies  and      provisions      for      in-service      coaching/training     in      Akhil      Bharatiya Soshit  Karamchari  Sangh      v. Union  of India,  (1981)  1  SCC      246,   are    instances   of   such      concessions    and     relaxations.      However,   it    would    not    be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

    permissible  to   prescribe   lower      qualifying marks  or a lesser level      of evaluation  for the  members  of      reserved  categories   since   that      would compromise  the efficiency of      administration. We  reiterate  that      while  it  may  be  permissible  to      prescribe   a   reasonably   lesser      qualifying marks  or evaluation for      the OBCs,  SCs and STs - consistent      with     the      efficiency     of      administration and  the  nature  of      duties  attaching   to  the  office      concerned - in the matter of direct      recruitment, such  a  course  would      not be permissible in the matter of      promotions for the reasons recorded      hereinabove."      Sawant, J.  expressed himself  on this  aspect in  Para 549, which reads:      "There is no doubt that the meaning      of the  various expressions used in      Article 16, viz., ’matters relating      to employment or appointment to any      office’,  and     ’appointments  or      posts’ cannot  be whittled  down to      mean only  initial recruitment  and      hence  the   normal  rule   of  the      service jurisprudence  of the  loss      of  the   birth  marks   cannot  be      applied to  the  appointments  made      under  the   article.  However,  as      pointed out  earlier, the exclusive      quota  is  not  the  only  form  of      reservation and where the resort to      it  such   as  in  the  promotions,      results in  the inefficiency of the      administration, it  is illegal. But      that is not the end of the road nor      is  a   backward   class   employee      helpless on account of its absence.      Once he  gets an  equal opportunity      to show  his talent  by coming into      the mainstream, all he needs is the      facility to  achieve equal results.      The facility  can be  and  must  be      given  to   him  in   the  form  of      concessions, exemptions  etc.  such      as   relaxation   of   age,   extra      attempts    for     passing     the      examinations, extra training period      etc. along  with the  machinery for      impartial  assessment   as   stated      above. Such  facilities when  given      are also  a part of the reservation      programme and  do not  fall foul of      the requirement  of the  efficiency      of   the    administration.    Such      facilities, however, are imperative      if,  not   only  the   equality  of      opportunity but  also the  equality      of results  is to be achieved which      is the true meaning of the right to      equality."      The question  before the  Madras  State  Administrative

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

Tribunal was  whether the saving of reservations provided in Para 829  takes within  its purview the provisions providing for lesser  qualifying marks  in the  qualifying examination for promotion.  The  Tribunal  held  that  inasmuch  as  the expression "reservation"  provided in  Article  16(4)  takes within  its   fold  concessions   and  facilities  including provision for  lesser qualifying  marks  in  the  qualifying examination for promotion, such a provision is also saved by virtue  of  the  declaration  contained  in  Para  829.  The declaration made by the Tribunal reads thus:      "14. We  therefore  hold  that  the      status  quo   in  the   matter   of      reservations in  promotion required      to be  maintained  by  the  Supreme      Court for  five years,  would  also      include status quo being maintained      in the matter of prescribing lesser      qualifying marks  in the qualifying      examination for  promotion,  within      which period  the authorities could      take the  steps  indicated  in  the      judgment.      15.  In  view  of  what  is  stated      above, we  hold that  the  impugned      Memorandum cannot  be assailed  and      are legally sustainable."      The memorandum  referred to in Para 15 aforesaid is the Memorandum dated  January 21, 1977 which provided that where the promotions are made on the basis of seniority subject to fitness and  where  a  qualifying  examination  is  held  to determine the fitness of the candidates for such promotions, suitable relaxation  in  the  qualifying  standard  in  such examination should  be made  for Scheduled  Castes/Scheduled Tribes to the extent of the relaxation to be decided on each occasion, whenever  such examination  was held,  taking into account  all   relevant  factors  including  the  number  of vacancies reserved, performance of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates  as well  as the general candidates in that examination, the minimum standard of fitness for appointment to the  post and  the overall strength of the cadre and that of  the   Scheduled  Caste/Scheduled  Tribe  in  that  cadre [Purport of  the Office  Memorandum taken from Para-2 of the Tribunal’s  judgment].   Pursuant   to   the   said   Office Memorandum, the  Government of  Tamil Nadu  has been issuing orders from  time to  time providing lesser qualifying marks for  passing   the  qualifying  examination  prescribed  for promotion, in the case of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe.      The precise  question raised  before the  Tribunal  was whether the  said provision  is  saved  by  the  declaration contained in Para 829 of this Court’s judgment.      Having heard the counsel for the parties and considered the various opinions in Indra Sawhney, we are of the opinion that the  very posing  of the question as well as the answer given by the Tribunal are erroneous and unsustainable.      According to  Para 831, extracted hereinabove, while it is "permissible  to prescribe a reasonably lesser qualifying marks or  evaluation for  the OBCs, SCs and STs - consistent with the  efficiency of  administration and  the  nature  of duties attaching  to the office concerned - in the matter of direct requirement,  such a  course would not be permissible in  the   matter  of  promotion  for  the  reasons  recorded hereinabove". At  the same  time, it  is held that "it would not be impermissible for the State to extend concessions and relaxations  to   members  of  reserved  categories  of  the administration. The  relaxation concerned  in Thomas and the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

concessions  namely   carrying  forward   of  vacancies  and provisions for  in-service coaching/training  in  Karamchari Sangh are  instances of  such concessions  and  relaxations. However, it  would not  be permissible  to  prescribe  lower qualifying marks  or a  lesser level  of evaluation  for the members of  reserved categories  since that would compromise the efficiency  of administration." The relaxation concerned in State  of Kerala  v N.M.  Thomas [1976  (2) S.C.C.310] is also set  out in  Para 713  of the  majority  judgment.  The concession was  providing "temporary  exemption  to  members already in  service belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes from passing all tests (unified, special or departmental  test) for  a period  of two years..... They were required  to  pass  the  tests  within  the  period  of exemption." So  far as  the concessions  in Akhil  Bharatiya Soshit  Karamchari   Sangh  v.  Union  of  India  [1981  (1) S.C.C.246] are  concerned, they  are specified  in Para  831 itself  as  referring  to  carrying  forward  vacancies  and provisions for  in-service  coaching/training.  It  is  thus clear from  a reading  of Para 831 that so far as promotions are concerned,  it is  not  permissible  to  provide  lesser qualifying marks  of evaluation  in favour  of  OBCs/SCs/STs since   that    would   compromise    the   efficiency    of administration, while the same can be provided in the matter of direct  recruitment. So  far as  promotions are concerned the only  provision permitted  other than  the provision for reservation is  providing the  concessions and  reservations like the ones provided in Thomas and Karamchari Sangh, which do not  take in  provision for  lower qualifying  marks or a lesser level of evaluation.      To the same effect are the observations of Sawant,J. in Para 549,  which we  have extracted hereinabove. The learned Judge also  speaks of  "concessions/exemptions etc.  such as relaxation  of   age,  extra   attempts  for   passing   the examination, extra  training period  etc." The other learned Judges in  their separate  opinions have  merely  held  that reservation in  the matter  of promotions is not permissible under Article 16(4). They have not separately dealt with the concessions and  facilities which  can be  extended to these reserved categories.  [Of course,  one of the learned Judges who constituted  the majority,  Ahmadi,J.  (as  the  learned Chief Justice  then was)  was of the opinion that it was not necessary to  consider in  that case  the  question  whether Article  16(4)   permits  reservation   in  the   matter  of promotions.] In  the light  of the  fact  that  Pandian  and Sawant,JJ. have  agreed with  the conclusions  arrived at in the majority  judgment and  in the  absence of  any contrary proposition in  the opinion  of any  other learned Judge, it must be  held that  the law  on this  question  is  the  one declared in Para 831. We are, therefore, of the opinion that so far as the provision for lower qualifying marks or lesser level of evaluation in the matter of promotion is concerned, it is  not permissible  under Article  16(4) in  view of the command contained  in Article  335 of  the Constitution.  In other words,  even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that reservation is permitted by Article 16(4) in the matter of promotions,  a provision  for lower  qualifying marks  or lesser level  of evaluation is not permissible in the matter of promotions, by virtue of Article 335. If so, there can be no question  of such  a provision  or "concession", as it is called by  the Tribunal,  being saved  by the declaration in Para 829 of the said judgment.      The learned counsel for the parties referred to certain decisions of  this Court  but, in  our opinion, it is wholly unnecessary to  refer to  them since  none of them deal with

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

the question at issue.      The appeal is accordingly allowed with the above clarifications. The order of the Tribunal is set aside. No costs