Karnataka High Court Dismisses Writ Appeals Challenging Reservation in Promotion for Hyderabad-Karnataka Region Under Article 371J. The Court Held That Article 371J(1)(b) and (c) Include Reservation in Promotion for Local Candidates in Public Services.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Prosecution
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellants, Smt. A.S. Vimalakshi and Sri R. Shivakumar, were employees of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly Secretariat. They filed writ petitions challenging the reservation in promotion provided for local candidates of the Hyderabad-Karnataka region under Article 371J of the Constitution of India and the Presidential Order dated 20.08.2013. The learned single Judge dismissed their writ petitions, leading to the present writ appeals. The core legal issue was whether Article 371J(1)(b) and (c) empower the President to provide for reservation in promotion for local candidates in public services. The appellants argued that Article 371J only permits reservation in initial recruitment and not in promotion. The respondents, including the State of Karnataka and the Secretary of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly Secretariat, contended that the plain language of Article 371J(1)(b) and (c) includes reservation in promotion, as it refers to 'employment' and 'educational opportunities' without any restriction. The Court analyzed the text of Article 371J, which was inserted by the Constitution (98th Amendment) Act, 2012, to provide for special provisions for the Hyderabad-Karnataka region. The Court noted that Article 371J(1)(b) speaks of 'employment' and 'educational opportunities' for local candidates, and the word 'employment' is broad enough to include promotion. The Court also considered the object of the provision, which is to ensure the development of the region by providing adequate representation of local candidates in public services. The Court held that the Presidential Order dated 20.08.2013, which provides for reservation in promotion, is valid and intra vires the Constitution. The Court dismissed the writ appeals, upholding the judgment of the learned single Judge. The decision was delivered by a Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice H.T. Narendra Prasad.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Special Provisions for Hyderabad-Karnataka Region - Article 371J of the Constitution of India - Reservation in Promotion - The issue was whether Article 371J(1)(b) and (c) empower the President to provide for reservation in promotion for local candidates in public services. The Court held that the plain language of Article 371J(1)(b) and (c) includes reservation in promotion, as it refers to 'employment' and 'educational opportunities' without any restriction. The Presidential Order dated 20.08.2013 providing for reservation in promotion is valid and intra vires the Constitution. (Paras 2-10)

B) Service Law - Reservation in Promotion - Article 371J of the Constitution of India - Local Candidates - The appellants challenged the reservation in promotion for local candidates of Hyderabad-Karnataka region, arguing that Article 371J does not permit reservation in promotion. The Court rejected this contention, holding that the word 'employment' in Article 371J(1)(b) includes promotion, and the Presidential Order is consistent with the constitutional scheme. (Paras 11-15)

C) Constitutional Law - Interpretation of Special Provisions - Article 371J of the Constitution of India - The Court interpreted Article 371J in the context of its object to provide for the development of the Hyderabad-Karnataka region. It held that the provision for reservation in promotion is a means to ensure adequate representation of local candidates in public services, which is essential for the region's development. (Paras 16-20)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the reservation in promotion provided for local candidates of the Hyderabad-Karnataka region under Article 371J of the Constitution of India and the Presidential Order dated 20.08.2013 is valid and within the scope of the said Article.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The writ appeals are dismissed. The judgment and order dated 20.02.2019 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.Nos.27757-27758/2015 (S-Res) is upheld.

Law Points

  • Interpretation of Article 371J of the Constitution of India
  • Special provisions for Hyderabad-Karnataka region
  • Reservation in promotion
  • Local candidates in public employment
  • Scope of Presidential order under Article 371J
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2019 LawText (KAR) (08) 28

Writ Appeal Nos.939-940 of 2019 (S-RES)

2019-08-06

Abhay S. Oka, Chief Justice, H.T. Narendra Prasad, Justice

Sri P.S. Rajagopal, Senior Advocate along with Sri Yogesh Naik, Advocate for Appellants; Sri Nitin Ramesh, Additional Advocate General for Sri Vijaykumar Y.H., Principal Government Advocate for Respondents 1 to 3; Sri S.P. Kulkarni, Advocate for Sri P.V. Manjunatha, Advocate for Respondent 4

Smt. A.S. Vimalakshi and Sri R. Shivakumar

The State of Karnataka, The Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, The Secretary, Karnataka Legislative Assembly Secretariat, and Smt. P. Lalitha

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ appeals against dismissal of writ petitions challenging reservation in promotion for local candidates of Hyderabad-Karnataka region under Article 371J of the Constitution of India.

Remedy Sought

The appellants sought to set aside the order dated 20.02.2019 passed in Writ Petition Nos.27757-58/2015 and allow their writ petitions.

Filing Reason

The appellants challenged the reservation in promotion provided for local candidates of the Hyderabad-Karnataka region under Article 371J and the Presidential Order dated 20.08.2013.

Previous Decisions

The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants in W.P.Nos.27757-27758/2015 (S-Res) on 20.02.2019.

Issues

Whether Article 371J of the Constitution of India empowers the President to provide for reservation in promotion for local candidates of the Hyderabad-Karnataka region in public services. Whether the Presidential Order dated 20.08.2013 providing for reservation in promotion is valid and intra vires the Constitution.

Submissions/Arguments

The appellants argued that Article 371J only permits reservation in initial recruitment and not in promotion. The respondents contended that the plain language of Article 371J(1)(b) and (c) includes reservation in promotion, as it refers to 'employment' and 'educational opportunities' without any restriction.

Ratio Decidendi

The word 'employment' in Article 371J(1)(b) of the Constitution of India is broad enough to include promotion. The Presidential Order dated 20.08.2013 providing for reservation in promotion for local candidates of the Hyderabad-Karnataka region is valid and intra vires the Constitution.

Judgment Excerpts

The issue revolves around the interpretation of Article 371 J of the Constitution of India which reads thus:... The Court held that the plain language of Article 371J(1)(b) and (c) includes reservation in promotion, as it refers to 'employment' and 'educational opportunities' without any restriction.

Procedural History

The appellants filed writ petitions (W.P.Nos.27757-27758/2015) before the High Court of Karnataka challenging the reservation in promotion under Article 371J. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petitions on 20.02.2019. The appellants then filed the present writ appeals under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, which were heard and reserved for judgment on 06.08.2019.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 371J
  • Karnataka High Court Act: Section 4
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Grants Liberty to Amend Petition in Criminal Writ Petition No. 2262 of 2004. Petitioner allowed to amend petition and add respondents, matter adjourned.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Confirms Divorce Decree in Christian Marriage Dissolution Case Under Section 10 of Indian Divorce Act, 1869. Court upholds Family Court's decree dissolving marriage on grounds of adultery and cruelty, finding no legal infirmity.