The case of pravakar mallick v state of orissa saw the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India rule on a Civil Appeal filed by the Appellants, who were upset by the Orissa High Court’s Order in a writ suit over reservation in promotions. The case was heard in April 2020. The main point of contention was whether a government order that changed the grading list and gave SC/ST applicants seniority over officers in the general category for promotions was still legal.
pravakar mallick v state of orissa Case Facts
- The State Government has issued instructions stating that the “catch up principle,” which was previously adopted by the State Government, will no longer be followed in response to a writ petition challenging the resolution issued by the Government of Orissa withdrawing the earlier instructions for fixing the seniority of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (SC/ST) government employees on promotion by virtue of the rule of reservation.
- Additionally, it is mandated that government employees who are members of SCs or STs maintain their seniority in the event of a promotion due to the reserve rule.
- It is also made clear that, due to the reservation rule, government employees in the general/OBC category who are promoted later will be ranked below those in the SC/ST category who are promoted earlier.
- SC/ST candidates are not eligible to claim seniority in the promoted categories over general category candidates unless and until the State Government passes a law granting them the advantage of promotion with consequential seniority.
pravakar mallick v state of orissa Issues
- Is the state required to give special consideration to SC/ST when it comes to promotions?
- Is there any validity to the government decree that changed the ranking system that gave SC/ST officers precedence over officers from other categories when it came to promotions?
Contentions by the Parties
Appellant:
- On behalf of the appellants, learned counsel Sri Subha Rao contended that the state could extend the seniority and reservation benefits by executive order or legislation in accordance with article 16(4) a of the indian constitution of the 85th constitutional amendment.
- On behalf of the appellants, the learned attorney Sri Subha Rao contended that the high court had nullified the decision without providing any justification.
- On behalf of the appellants, distinguished counsel Sri Subha Rao contended that the Orissa reservation of vacancies in post and services act, 1975, was in effect at the time the resolution was enacted, and that means promotions must also benefit from reservations.
- On behalf of the appellants, the learned attorney Sri Subha Rao contended that the promoted SC/ST officials are entitled to seniority under section 10 of the Orissa reservation of vacancies in post and services act, 1975.
Respondent:
- On behalf of the state, the learned counsel contended that following the 85th constitutional amendment in article 16(4) a of the indian constitution, there was no state law or executive order that extended the seniority or promotion benefit.
- In support of the state, the learned counsel argued that the amendment makes it clear that the state may make provisions for reservations, but that they are not required to do so in cases of promotions and seniority. If the state so desires, however, they must present quantifiable evidence of class backwardness in accordance with article 335 of the indian constitution.
- On behalf of the state, the learned counsel contended that the government was required under article 16(4A) to demonstrate the “inadequacy of representation,” backwardness, and overall efficiency.
pravakar mallick v state of orissa Judgment
- The Orissa High Court heard arguments from both sides and concluded that the suspension order was unlawful and arbitrary since it was issued without providing a justification for the suspension or a chance for the petitioner to be heard.
- The Court noted that the suspension decision was arbitrary and unfair because it failed to include any prima facie evidence against the petitioner.
- The Court additionally decided that the petitioner was qualified for a fair hearing before he could be suspended from his employment and that the requirements of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1962 did not supersede the concepts of natural justice.
- The State’s claim that the petitioner was the victim of severe corruption charges that required further investigation was similarly rejected by the Court. The Court noted that the petitioner’s right to a fair trial was violated notwithstanding the gravity of the allegations, and that laws and regulations could not supersede the fundamental principles of natural justice.
- As a result, the Court overturned the suspension order and ordered the State of Orissa to give the petitioner his employment back with full back pay.
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
