Cadre-Wise Quantifiable Data Collected; Constitutional Mandate Fulfilled: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds 20% Promotion Quota for SCs in Group A & B Services

“Reservation in promotion under Article 16(4A) is valid when based on quantifiable data indicating inadequacy of representation….” - Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the Haryana Government’s decision to grant 20% reservation in promotions to Scheduled Castes in Group A and B posts. Justice Jagmohan Bansal, delivering the judgment, held that the State of Haryana had “collected quantifiable, cadre-wise data demonstrating inadequacy of representation of Scheduled Castes in promotional posts”, thereby satisfying the test under Article 16(4A) of the Constitution. The Court rejected challenges based on alleged delegation of power, absence of creamy layer exclusion, and failure to ensure administrative efficiency, finding them legally untenable.

“The State has not left the determination of inadequacy to the Departmental Promotion Committees; it has itself collected and analyzed cadre-wise data for every department and cadre before issuing the impugned instructions.”

The petitioners approached the High Court challenging a notification dated 7th October 2023 by which the Haryana Government extended reservation in promotions for Scheduled Caste employees in Group A and B posts to the extent of 20% of the sanctioned posts in the promotional quota. The instruction relied upon Article 16(4A) and cited Supreme Court precedents including Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018 and 2022), as well as the High Court’s own ruling in Same Singh v. State of Haryana.

It was argued on behalf of the petitioners that the State had failed to collect quantifiable data, that cadre-wise data was not sufficient, and that creamy layer exclusion was constitutionally mandated. Further, it was alleged that the power of forming opinion on reservation had been wrongly delegated to the Departmental Promotion Committees.

“This Court is of the considered opinion that the State, before issuing the impugned instructions, had collected quantifiable data cadre-wise and group-wise, and arrived at a reasoned conclusion that Scheduled Castes are inadequately represented in promotional posts.”

The Court began by reiterating that “quantifiable data demonstrating inadequate representation is the sine qua non for granting reservation in promotion”. Referring to the constitutional scheme, the Court held:

“In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh (II), the requirement of quantifiable data on backwardness stands dispensed with, but data on inadequacy of representation remains mandatory.”

The Court examined the State’s reliance on the Anil Kumar Committee Report and the data produced in court. It noted that the State had compiled detailed statistics regarding the total sanctioned posts, filled posts, direct recruitments, promotions, and SC representation cadre-wise, stating:

“The data shows that in Group A, SC representation was 16.81% and in Group B, it was 17.4%, falling short of the prescribed 20% quota.”

Rejecting the contention that the State had not acted itself, the Court clarified: “The Departmental Promotion Committees are not vested with the power to form an opinion on inadequacy; that has already been exercised by the State before the policy was issued.”

On the question of creamy layer exclusion, the Court observed: “While Jarnail Singh (I) approved the application of the creamy layer principle to Scheduled Castes, the matter of applying it in promotions remains legally unsettled. The State’s policy cannot be faulted on this ground.”

Addressing Article 335 and administrative efficiency, the Court noted: “The policy provides that only eligible Scheduled Caste employees shall be promoted; there is no dilution of standards or qualifications. The requirements of Article 335 stand satisfied.”

“Reservation in promotion cannot be struck down merely because some elements of implementation are left to subordinate authorities — as long as the State exercises its power consciously and constitutionally, the policy stands.”

Finding the State’s approach consistent with constitutional provisions and judicial precedents, the High Court upheld the impugned notification dated 7th October 2023, holding: “The State has demonstrably fulfilled the conditions laid down under Article 16(4A). There is no illegality in the impugned instructions providing reservation in promotion to SCs in Group A and B posts.”

The petitions were accordingly dismissed, affirming the State’s right to ensure representational equity through well-reasoned affirmative action.

Date of Decision: 8th April 2025