Mukesh Kumar v.​​ The State Of Uttarakhand​​ 2020 | Current Affairs & General Knowledge - CLAT PDF Download

Facts

The facts of this case are that the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservations for SCs, STs, and OBCs) act of 1994 was enacted by the respective state government with the aim of providing reservations in various public services and posts to the persons from the category of SC, ST and also to OBCs. Section 3(1) provided for the reservations to the category of persons indirect recruitment, whereas section 3(7) dealt with the reservations in promotions. The orders shall be made therewith until it is modified or revoked.

Issues framed

• Few of the main issues that were present before the two-judge bench was,
• Whether state government has any obligation to provide the reservation in the public posts and recruitments or not?
• Secondly, whether such a decision not to provide any reservation in the posts shall require any statistical data relating to the adequacy in representations of the people in SC/STs or not?

Laws involved

• Sections 3(1) and 3(7) of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservations for SCs, STs, and OBCs) act of 1994
• Article 16(4) – State shall have the power to provide reservation in public posts to those persons from SC/ST if the state thinks that they are adequately represented in public services.
• Article 16(4-A) – reservation in promotions for SC/STs if the state thinks that they are not adequately represented.

Contentions

• Learned counsel appearing for the reserved candidates firstly contended that the state should not, at any time, refuse to collect the required data for the purpose of making the reservation in public services. 
• Secondly, they pointed out that there is an obligation on the part of the state to provide the reservation in public services so as to enable the upliftment of society as provided under Article 16(4) and 16(4A) of the Indian Constitution. Failure of such would be a violation of article 14 and the right to equality.
• On the other hand, learned counsel for appellants argued that the state has no duty or obligation in providing the reservation under the constitutional provisions, and also, there is no right to claim reservation through a writ petition. It was also contended that the appellant state has already mentioned that they shall have no reservation in the promotions. There was no scope of the M Nagaraj case as the same was not the same scenario in this case.

Decision

• Firstly, the court noted and held that the state government should have no obligation to make the reservation in the public posts, and also no person shall enjoy a fundamental right over the same and shall have no issuance of mandamus against the same. Basically, it noted there is no right with the person from SC/STs to enforce the reservations if not made by the respective governments.
• Secondly, referred to the earlier judgment in the case of Indra Sawhney, M Nagaraj, and also Jarnail Singh and held that Article 16(4) and section 16(4A) are just an enabling provision and in order to enable the government, there should be enough data to back that there is no enough representation of the persons belonging to Scheduled caste and scheduled tribes especially in the public posts. If it thinks so that reservation is necessary for the representation for the purpose under articles of the constitution, then only can the government shall make reservations.
• It was also held that in order to make the reservation, the collection of data is a pre-requisite and if the state thinks there is no reservation required, then such data is also not required to be collected by the government through its committee for the same. In this manner, the government shall have no duty to state its reason as to why such a reservation is not required.