Reservation In Promotion- Supreme Court Declares That Its Judgment In M. Nagaraj Shall Have Only Prospective Effect

  • Post category:Daily Judgments
  • Reading time:4 mins read

Reservation In Promotion- Supreme Court Declares That Its Judgment In M. Nagaraj Shall Have Only Prospective Effect

Case: Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta

Coram: Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Sanjiv Khanna and BR Gavai

Case No.: CA 629 of 2022

Court Observation: “Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for reservation in matters of promotion to any class or classes of posts in the services under the State in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes which, in the opinion of the State, are not adequately represented in the services under the State”

This Court in Golak Nath (supra) and Ashok Kumar Gupta (supra), referred to above, has laid down that Article 142 empowers this Court to mould the relief to do complete justice. To conclude this point, the purpose of holding that M. Nagaraj (supra) would have prospective effect is only to avoid chaos and confusion that would ensue from its retrospective operation, as it would have a debilitating effect on a very large number of employees, who may have availed of reservation in promotions without there being strict compliance of the conditions prescribed in M. Nagaraj (supra). Most of them would have already retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. The judgment of M. Nagaraj (supra) was delivered in 2006, interpreting Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution which came into force in 1995. As making the principles laid down in M. Nagaraj (supra) effective from the year 1995 would be detrimental to the interests of a number of civil servants and would have an effect of unsettling the seniority of individuals over a long period of time, it is necessary that the judgment of M. Nagaraj (supra) should be declared to have prospective effect.”

Previous Posts

Supreme Court Refuses To Express Views On Discontinuation Of Reservation; Moots Periodical Review Of Data On Inadequate Representation

Before Providing Reservation In Promotions To A Cadre, State Obligated To Collect Quantifiable Data Regarding Inadequacy Of Representation Of SC/STs: Supreme Court

Experiment is Not An Ordinary Measure; Must Be Resorted To Sparingly And in Extraordinary Circumstances: Supreme Court

Suspension Of MLA Beyond Ongoing Session Unconstitutional As Constituency Remains Unrepresented: Supreme Court

No Place For Disorderly Conduct In Parliament Or State Assembly; Disruption Of Legislative Business Disheartening: Supreme Court

Existence Of Alternate Remedy Does Not Bar Exercise Of Writ Jurisdiction If Order Is Challenged For Want Of Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Download Judgement