Reservations to SC and ST categories in government job promotions case to be taken only in August: SC

A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra refused to pass an interim order in the case and said constitution bench is already hearing various matters and this issue can only be taken up in August.
The Supreme Court of India (Photo | ANI Twitter)
The Supreme Court of India (Photo | ANI Twitter)

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that a seven-judge constitution bench will consider the 2006 verdict in M Nagraj case which deals with the application of the creamy layer for reservations to SC and ST categories in government job promotions.

A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra refused to pass an interim order in the case and said constitution bench is already hearing various matters and this issue can only be taken up in the first week of August.

Attorney General K K Venugopal, appearing for the Centre, said the matter should be heard urgently as lakhs of jobs in Railways and services are stuck due to confusion over various judicial pronouncements.

Last year, the court had said a five-judge Constitution bench will examine the limited issue of whether the 2006 verdict delivered in M Nagaraj and other versus Union of India was required to be re-looked at or not.

The M Nagaraj verdict had said the creamy layer concept cannot be applied to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for promotions in government jobs like two earlier verdicts -- 1992 Indra Sawhney and others versus Union of India (popularly called Mandal Commission verdict) and 2005 E V Chinnaiah versus State of Andhra Pradesh -- which dealt with creamy layer in the Other Backward Classes category.

However, on June 5, in a major relief to the Centre, the apex court allowed it to go ahead with reservations in promotion for employees belonging to the SC and ST category in "accordance with law".

The court took into account the Centre's submissions that the entire process of promotions had come to a standstill due to the orders passed by various high courts and the apex court had also ordered for status quo in a similar matter in 2015.

Related Stories

No stories found.

X
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com