Thursday, December 1, 2022
More
    BlogCase Summary: Bk Pavitra and others v/s Union of India

    Case Summary: Bk Pavitra and others v/s Union of India

    The content of this judgement is written y Shruti Sharma. She is a content writing intern at Legal Thirst.

    Facts of the case:

    • The supreme court gave the verdict that , the state did not alter the basis of the decision of BK Pavitra .
    • The court ruled that enactment was a complaint with the principle enunciated in the constitution bench of Nagraj .
    • The court ruled that , the enactment was a complaint with principle enunciated in the constitution bench decisions in Jarnail.
    • Where it was established that the creamy layer concept was applicable to OBCs but was exclusive of SCs and Sts and in the current case the reservation was for Scs and Sts and was non–inclusive of OBCs.
    • The court held that the reservation in promotion in favor of SCs and Sts had been provided until the representation for these categories reaches 15 % and 3%
    • That the above Government Order is applicable to departments with over – representation of SCs and Sts and the department not in the RPC report  were also considered under the ambit of the act since the departments not covered fall under the administrative control of one or the other departments that the report covered .
    • The court accepted the claim of inadequate representation. the committee found that SC/ST employees constitute 10.65% and 2.92% respectively across 31 State Government departments. Further, it found the cadre wise representation to be:
      • SCs: 12% (Grade A), 9.79% (Grade B), 12.74% (Grade C), 16.91% (Grade D)
      • STS: 2.70% (Grade A), 2.34% (Grade B), 0.04% (Grade C), 2.34% (Grade D)
    • The Report concluded that there is inadequate representation of SC/STS in State Government services in Grade A, B, and C while adequate representation in Grade D.
    • Justice Chandrachud introduced an inclusive definition of administrative efficiency. He examined the definition of efficiency under Article 335 of the Constitution and observed that it ‘does not define what the framers meant by “efficiency of administration”. He then proceeded to define efficiency in terms of equal representation.
    • Justice Chandrachud criticized the predominant merit-based approach to maintaining administrative efficiency. He observed that the seemingly neutral system of standardized tests masks existing inequalities in society, which appear to favor already privileged candidates.
    • He concluded that this representative notion of efficiency is congruent with the policy of consequential seniority.

    Disclaimer: The opinions and views in the articles and research papers published on this website; are personal and independent opinions of the author. The website is not responsible for them.

    Legal Thirst has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, Events, and various opportunities.
    You can click on this link and join:

    Follow Legal Thirst on Instagram and Subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.

    Subscribe Today

    GET EXCLUSIVE FULL ACCESS TO PREMIUM CONTENT

    SUPPORT NONPROFIT JOURNALISM

    EXPERT ANALYSIS OF AND EMERGING TRENDS IN CHILD WELFARE AND JUVENILE JUSTICE

    TOPICAL VIDEO WEBINARS

    Get unlimited access to our EXCLUSIVE Content and our archive of subscriber stories.

    Exclusive content

    Latest article

    More article

    Open chat
    💬 Need help?
    Hello👋
    How can we help you ?