(State of Madras Vs. Smt. Champakam Dorairanjan AIR 1951 SC 226)

M R Balaji v Mysore AIR 1963 SC 649

included promotions. This was overruled in Indira Sawhney & Ors v. Union of India. AIR 1993 SC 477 : 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 and held that Reservations cannot be applied in promotions.

Union of India Vs Varpal Singh AIR 1996 SC 448,

Ajitsingh Januja & Ors Vs State of Punjab AIR 1996 SC 1189,

Ajitsingh Januja & Ors Vs State of Punjab & Ors AIR 1999 SC 3471,

M.G. Badappanavar Vs State of Karnataka 2001 (2) SCC 666.

77th Constitution amendment (Art 16(4 A) & (16 4B) introduced to make judgement as invalid.

M. Nagraj & Ors v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 2007 SC 71 held the amendments constitutional.

1. Art. 16(4)(A) and 16(4)(B) flow from Art. 16(4). Those constitutional amendments do not alter structure of Art. 16(4).

2. Backwardness and inadequacy of representation are the controlling/compelling reasons for the state to provide reservations keeping in mind the overall efficiencies of state administration.

3. Government has to apply cadre strength as a unit in the operation of the roaster in order to ascertain whether a given class/group is adequately represented in the service. Roaster has to be post specific with inbuilt concept of replacement and not vacancy based.

4. If any authority thinks that for ensuring adequate representation of backward class or category, it is necessary to provide for direct recruitment therein, it shall be open to do so.

5. Backlog vacancies to be treated as a distinct group and are excluded from the ceiling limit of 50%.

6. If a member from reserved category gets selected in general category, his selection will not be counted against the quota limit provided to his class and reserved category candidates are entitled to compete for the general category post.

7. The reserved candidates are entitled to compete with the general candidates for promotion to the general post in their own right. On their selection, they are to be adjusted in the general post as per the roster and the reserved candidates should be adjusted in the points earmarked in the roster to the reserved candidates.

8. Each post gets marked for the particular category of candidate to be appointed against it and any subsequent vacancy has to be filled by that category alone (replacement theory).

R K Sabharwal Vs St of Punjab AIR 1995 SC 1371 : (1995) 2 SCC 745.

The operation of a roster, for filling the cadre-strength, by itself ensures that the reservation remains within the 50% limit.

Ajitsingh Januja & Ors Vs State of Punjab AIR 1996 SC 1189

it was held that a roster point promotees getting the benefit of accelerated promotion would not get consequential seniority and the seniority between the reserved category candidates and general candidates in promoted category shall be governed by their panel position. This was overruled in

Jagdish Lal and others v. State of Haryana and Others (1997) 6 SCC 538 it held that the date of continuous officiation has to be taken into account and if so, the roster- point promotees were entitled to the benefit of continuous officiation.

Ajitsingh Januja & Ors Vs State of Punjab & Ors AIR 1999 SC 3471 overruled Jagdish Lal

M G Badappanvar Vs St of Karnataka 2001(2) SCC 666 : AIR 2001 SC 260 held that roster promotions were meant only for the limited purpose of due representation of backward classes at various levels of service and therefore, such roster promotions did not confer consequential seniority to the roster point promotee.

M. Nagraj & Ors v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 2007 SC 71 held the amendments constitutional.

Jagdish Lal and others v. State of Haryana and Others (1997) 6 SCC 538 it held that the date of continuous officiation has to be taken into account and if so, the roster- point promotees were entitled to the benefit of continuous officiation.

M. Nagraj & Ors v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 2007 SC 71 held the amendments constitutional.

Reservation in promotion is dependent on the inadequacy of representation of members of SC, ST and backward classes and subject to the condition of ascertaining whether such reservation was at all required. As no exercise was undertaken to acquire quantifiable data regarding in adequacy of representation. The Rajasthan High Court rightly quashed the notifications providing for consequential seniority and promotion to the members of SC and ST communities and the same does not call for any interference.

S. Balakrishnan Vs. S. Chandrasekar (28/2/2005)

The Government of Tamil Nadu Vs. Registration Department SC/ST (9/12/2005)

The Madras High Court has held that reservation in promotion is available only to SC and ST and not to backward class (OBC) and most backward class (MBC)

Sudam Shankar Baviskar Vs. Edu. Off. (Sec), Z.P. Jalgaon 2007 (2) MhLJ 802. Held that consequential seniority is not available to VJNT.

Held that when a person is selected on the basis of his own seniority, the scope of considering and counting him against reserved quota does not arise.

I.R. Coelho (Dead) by LRS. Vs. State of T.N. 2007 (2) SCC 1 : 2007 AIR(SC) 861

Held, Ninth Schedule law has already been upheld by the court, it would not be open to challenge such law again on the principles declared by this judgment. However, if a law held to be violative of any rights in Part III is subsequently incorporated in the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973, such a violation/infraction shall be open to challenge on the ground that it destroys or damages the basic structure as indicated in Article 21 read with Article 14, Article 19 and the principles underlying thereunder. Action taken and the transactions finalized as a result of the impugned Acts shall not be open to challenge.

Pradesh & Ors. (1993 (1) SCC 645), it was held that right to establish educational

institutions can neither be a trade or business nor can it be a

profession within the meaning of Article 19(1)(g). This was

overruled in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481,

P.A.Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra 2005 AIR(SC) 3226

Supreme court ruled that reservations cannot be enforced on Private Unaided educational institutions.

Ashoka Kumar Thakur vs. Union of India^[5]

1. The Constitution (Ninety-Third Amendment) Act, 2005 does

not violate the "basic structure" of the Constitution so far as it

relates to the state maintained institutions and aided educational

institutions. Question whether the Constitution (Ninety-Third

Amendment) Act, 2005 would be constitutionally valid or not so far

as "private unaided" educational institutions are concerned, is left

open to be decided in an appropriate case.

2."Creamy layer" principle is one of the parameters to identify backward classes. Therefore, principally, the "Creamy layer" principle cannot be applied to STs and SCs, as SCs

and STs are separate classes by themselves.

3. Preferably there should be a review after ten years to take note of the change of circumstances.

4. A mere graduation (not technical graduation) or professional deemed to be educationally forward.

5. Principle of exclusion of Creamy layer applicable to OBC's.

6. The Central Government shall examine as to the desirability of fixing a cut off marks in

respect of the candidates belonging to the Other Backward Classes (OBCs) to balance reservation with other societal interests and to maintain standards of excellence. This would ensure quality and merit would not suffer. If any seats remain vacant after adopting such norms they shall be filled up by candidates from general categories.

7. So far as determination of backward classes is concerned, a Notification should be issued

by the Union of India. This can be done only after exclusion of the creamy layer for which

necessary data must be obtained by the Central Government from the State Governments and Union Territories. Such Notification is open to challenge on the ground of wrongful exclusion or inclusion. Norms must be fixed keeping in view the peculiar features in different States and

Union Territories. There has to be proper identification of Other Backward Classes (OBCs.). For identifying backward classes, the Commission set up pursuant to the directions of this Court in Indra Sawhney 1 has to work more effectively and not merely decide applications for inclusion or exclusion of castes.

8. The Parliament should fix a deadline by which time free and compulsory education will have

reached every child. This must be done within six months, as the right to free and compulsory

education is perhaps the most important of all the fundamental rights (Art.21 A). For without education, it becomes extremely difficult to exercise other fundamental rights.

9. If material is shown to the Central Government that the Institution deserves to be included in the Schedule (institutes which are excluded from reservations) of The Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 (No. 5 of 2007), the Central Government must take an appropriate decision on the basis of materials placed and on examining the concerned issues as to whether Institution deserves to be included in the Schedule of the said act as provided in Sec 4 of the said act.

10. Held that the determination of SEBCs is done not solely based on caste and hence, the identification of SEBCs is not violative of Article 15(1) of the Constitution.