Early Times Report
Srinagar, Dec 15: Supreme Court (SC) has ordered maintenance of 'status quo' on reservation in promotions in Jammu and Kashmir even as it issued notice returnable within four weeks to the respondents.
"Issue notices returnable in four weeks, Status quo, as of today, be maintained in the meanwhile," a Division Bench of the apex court comprising Justice Madan B. Lokur and Justice SA. Bobde said while hearing special leave petitions (SLP) filed by private parties challenging the J&K High Court's October 9 order.
In a landmark judgment, the State High Court had held that there shall be no benefit of reservation in promotions in the state and struck down Section 6 of Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Act, 2004 and Rules 9, 10 and 34 of Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules 2005.
"The dispute, as bare look on the issue identified would reveal, relates to right of Reserved Category Government servants, to accelerated promotion provided under Section 6, J&K Reservation Act, 2004 read with Rule 9 and 34, J&K Reservation Rules, 2005. The facts fall in a narrow compass, though issue raised reflects an important question of law," a division bench of the high court comprising Justice Hasnain Massodi and Justice Janak Raj Kotwal had observed.
"Petitioners' case is that Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954, made in exercise of powers conferred by Clause 1 of Article 370 of the Constitution, adds proviso to Clause (2) of Article 368 in its application to the State, providing that no amendment is to have effect in relation to State of Jammu and Kashmir unless applied by a Presidential Order. It is pleaded that as 77th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1995 adding Clause (4A) to Article 16, has not been extended to State of Jammu and Kashmir by Presidential Order under Clause (1) of Article 370, clause (4A) of Article 16 would not be applicable to State," the Division Bench had said.
"It is pleaded that even if Section 6 of Reservation Act and Rules 9, 10 and 34 of Reservation Rules, are assumed to have protection of Clause (4A), Article 16, Constitution of India, yet provision for reservation does not satisfy requirement of Clause (4A), Article 16, inasmuch as no background study has been made and satisfaction recorded regarding inadequate representation of Reserved Category in service under the State", the DB said, adding "petitioners, on strength of averments made in petitions, seek appropriate writ, declaring Section 6 of Reservation Act and Rules 9 and 34 of Reservation Rules to be ultra vires Articles 16 of Constitution of India and in conflict with law laid down by Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney's case". The Division Bench had also observed that the controversy involved in the writ petitions is multi-dimensional. |
