2020-21

BASICS OF CASE LAW

Title Of The Project
Case Briefing: Mukesh Kumar vs. the state of Uttarakhand
2020

Submitted To: Submitted By:

Mrs Ankita Yadav Alaina Fatima
Asst. Professor Section ‘A’
Basics of Case Law Enrolment no-200101021
RMLNLU, Lucknow BA LLB (H) 1st semester

1|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to thank Mrs. Ankita Yadav madam for guiding me through this project and
constant encouragement throughout this course of the project .I extend my thanks to my
friends and family for helping me by providing their opinions and suggestions pertaining to
the particular topic. I would also thank the authors of various resources I resorted to during
the making of this project.               

                                                                                                                                      
Alaina Fatima

2|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

NAME OF THE CASE 4

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE 4

STATEMENT OF FACTS 5-6

ISSUES RAISED 6

ARGUMENTS 6

JUDGEMENT 7

RULE OF LAW 7-8

CRITICAL ANALYSIS 9

CONCLUSION 9

REFERENCES 10

NAME OF THE CASE

3|Page
 MUKESH KUMAR VS. THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

PETITIONER:

MUKESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER

VS.

RESPONDENT:

THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS

EQUIVALENT CITATION:
(2020) 3 SCC 1

DATE OF THE DECISION:

07-02-2020

BENCH:
Justice L. Nageshwara Rao and Justice Hemant Gupta

COURT NAME:
Supreme Court of India

RELATED PROVISIONS:

1. Article 16(1) of The Constitution of India 1949

Constitutional right to equality of opportunity and employment in public offices.

2. Article 16(4) of The Constitution of India

4|Page
 The state may make a reservation of appointments or posts in favor of any ‘backward
class’ of citizens which, in the opinion of the state, is not adequately represented in the
public services under the state.

3. Article 16(4A) of The Constitution of India

The State can provide reservations to an SC/ST in matters of promotion, as long as the
State believes that the SC/ST is not adequately represented in government services.

4. Section 3(1) of The National Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993

The Central Government shall constitute a body to be known as the National Commission
for Backward Classes to exercise the powers to perform the functions assigned to it under
this act.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. In this case, the contention is about the reservation in promotion in the public jobs of
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes for the post of Assistant Civil Engineer in
Public Works, Department, and Government of Uttarakhand.
2. The Bench passed the ruling in a batch of appeals challenging High Court verdicts
concerning reservation for SC/ST candidates in the Public Works Department of
Uttarakhand.
3. On September 5, 2012, the Uttarakhand Government decided that all posts in public
services in the State would be filled up without providing any reservation to SC/ST
candidates.
4. A challenge made to this decision. Thus the High Court set aside the September 5,
2012 proceedings in April 2019.
5. On review, the High Court admitted that it had made an error. While it said
that Article 16 (4A) was only an enabling provision. It also directed the State
Government to collect data regarding the inadequacy of the representation of SC/ST
candidates in Government services.
6. The High Court said that this data would enable the State Government to take a
considered decision on providing or not providing reservations. A challenge to his

5|Page
 verdict, and other High Court verdicts touching upon similar issues, were disposed of
by the Supreme Court together.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the state is bound to provide reservation in a public post to the candidates of
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled tribes?
2. Whether the decision by the State Government not to provide reservations can be only
based on quantifiable data relating to the adequacy of representation of persons
belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes?

ARGUMENTS

1. Arguments included that there is no fundamental right to claim reservations in

promotions to public posts. It was made by Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar for
some of the appellants, as well as Senior Counsel Mukul Rohatgi and PS
Narsimha for the Uttarakhand government.
2. Appearing for several reserved category employees, Senior Counsel Kapil Sibal,
Dushyant Dave, and Colvin Gonsalves took a contrary stance, arguing that the State
cannot refuse to collect quantifiable data regarding the adequacy or inadequacy of
representation of the SC/ST candidates in public services.
3. They submitted that there is an obligation on the State to provide reservations in
promotions for the members of the SC/ST as mandated by Article 16(4) and 16(4-A)
of the Constitution.

6|Page
 JUDGEMENT

1. The Apex court held that the state government is not bound to make a reservation for
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled tribes’ promotion to public posts.
2. No fundamental right can be claimed for reservation in promotions and no mandamus
can be issued in this regard.
3. There is no fundamental right which allows an individual to claim reservation in
promotions.
4. The data collected by the State government is only to justify providing reservations to
only those classes and not others. SC ruled that the states are not obligated to make
reservations on appointments and promotions and there is no fundamental right to
claim reservations in promotions in public posts.
5. It was held that no mandamus can be issued by the Court to the State to collect
quantifiable data relating to the adequacy of representation of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes in public services.
6. It was held by the court, “The State Government is not bound to make reservations.
There is no fundamental right which inheres in an individual to claim reservation in
promotions. No mandamus can be issued by the Court directing the State Government
to provide reservations”. Further, it was held that the collection of data by the State
Government is only made for justifying the reservation in the matter of appointment
and promotion for the public post as per Article 16(4) and 16(4A) of the Indian
Constitution.

RULE OF LAW

Following are some key previous cases which were referred to in Mukesh Kumar &
Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand:-

 1968 – P. Rajendran Vs. State of Madras [1]

The Supreme Court justified the reservation of seats made caste wise.
 1992– Indra Sawhney and Ors. V. Union of India [2]
The nine-judge bench ruled that Article 16(4) of the Constitution on India is only

7|Page
 confined to the reservation in the appointment and does not extend to the reservation
in promotion.
 1996 – S Vinod Kumar v. Union of India [3]
It was held that relaxations in the qualifying marks for reservation in the promotion
were not permissible in Article 16(4) and the reservation is subject to the
administrative efficiency under Article 335.
 2006 – M Nagaraj v. Union of India [4]
The amendments 71st, 81st, 82nd, and 85th were challenged and the Supreme Court
upheld them. But also introduced certain conditions upon the matter of reservation i.e.
of backwardness, inadequacy in representation in public employment.
 2010- Mukund Kumar Shrivastava v. State of U.P [5]
The validity of Rule 8-A of the Uttar Pradesh Servants Government Seniority Rules,
1991 was upheld which dealt with consequential seniority of persons belonging to
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
 2016- Suresh Chand Gautam v. the State of U.P.[6]
It was held that the State Government should collect quantifiable data based on which
a decision to provide reservation should be taken.
 2018 – Jarnail Singh v. Lacchmi Narain Gupta [7]
The principle of exclusion of the creamy layer was introduced where the people of
SC/STs who belong to the creamy layer in their community will not be granted a
reservation.
 2019 – B K Pavitra and Ors Vs The Union of India and Ors 
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Reservation
Act, 2018 by stating that the state was successful in demonstrating that the people of
SC/STs were not adequately represented.

8|Page
 CRITICAL ANALYSIS

1. There is adequate data available which shows the meagre state of SC, ST and OBC
representation in Government Jobs at higher posts, reiterating the need to make a
reservation at job promotion mandatory. But the Court concluded that having no
conclusive idea of the lack of representation; the Courts cannot treat this provision as
a mandatory one. This means that mandating the provision would only be of help.

2. The question arises to what extent the court can rely on the collection of quantifiable
data as a measure of backwardness. It raises the doubt that whether the dependence of
the courts on quantifiable data can be legally valid or not. It is also important to
determine whether it is valid on the part of the government to base the policy
decisions on the basis of surveys. 

CONCLUSION

 The court in this case has interpreted Articles 16 (4) and 16(4A) only as enabling
provisions. The state government is not bound to make provisions and the courts also
can’t compel the said governments to do so. The bench further stated that even if under-
representation of SCs and STs in state services is brought to the notice of the court, the
court cannot issue the writ of mandamus to the government to provide reservation. The
state government can allow reservations in promotions if it notes that the communities are
not adequately represented in the services of the State.

 The judgment says that the state will also have to justify its decision to provide
reservations if it is challenged in a court of law. The state government also needs to collect
data while making provisions for reservation so that the advantage of the provision
reaches the deserving candidates of the communities.

 It is also made clear through the case that reservation in promotions is not a fundamental
right.

9|Page
 REFERENCES

 [1]
AIR 1968 SC 1012.
 [2]
 (1992) Supp (3) SCC 217.
 [3]
 (1996) 6 SCC 580.
 [4]
 (2006) 8 SCC 212.
 [5]
 (2010) SCC OnLine All 2072.
 [6]
 (2016) 11 SCC 113.
 [7]
(2018) 10 SCC 396.
 Yugandhra S.R., ‘Case Summary: Mukesh Kumar and Anr V State of Uttarakhand
And Ors.’, Legal Bites, <https://www.legalbites.in/case-summary-mukesh-kumar-v-
state-of-uttarakhand/> accessed 8 January 2021.
 Meera Emmanuel, ‘Can State be compelled to make reservations for SC/ST
candidates in public posts? Supreme Court says no’,
<https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/can-state-be-compelled-to-make-
reservations-for-scst-candidates-in-public-posts-supreme-court-says-no/ >accessed 9
January 2021.
 Indian Kanoon, <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/191551270/> accessed 9 January
2021.
 Lexlife India, ‘Analysis: SC judgement on reservation in promotions’,
<https://lexlife.in/2020/02/21/analysis-sc-judgement-on-reservation-in-promotions/>
accessed 8 January 2021.
 SCC Online, < http://scc-nlul.refread.com/Members/SearchResult.aspx/> accessed 9
January 2021.

10 | P a g e