The recent legal case delves into the crucial aspect of establishing separate zones of consideration for promotion quoto, impacting the reservation policy and backlog vacancies in various departments. The court’s analysis focuses on the legality and rationality of maintaining distinct zones of consideration for different categories, ensuring the efficacy and fairness of the reservation system. Let’s explore the nuances of this legal debate and its implications on promoting equality and inclusivity in the workforce.
Facts
- Union of India has filed three appeals regarding the creation of a separate zone of consideration for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates for promotion to the post of Superintendent in various departments.
- The Civil Appeal No. 3314 of 2010 pertains to an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal and affirmed by the High Courts, directing a separate zone of consideration for promotion of SC/ST candidates to the post of Superintendent in Customs and Central Excise Commissionerate.
- The grievance of Scheduled Tribe applicants was due to a backlog of vacancies for the post of Superintendent which remained unfilled as suitable candidates were not available within the existing zone of consideration.
- Another Office Memorandum was issued on 6.1.2006 subsequent to the initial appeals.
- The Tribunal found the Office Memorandum dated 30.9.1983, restricting the zone of consideration to five times of the posts, to be illegal.
- This decision was based on previous rulings in U.P. Rajya Vidyut Parishad SC/ST Karamchari Kalyan Sangh v. U.P. State Electricity Board & Ors.; C.D. Bhatia & Ors v. Union of India & Ors.; and, Basudeo Anil & Ors v. Union of India & Ors.
- An earlier Office Memorandum dated 24.12.1980 contemplated a different zone of consideration.
- Subsequent Office Memorandums in 1983 regulated ad-hoc promotions for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates, with the 30.9.1983 memorandum restricting the zone of consideration.
- The order in Basudeo Anil found the condition of restricting the number of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates to five times the vacancies as provided in the 30.9.1983 memorandum to be illegal.
- The Office Memorandum dated 30.9.1983 was withdrawn on 15.3.2002 in light of the judgment in Basudeo Anil, with ad-hoc promotions to be regulated as per instructions dated 30.4.1983.
Also Read: Landmark Judgment on Compensation for Fatal Accident
Arguments
- The petitioner argues that there should be separate zone of consideration for general category and reserved category candidates without clubbing them together.
- It is contended that if backlog vacancies are not filled up after 2002, the Union can de-reserve those vacancies, potentially impacting reserved category candidates.
- The petitioner refers to past court orders and contends that filling of vacancies through reservation should be post-based and roster points for Scheduled Tribes should only be filled by Scheduled Tribes.
- It is argued that a separate zone of consideration for each category is necessary to uphold the reservation policy.
- The petitioner emphasizes that joint zone of consideration for different categories is a violation of Article 16(4A) of the Constitution.
- Reliance is placed on certain court orders to support the argument that enlarging the zone of consideration for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates is not arbitrary or illegal.
- The petitioner points out that non-filling of backlog vacancies in promotion quota is due to the application of a common zone of consideration.
- It is argued that for a special drive to fill backlog vacancies reserved for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates, a separate non-joint zone of consideration should be prepared for each category.
- The petitioner challenges the inclusion of general category candidates in the zone of consideration for such special drive promotions, deeming it illogical and against the purpose of reservation.
- Reference is made to various court cases to highlight the importance of reasonableness, non-arbitrariness, and rationality in limiting the zone of consideration and shortlisting candidates.
- Overall, the petitioner advocates for maintaining separate zones of consideration for different categories to ensure the effectiveness of the reservation policy.
- The entire case of the candidates has been presented in an untenable manner.
- The arguments presented by learned counsel for the parties do not hold up.
- Reference was made to the Office Memorandum dated 24.12.1980, along with other relevant Office Memorandums, which were subject to consideration.
Also Read: Land Acquisition Compensation Legal Analysis
Analysis
- The Tribunal and the High Courts overlooked the distinction between ad hoc promotions and regular promotions
- The candidates’ grievance was regarding filling up of backlog vacancies, not regular or ad hoc promotions
- The Tribunal failed to consider the issue of seniority due to Inter Commissionerate transfer
- Revised guidelines for optimizing the size of consideration zone were issued by DoPT independent of Tribunal’s order
- The High Court and Tribunal erred in applying ad hoc promotion criteria to regular promotions
- The Office Memorandum dated 24.12.1980 validity was upheld previously, making it unnecessary to test its validity again for filling up backlog vacancies or ad hoc promotions
Also Read: Legal Analysis in Land Allotment Case
Case Title: UNION OF INDIA Vs. GOPAL MEENA (2022 INSC 808)
Case Number: C.A. No.-003314-003314 / 2010
