1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.61 OF 2002
M.NAGARAJ & ORS. ... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S)
WITH W.P.(C)NO.62/2002, W.P.(C)NO.134/2002, W.P.(C)NO.135/2002,
W.P.(C)NO.226/2002, W.P.(C)NO.227/2002, W.P.(C)NO.255/2002,
W.P.(C)No.266/2002, W.P.(C)No.298/2002 W.P.(C)NO.299/2002,
W.P.(C)NO.294/2002, W.P.(C)NO.319/2002, W.P.(C)NO.386/2002,
W.P.(C)NO.387/2002, W.P.(C)NO.320/2002, W.P.(C)NO.338/2002,
W.P.(C)NO.482/2002, W.P.(C)NO.483/2002, W.P.(C)NO.485/2002,
S.L.P.(C)Nos.4915/4919/2003, Cont.Petn.(C)No.505/2002 in
W.P.(C)NO.61/2002, Cont.Petn.(C)No.553/2002 in W.P.(C)NO.266/2002,
Cont.Petn.(C)No.570/2002 in W.P.(C)No.255/2002,
Cont.Petn.(C)No.122/2003 in W.P.(C)NO.61/2002,
Cont.Petn.(C)No.127/2003 in W.P.(C)NO.61/2002,
Cont.Petn.(C)No.85/2003 in W.P.(C)No.255/2002, C.A.Nos.12501-
12503/1996, S.L..P.(C)NO.754/1997, SLP(C)No.19689/1996 WITH
CONT.PETN.(C)No.404/2004 in W.P.(C)No.255/2002 AND
SLP(C)NO.14518/2004
O R D E R
WITH W.P.(C)No.61/202, W.P.(C)NO.62/2002, W.P.(C)NO.134/2002,
W.P.(C)NO.135/2002,W.P.(C)NO.226/2002, W.P.(C)NO.227/2002,
W.P.(C)No.266/2002, W.P.(C)No.298/2002, W.P.(C)NO.255/2002,
W.P.(C)NO.299/2002, W.P.(C)NO.294/2002, W.P.(C)NO.319/2002,
W.P.(C)NO.386/2002, W.P.(C)NO.387/2002, W.P.(C)NO.320/2002,
W.P.(C)NO.338/2002, W.P.(C)NO.482/2002, W.P.(C)NO.483/2002,
W.P.(C)NO.485/2002:
These Writ Petitions, under Article 32, have been filed
challenging Constitution(Eighty Fifth) Amendment Act, 2001. In terms
of the said amendment, the State of Karnataka passed an enactment
giving benefit to its employees. The said enactment was also
challenged subsequently by amending the Writ Petitions. The main
challenge against various Constitutional amendments was dealt with
by this Court in M.Nagaraj & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.,
reported in (2006) 8 SCC p.212. The said Constitutional amendment
2
was upheld by this Court with certain observations vide the above
judgment. During the course of the pendency of these Writ
Petitions, on 08.04.2002, this Court passed the following order:
“……Insofar as interim relief is concerned, the
respondents shall not revert the petitioners nor
affect their standing in the seniority list and
promotion, pay etc. At the same time, it shall be
open to the respondents to promote those who are
benefited by the impugned amendment but so that it
does not affect the petitioners in any manner and
subject to the result of the writ petitions….”
The State of Karnataka and some of the respondents moved for
variation/modification of this interim order and this Court passed
the following order on 11.11.2002, in supersession of the earlier
order :
"....These writ petitions involve the
constitutionality of Article 16(4A). The Court, by
an interim order, has directed not to revert any of
the petitioners from their existing placement nor
affect their standing in the seniority list, but at
the same time the provisions of Article 16(4A) can be
implemented and by virtue of that provision if some
of the reserve category candidates are entitled to
promotion, they shall be promoted. The obvious idea
being the Court should not stay the operation of a
constitutional provision. The State finds difficulty
in implementing the order on the ground that there
does not exist sufficient vacancy of posts in a
particular cadre to give effect to the provisions
contained in Article 16(4A). This being an interim
arrangement, we direct that they should apply to the
number of vacancies available in a cadre to give
effect to the promotional policy and undoubtedly,
such a promotion can be granted only when the State
makes a provision for reservation in terms of Article
16(4A). In view of the fact that the implementation
of interim order may cause a lot of chaos in the
service, it is just and proper that the matter should
be finally heard and disposed of and we, therefore,
direct that this batch of writ petitions be listed
before a Constitution Bench in the month of
February,2003…..”
3
We have made it clear in the judgment of Nagaraj (supra) that “We
have not examined the validity of individual enactments of
appropriate States and that question will be gone into in individual
writ petition by the appropriate bench in accordance with law laid
down by us in the present case”. Therefore, in our opinion, it is
desirable that these matters be considered by the High Court in the
light of the above observations. In view of the above, we transfer
these matters to the file of the Division Bench of High Court of
Karnataka at Bangalore to be dealt with by it in accordance with
law. The interim orders of 08.04.2002 and 11.11.2002 shall hold good
for a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of records.
The Registrar is directed to send all connected records to
the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore immediately. Needless to
say that the High Court will consider the same as expeditiously as
possible. In the meanwhile, the petitioners would be at liberty to
move the High Court within four weeks for appropriate interim
relief, if any, in these proceedings.
All these matters are disposed of accordingly.
Cont.Petn.(C)No.505/2002 in W.P.(C)NO.61/2002,
Cont.Petn.(C)No.553/2002 in W.P.(C)NO.266/2002,
Cont.Petn.(C)No.570/2002 in W.P.(C)No.255/2002,
Cont.Petn.(C)No.122/2003 in W.P.(C)NO.61/2002,
Cont.Petn.(C)No.127/2003 in W.P.(C)NO.61/2002,
Cont.Petn.(C)No.85/2003 in W.P.(C)No.255/2002 WITH
Cont.Petn.(C)No.404/2004 in W.P.(C)No.255/2002:
The Contempt Petitions are dismissed as withdrawn with
liberty to move the High Court, if so advised.
C.A.Nos.12501-12503/1996:
The Civil Appeals are dismissed as withdrawn with liberty
to move the High Court.
4
SLP(C)NO.14518/2004:
The Special Leave Petition is dismissed as having become
infructous.
SLP(C)No.754/1997, SLP(C)No.19689/1996 & SLP(C)Nos.4915-4919/2993:
The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed as withdrawn
with liberty to move the High Court.
………………CJI
(K.G. BALAKRISHNAN)
……………….J.
(DEEPAK VERMA)
……………….J.
(Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)
NEW DELHI;
18TH MARCH, 2010