The Case of Mukesh Kumar v The State of Uttarakhand (2020)

August 2, 2024

The Supreme Court decided that state governments are not required to fill positions for SCs, STs, and OBCs in compliance with the reservation laws. Over a series of appeals filed by Mukesh Kumar against the reservation of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes candidates for promotions to the position of Assistant Engineer (Civil), PWD, Uttarakhand Govt., the court rendered a ruling. The Uttarakhand state government was not ordered by the Supreme Court to provide these applicants reservation in order to fill open positions. Given that the availability of reservations depends on judgment. As a result, the writ of mandamus was not issued by the court to provide instructions.

mukesh kumar v the state of Uttarakhand Case Facts

  • This lawsuit concerns the issue of promotion reservations for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (also known as “SC and ST communities”) for a range of positions in the State of Uttarakhand. The Supreme Court heard an appeal based on subsequent High Court rulings.
  • The government’s decision to fill all open positions in the public sector without giving any preference to the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes population is invalidated.
  • A directive was given to the State Government about the gathering of quantitative information regarding the degree of representation that the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes group receive.
  • A directive to the State government stating that only people from the SC and ST communities should be considered for any upcoming openings for assistant engineer positions.

mukesh kumar v the state of Uttarakhand Issues

  • Is it required of the state government to grant reservations to STs and SCs?
  • Is it the State government’s responsibility to advance the clauses pertaining to SC and ST reservations?
  • Does the ability to make reservations come under the definition of a fundamental right?

Contentions by the Parties

Appellant:

  • First, the reserved candidates’ learned attorney contended that the state should never decline to gather the data required to make reservations for public services.
  • Second, they argued that in order to uphold Article 14 and the right to equality, the state must provide public services designated for the advancement of society in accordance with Articles 16(4) and 16(4A) of the Indian Constitution.

Respondent:

  • Respondent’s knowledgeable counsel contended that the state has no constitutional requirement or duty to provide reservation and clarified that there is no right to file a writ petition asserting reservation.
  • Additionally, the state made it quite evident that they would not be hesitant to promote someone. Consequently, the M Nagaraj case had no bearing because it did not apply in this situation.

mukesh kumar v the state of Uttarakhand Judgment

  • The Honorable Supreme Court ruled that State Government Authorities are not obligated to create a reservation for the purpose of promoting public appointments or positions to members of the SCs or STs.
  • No writ of mandamus may be made for the purpose of promoting reservation since it does not fit within the scope of the fundamental rights that may be upheld.
  • The court additionally ruled that no fundamental right has been granted so that a person might go and assert their constitutional and promotion rights.
  • The court went on to say that Articles 16(4) and 16(4)-A are enabling provisions, giving the State Government the freedom to consider and make reservations in the event that circumstances demand it. The information gathered by the government is simply utilized to support the reasons behind certain groups of people’s reservations.
  • The state government is under no duty to advance reservation-related provisions, nor can it be obliged to provide evidence in the form of quantitative statistics attesting to the proper representation of SCs and STs in positions of state government services.
  • The High Court’s order that only SCs and STs be considered for all prospective Assistant Engineer positions was overruled by the Honorable Supreme Court using this logic. further declared that the ruling was wholly irrational and in breach of the Constitution’s requirements.

The bench’s decision that the “state is not bound to make reservations” is risky since it distorts the fundamental elements of the constitution. However, we believe that giving reservations for promotions will simply serve to maintain inequality rather than work to eradicate it. To make a deliberate choice, the state must nevertheless sift the quantitative facts regarding the amount of SC/ST representation in public positions.

With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!

For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf

Leave a Comment