K Pavithra and Ors. vs Union of India and Ors.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

19 March 2020

Case No.

M.A. No. 1323 of 2019

Result

Dismissed

Bench

Uday Umesh Lalit, D.Y. Chandrachud

Citation

[2020] 4 S.C.R. 1041 : 2020 INSC 321

Headnote

Supreme Court Rules, 1966: Or.XL – On 10.05.2019, judgment was rendered in B K Pavitra II whereby constitutionality of the Reservation Act 2018 was upheld – Government of Karnataka issued GO dated 15.05.2019 – The Preamble to the GO noted that on 27.02.2019, instructions were issued for implementing Reservation Act 2018 subject to judgment that was to be delivered on the validity of Reservation Act 2018 – Following the judgment in B K Pavitra II upholding the Reservation Act 2018, the Government of Karnataka by GO dated 15.05.2019 directed all appointing authorities to abide by GO dated 27.02.2019 in implementation of the Reservation Act 2018 – On 24.06.2019, a circular was issued by the Government of Karnataka noting that while preparing seniority lists in conformity with GO dated 27.02.2019, meetings were held following which a list of FAQs was prepared with the answers – Grievance of the applicants is that until the backlog is cleared, the proportion of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes will exceed 15% and 3% – MAs challenging the action of State Government to carry into effect the provisions of the Reservation Act, 2018 – Maintainability of – Held: The judgment in B K Pavitra II concerned the constitutional validity of the Reservation Act 2018 and not actions taken thereunder or in pursuance of its implementation – The instant MAs, though styled as applications for directions, sought to lay challenge to the actions of the State government to carry into effect the provisions of the Reservation Act 2018 – This is clear from the nature of the reliefs sought in the MAs, which impugn both GO dated 15 May 2019 and Circular dated 24 June 2019, both of which are subsequent to the judgment of this Court in B K Pavitra II – The remedy, styled as directions, sought by the applicants cannot lie in the form of MAs – MAs are in effect a substantive challenge to the actions of the State Government in implementing the Reservation Act 2018 through GO dated 15.05.2019 and the circular dated 24.06.2019 – If the applicants were aggrieved by the steps which were taken by the State Government, it was open to them to pursue a substantive remedy for challenging the steps taken by the State Government in independent proceedings – MAs of this nature are not maintainable – Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservations (to the posts in the Civil Services of the State) Act 2018. Supreme Court Rules, 1966: Or.LV r.6 – Exercise of power under, scope – Held: Or.LV empowers Supreme Court to, for sufficient cause, excuse parties from compliance with any of the requirements of 2013 Rules and issue such directions as it considers just and expedient – r.6 of Or.LV mirrors the constitutional power conferred under Art.142 of the Constitution which empowers the Supreme Court to pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice – Constitution of India – Art.142 – Supreme Court Rules, 2013.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J. 1. On 10 May 2019, this Court delivered its judgment in B K Pavitra & Ors. v Union of India & Ors.1 (“B K Pavitra II”), upholding the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservations (to the Posts in the Civil Services of the State) Act 20182. The conclusion which was arrived at by the Court is extracted below: “144. For the above reasons, we have come to the conclusion that the challenge to the constitutional validity of the R

View Subscription Plans →