Junior Science Refresher

Junior Science Refresher

Junior Science Refresher Published this article page no 15  if the decision of the state government to provide reservations in promotion is challenged then the state concerned will have to place before the court the quantifiable data that reservations became necessary on account of inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs without affecting general efficiency of administration as mandated by Article 335. Analysis of the judgement  The fact that reservation cannot be claimed as a fundamental right is a settled position under the law and has been pointed out by several judgments in the past. o In 1967 a fivejudge bench in C.A. Rajendran v. Union of India held that the government is under no constitutional duty to provide reservations for SCs and STs either at the initial stage of recruitment or at the stage of promotion. o The position went on to be reiterated in several other decisions including the ninejudge bench ruling in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) and the fivejudge bench decision in M Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006).  Although this position of law is a settled one it is nonetheless at odds with certain other principles at the heart of the constitutional vision of equality. o In NM Thomas judgement (1976) the Supreme Court held that the Constitution was committed to an idea of substantive equality i.e. it had to take the actual circumstances of people into account when determining what constituted equal treatment. o The principled reason for this position was that groups of people who face structural and institutional barriers towards being able to compete on equal terms with others in society  for reasons that are historical but whose effects are enduring  must be treated in a way that mitigates those existing conditions of inequality. o Reservations  under this understanding  were a means to bring about genuine and true equality and not a set of privileges or gifts Junior Science Refresher buy. 

Junior Science Refresher