Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Validation of action taken under the provisions of this Act SCHEDULE STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS Act 21 of 2018.- It is considered necessary to provide for Consequential Seniority of the Government Servants promoted on the basis of Reservation to the posts in the Civil Services of the State with the effect from the 27th day of April 1978 in pursuance of Article 16 (4A) of the Constitution of India in the following circumstances, namely:- The Government of Karnataka has introduced the policy of reservation in promotion in favour of the Government Servants belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as per the Government Order No. DPAR 29 SBC 77 dated 27.4.1978; Paragraph 7 of the Reservation Order stipulates that the inter-se seniority amongst persons promoted in accordance with that order on any occasion has to be determined, in the manner provided in rule 4 or 4-A, as the case may be, of the Karnataka Government Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1957; The Supreme Court of India, in its Judgment dated 1 -12-2000, in the case of M.G. Badappanavar and Another Versus State of Karnataka and others in Civil Appeal Nos. 6970-6971 of 2000 with Civil Appeal No. 6972 of 2000 (AIR 2001 SC 260) while dealing with the issue of determination of seniority interse between the persons belonging to the reserved categories and the general category, in pursuance of the ratio of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Ajit Singh and Others (II) Vs State of Punjab and others-(1999) 7 SCC 209 has examined rule 2(c), rule 4 and rule 4-A of the Karnataka Government Servants’ (Seniority) Rules, 1957 and has observed that there is no specific rule therein permitting seniority to be counted in respect of a person promoted against a (reserved) roster point; Subsequently, the Parliament has enacted the Constitution (Eighty Fifth Amendment) Act, 2001 by insertion of clause (4A) to Article 16 of the Constitution 2 with retrospective effect from 17-6-1995 providing for consequential seniority in the case of promotion on the basis of reservation; The Government of Karnataka has enacted the Karnataka Determination of Seniority of the Government Servants promoted on the basis of reservation (to the posts in the civil services of the State) Act, 2002 (Karnataka Act 10 of 2002) (herein after referred to as Karnataka Act 10 of 2002) to remove any ambiguity and to clarify that the Government Servants belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes promoted in accordance with the policy of reservation in promotion contained in the Reservation Order shall be entitled to seniority as it is available to the Government Servants belonging to the other categories; The validity of the Karnataka Act 10 of 2002 and constitutional amendments to Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B) came to be challenged in Supreme court in Sri.M. Nagaraj & others in W.P.No 61/2002. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case upheld the constitutional validity of Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B) and held that the validity of the individual enactments of the appropriate States shall be gone into in individual Writ petitions by the appropriate Bench. In turn having been remitted, the High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.14655/2010 has examined the constitutional validity of Karnataka Act 10 of 2002 and declared that the same was a valid piece of legislation as it satisfied the tests specified by the Supreme Court in M.Nagaraja’s case. The correctness of the view taken by the High Court of Karnataka was then assailed in Appeal before the Supreme Court in B.K.Pavitra case; The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment dated: 09.02.2017 in the case of B.K. Pavitra and others v/s Union of India and others in Civil Appeal No. 2368 of 2011 and connected matters while dealing with the issue of consequential seniority provided to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, having regard to the ratio of the decision of the Constitution Bench in M. Nagaraj in Writ Petition No. 61 of 2002 has observed that a proper exercise for determining ‘inadequacy of representation’, ‘backwardness’ and ‘overall efficiency’, is a must for exercise of power under Article 16(4A). The court held that in the absence of this exercise under Article 16(4A) it is the “catch up” rule that shall be applicable. Having observed this the Court declared the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Karnataka Act 10 of 2002 to be ultra vires of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that revision of the Seniority lists be undertaken and completed within three months and further consequential action be taken within the next three months; In order to comply with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.K. Pavitra and others v/s Union of India and others in Civil Appeal No. 2368 of 2011 the Government has issued order vide Government order No: DPAR 182 SRR 2011 dated 06.05.2017 to all appointing authorities to revise the seniority lists; While in compliance of the Supreme Court order, the Government considering the need and taking note of the decision of the Constitution Bench in M. Nagaraj, in Writ Petition No. 61 of 2002, has entrusted the task of conducting study and submitting a report on the backwardness of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State, inadequacy of their representation in the State Civil Services and the effect of reservation in promotion on the State administration, to the Additional Chief Secretary to Government in Government Order No. DPAR 182 SRR 2011 dated: 22.03.2017; 3 The Additional Chief Secretary to Government with the assistance of officers from various departments has collated the scientific, quantifiable and relevant data collected and having made a detailed study of quantifiable data has submitted a report on the backwardness of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State, inadequacy of their representation in the State Civil Services and the effect of reservation in promotion on the State administration to the State Government; The report confirms the backwardness of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State, inadequacy of their representation in the State Civil Services and that the overall efficiency of administration has not been affected or hampered by extending reservation in promotion to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State and continuance of reservation in promotion within the limits will not affect or hamper overall efficiency of administration; The Government of Karnataka has also obtained the views of Legal Experts and the Karnataka Law Commission in this regard; and After having examined the report submitted by the Additional Chief Secretary and the views expressed by the Legal Experts, the Government of Karnataka has accepted the report. Keeping in view the findings of the report, the Government is satisfied and having identified and measured, has come to the conclusion that compelling reasons continue to exist for providing consequential seniority to persons promoted on the basis of policy of reservation in the State since 1978 so as to ensure adequate representation of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes across all departments; Hence, the Bill. [L.A. Bill No.40 of 2017, File No. Samvyashae 44 Shasana 2017] [entry 41 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India.] 4 KARNATAKA ACT NO. 21 OF 2018 (First Published in the Karnataka Gazette Extra-ordinary on the 23rd day of June, 2018) THE KARNATAKA EXTENSION OF CONSEQUENTIAL SENIORITY TO GOVERNMENT SERVANTS PROMOTED ON THE BASIS OF RESERVATION (TO THE POSTS IN THE CIVIL SERVICES OF THE STATE) ACT, 2017 (Received the assent of President on the 14th day of June, 2018) An Act for Determination of Seniority of the Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservation to the Posts in the Civil Services of the State. Whereas, the Government of Karnataka has introduced the policy of reservation in promotion in favour of Government Servants belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as per the Government Order No. DPAR 29 SBC 77 dated 27.4.1978; Whereas, paragraph 7 of the Reservation Order stipulates that the inter-se seniority amongst persons promoted in accordance with that order on any occasion has to be determined, in the manner provided in rule 4 or 4-A, as the case may be, of the Karnataka Government Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1957; Whereas, the Supreme Court of India, in its Judgment dated 1 -12-2000, in the case of M.G. Badappanavar and Another Versus State of Karnataka and others in Civil Appeal Nos. 6970-6971 of 2000 with Civil Appeal No. 6972 of 2000 (AIR 2001 SC 260) while dealing with the issue of determination of seniority inter-se between the persons belonging to the reserved categories and the general category, in pursuance of the ratio of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Ajit Singh and Others (II) Vs State of Punjab and others-(1999) 7 SCC 209 has examined rule 2(c), rule 4 and rule 4-A of the Karnataka Government Servants’ (Seniority) Rules, 1957 and has observed that there is no specific rule therein permitting seniority to be counted in respect of a person promoted against a (reserved) roster point; Whereas, subsequently, the Parliament has enacted the Constitution (Eighty Fifth Amendment) Act, 2001 by insertion of clause (4A) to Article 16 of the Constitution with retrospective effect from 17-6-1995 providing for consequential seniority in the case of promotion on the basis of reservation; Whereas, the Government of Karnataka has enacted the Karnataka Determination of Seniority of the Government Servants promoted on the basis of 5 reservation (to the posts in the civil services of the State) Act, 2002 (Karnataka Act 10 of 2002) (herein after referred to as Karnataka Act 10 of 2002) to remove any ambiguity and to clarify that the Government Servants belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes promoted in accordance with the policy of reservation in promotion contained in the Reservation Order shall be entitled to seniority as it is available to the Government Servants belonging to the other categories; Whereas, the validity of the Karntaka Act 10 of 2002 and constitutional amendments to Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B) came to be challenged in Supreme court in W.P.No 61/2002 titled Sri.M. Nagaraj & others Vs Union of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case upheld the constitutional validity of Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B) and held that the validity of the individual enactments of the appropriate States shall be gone into in individual Writ petitions by the appropriate Bench. In turn having been remitted, the High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.14655/2010 has examined the constitutional validity of Karnataka Act 10 of 2002 and declared that the same was a valid piece of legislation as it satisfied the tests specified by the Supreme Court in M.Nagaraja’s case. The correctness of the view taken by the High Court of Karnataka was then assailed in Appeal before the Supreme Court in B.K.Pavitra case; Whereas, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment dated: 09.02.2017 in the case of B.K. Pavitra and others v/s Union of India and others in Civil Appeal No. 2368 of 2011 and connected matters while dealing with the issue of consequential seniority provided to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, having regard to the ratio of the decision of the Constitution Bench in M. Nagaraj in Writ Petition No. 61 of 2002 has observed that a proper exercise for determining ‘inadequacy of representation’, ‘backwardness’ and ‘overall efficiency’, is a must for exercise of power under Article 16(4A). The court held that in the absence of this exercise under Article 16(4A) it is the “catch up” rule that shall be applicable. Having observed this the Court declared the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Karnataka Act 10 of 2002 to be ultra vires of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that revision of the Seniority lists be undertaken and completed within three months and further consequential action be taken within the next three months; 6 Whereas, in order to comply with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.K. Pavitra and others v/s Union of India and others in Civil Appeal No. 2368 of 2011 the Government has issued order vide Government order No: DPAR 182 SRR 2011 dated 06.05.2017 to all appointing authorities to revise the seniority lists; Whereas, while in compliance of the Supreme Court order, the Government considering the need and taking note of the decision of the Constitution Bench in M. Nagaraj, in Writ Petition No. 61 of 2002, has entrusted the task of conducting study and submitting a report on the backwardness of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State, inadequacy of their representation in the State Civil Services and the effect of reservation in promotion on the State administration, to the Additional Chief Secretary to Government in Government Order No. DPAR 182 SRR 2011 dated: 22.03.2017; Whereas, the Additional Chief Secretary to Government with the assistance of officers from various departments has collated the scientific, quantifiable and relevant data collected and having made a detailed study of quantifiable data has submitted a report on the backwardness of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State, inadequacy of their representation in the State Civil Services and the effect of reservation in promotion on the State administration to the State Government; Whereas, the report confirms the backwardness of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State, inadequacy of their representation in the State Civil Services and that the overall efficiency of administration has not been affected or hampered by extending reservation in promotion to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State and continuance of reservation in promotion within the limits will not affect or hamper overall efficiency of administration; Whereas, the Government of Karnataka has also obtained the views of Legal Experts and the Karnataka Law Commission in this regard; and Whereas, after having examined the report submitted by the Additional Chief Secretary and the views expressed by the Legal Experts the Government of Karnataka has accepted the report. Keeping in view the findings of the report, the Government is satisfied and having identified and measured, has come to the conclusion that compelling reasons continue to exist for providing consequential seniority to persons promoted on the basis of policy of reservation in the State since 7 1978 so as to ensure adequate representation of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes across all departments; Now therefore, State on finding of compelling necessity for exercise of its powers, it is of the opinion that, it is expedient to provide for the following and for the matters connected therewith and incidental thereto; Be it enacted by the Karnataka State Legislature in the sixty eighth year of the Republic of India, as follows:-