Login With Google
Centre pushes for quota in promotion for SCs/STs
Why it is in news?
- Citing “1000 of years of deprivation” suffered by Dalit communities the government began its push for providing “accelerated promotion with consequential seniority” for Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes (SC/ST) members in public employment.
- Following a 2006 judgment of the Supreme Court, the government cannot introduce a quota in promotion for its SC/ST employees unless they prove that the particular Dalit community is backward, inadequately represented and such a reservation in promotion would not affect the overall efficiency of public administration.
- The opinion of the government should also be based on quantifiable data.
- The 2006 Nagaraj judgment was pronounced by a five-judge Constitution Bench.
- Now, the government wants another five-judge Constitution Bench to refer the 2006 verdict to a larger Bench for a re-examination.
- It had said that the 2006 verdict had effectively created an “impossible situation” for providing accelerated promotions with consequential seniority for SC/ST communities in government services.
Presumed backward
- Attorney-General submitted that the SC/ST communities have faced centuries of deprivation at the hands of society.
- They have been deprived of access to temples, schools and the basic facilities of life.
- Even today, Dalit grooms cannot ride horses.
- The Attorney-General added that the State needs to show “affirmative action” by giving them equality of opportunity.
- The government objected to a creamy layer concept among the SC/ST
- Government said it wanted a total of 22.5% (15% for SC+7.5% for ST) posts reserved for promotion for SC/ST in public employment.
- Only this quantum would satisfy their need for adequate representation.
Nagraj Case
- The Nagaraj judgment was mean to find “a stable equilibrium between justice to the backwards, equity for the forwards and efficiency for the entire system”.
- In fact, the Nagaraj judgment said the three qualifiers were meant to prevent “reverse discrimination” by State.
- It is made clear that even if the state has compelling reasons the state will have to see that its reservation provision does not lead to excessiveness so as to breach the ceiling limit of 50% or obliterate the creamy layer or extend reservation indefinitely
Source
The Hindu