CASE NAME
Ashok Kumar Gupta,Vidya Sagar and others versus State Of Uttar Pradesh [1997 (5) SCC 201]
*PROVISIONS INVOLVED*:
Articles 13, 14, 16, 21, 142 and 145 of The Constitution of India.
*FACTS*
1. Petitioner Ashok Kumar Gupta and Vidya Sagar were Employee in the Public Works Department.
2. *They were sanguine about their promotion on behalf of their caliber and seniority,But State despair their optimism, And unflinchingly Practice Reservation in Promotional Matters.*
3. Downcasting from this act of government, they bring the Writ Petition to the High Court and aware them about the real condition,
4. *We may look on the exacting words they quote in their writ are*,
5. promotion of respondents 2 to 10 (in the writ petition) the 2nd respondent (in the civil appeal) to the post of Superintending Engineers (Civil), Chief Engineer Level-II (Civil, Chief Engineer, Level-I and Engineer-in-Chief in Public Works Department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to restrain the first respondent from Nos. 2 to 10.
6. *They also seek writ of certiorari to quash the orders dated March 12, 1981 appointing the second respondent as Superintending Engineer on ad hoc basis an on regular basis w.e.f. April 10, 1991 as temporary Chief Engineer by order dated November 7, 1994 and orders promoting Harbans Lal and others as Superintending Engineers.*
7. There were so any contentions and facts were present, many leading case laws managing relationship with the above object whether it is 77th Amendment Act or Delhi Judicial Services Case.
8. *Learned Advocate General Represent their view on legality of reservation in promotion, while Appellant Lawyer, Advocate their litigation on behalf of the said petitioner.*
9. High Court of Allahabad gave it’s judgement that the promotion of respondents to the senior post was based on the reservation and is perfectly legal and does not violate any rule of law.
10. *Also, it dismissed the writ petition filed by the Petitioner appealing that there should not be reservation in promotion, instead it should be made on behalf of seniority or the time a officer or public officer spent in the office.*
11. For the same grievance, Petitioner knock the door of honourable Supreme Court with a fresh Civil Appellant Petition through Special leave petition under art 136 of the India Constitution.
*ISSUE*:
1. Is Right to Reservation in Promotion a Fundamental Right?
2. Is promotion of respondent legal and valid?
*OBSERVATION*:
1. That Promotion of Respondent on the basis of Reservation is fair and Legal.
2. Here we quote some latest part from the Supreme Court judgement in this case,
“It is already seen that the rule of reservation in promotions was in vogue in the State of Uttar Pradesh right from 1973 and the promotions came to be made from 1981 onwards to the respondents 2 to 10. The U.P. Act saves the existing policy of reservation in promotions. The judgment in Mandal case saves the promotions already made. In Sabharwal’s case also a Constitution Bench has upheld the validity of the promotions given in excess of the roster; otherwise also those promoted on their own merit were held to be validly promoted. Even excess promotions remained undisturbed and the law became operative only from the date of the judgment. This Court upheld the previous promotions, though in excess of the roster system, as constitutional and valid. Therefore, we hold that the promotions of the respondents are legal and valid and they do not become void or unconstitutional as contended.”
*HELD*:
1. Both, the appeal and the writ petition are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs
2. Right to Reservation in Promotion is not a Fundamental Right. The matter of reservation in promotion is solely on the discretion of the state. It is the discretionary power of the state legislation whether to allow in or not.
3. Allowing Reservation in Promotion is purely rest on the conscience of states.
Author: Ananya Pandey,
Law student 3rd b.a.llb marathwada mitra mandal's shankarrao chavan law college
