Of everything in this series, reservation in promotion has the most tangled history and the least settled present. It was held impermissible in 1992, restored by amendment in 1995, upheld subject to conditions in 2006, had one of those conditions removed in 2018, and had another clarified in 2022. An establishment officer needs to know which conditions still stand, because they are the ones that have to be satisfied before a promotion quota can lawfully be operated.
How it came to exist
Indra Sawhney held in 1992 that Article 16(4) does not permit reservation in the matter of promotion, and allowed existing promotion quotas to continue for five years.
Parliament responded with the Constitution (Seventy-seventh Amendment) Act, 1995, inserting Article 16(4A) to enable reservation in promotion for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Three further amendments followed: the 81st in 2000 on backlog, the 82nd in 2000 adding the proviso to Article 335 permitting relaxation in qualifying marks, and the 85th in 2001, which amended Article 16(4A) to add consequential seniority, with retrospective effect from 17 June 1995.
M. Nagaraj: upheld, with conditions
In M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212, a Constitution Bench upheld the validity of the amendments, but held that a State exercising the power under Article 16(4A) must first satisfy itself on identified matters.
The conditions as laid down were that the State must collect quantifiable data showing:
- the backwardness of the class;
- the inadequacy of representation of that class in the cadre; and
- that the provision is consistent with the overall efficiency of administration under Article 335.
The practical effect was that a promotion quota could not simply be asserted. It had to be supported by data about the particular cadre.
Jarnail Singh (2018): backwardness goes
In Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta in 2018 the Court revisited Nagaraj and held that the requirement to demonstrate the backwardness of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes was contrary to the earlier nine-judge decision in Indra Sawhney and could not stand — those communities are presumed backward by virtue of their inclusion in the Presidential Lists under Articles 341 and 342.
What survived was the requirement of quantifiable data on inadequacy of representation, and the Article 335 efficiency consideration. So the tri-partite test became a two-part one.
Jarnail Singh (2022): the unit is the cadre
The 2022 decision addressed how the surviving requirement is to be applied. The Court clarified that the collection of quantifiable data on inadequacy of representation must be with reference to the cadre, and not to the class or group or the service as a whole.
This matters directly at establishment level. Adequacy is judged cadre by cadre, which means a department may lawfully operate a promotion quota in one cadre and not in another, on the data for each. It also means the data has to be collected and reviewed periodically rather than settled once.
The implementing instruction on the Government side is Office Memorandum No. 36012/16/2019-Estt.(Res.) dated 12 April 2022.
The promotion roster
Promotion runs on its own roster, and the differences from the direct recruitment roster are substantial.
- Only two reserved categories: SC at 15 per cent and ST at 7.5 per cent. No OBC. No EWS.
- Reservation in promotion applies where the element of direct recruitment does not exceed seventy-five per cent, and operates in Groups B, C and D and the lowest rung of Group A.
- The 14-point roster for small cadres has SC at point 7 and ST at point 14, and every other point unreserved — compare the direct recruitment version, where 4, 8 and 12 are OBC and 10 is EWS.
- De-reservation is permitted in promotion where a sufficient number of fit reserved-category candidates is not available, unlike direct recruitment where there is a general ban.
A gap worth naming. The 14-point promotion roster is published and verifiable. The full 200-point promotion roster is harder to obtain, and it should not be reconstructed arithmetically from the percentages — for the reasons set out in Part 5, the formula does not reproduce a published roster. If a large-cadre promotion roster is needed, get the annexure rather than deriving it.
What is still unsettled
Two questions in this area are live, and a noting should describe them as such rather than as settled law.
Creamy layer for SC and ST. Jarnail Singh in 2018 upheld the application of the creamy layer test in the promotion context as used in Nagaraj. Whether creamy layer should be applied to SC and ST more generally is the subject of pending petitions. Four judges commended the idea in separate concurring opinions in State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh in August 2024, but the question was not before that Court and those observations are obiter. The Union Government has opposed the extension, taking the position that the concept was developed for the Other Backward Classes and that any change is for Parliament under Articles 341 and 342. It is not settled law. Own merit in promotion. As noted in Part 10, the instruction dealing with own-merit promotion was recorded as sub judice in the DoPT compendium. Check its current status before applying the direct-recruitment own-merit rule to a promotion roster.Where this series leaves you
Twelve parts is a lot of material, and most of it reduces to a small number of things that are worth carrying in your head: reservation is a power, not a duty; it attaches to posts, not vacancies; the post keeps its category; own-merit candidates go against the unreserved column; horizontal reservation never adds to a vertical total; and the published roster governs, not the formula.
Everything else is detail you can look up. The Reservation Roster Trainer is there to make the first five of those automatic before you have to apply them to a register that matters.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q1. What conditions must be satisfied before a promotion quota is operated?
After Jarnail Singh (2018), two: quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation, and consistency with the efficiency of administration under Article 335. The third condition in Nagaraj, demonstrating the backwardness of the SC and ST, was held in 2018 to be contrary to Indra Sawhney and no longer applies.
Q2. At what level is inadequacy of representation assessed?
At the level of the cadre. The 2022 decision in Jarnail Singh clarified that the data must be collected with reference to the cadre, not to the class or group or the service as a whole. A department may therefore operate a promotion quota in one cadre and not in another.
Q3. Is there OBC or EWS reservation in promotion?
No. Article 16(4A) is confined to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and Article 16(6) on EWS applies to direct recruitment. Promotion carries SC at 15 per cent and ST at 7.5 per cent only, which is why promotion is maintained on a separate roster.
Q4. Does the creamy layer test apply to SC and ST in promotion?
The position is not settled and should not be stated as though it were. Jarnail Singh in 2018 upheld the use of the creamy layer test in the Nagaraj promotion context. Petitions seeking a general extension of creamy layer to SC and ST are pending and the Union Government has opposed them. Observations by four judges in Davinder Singh in 2024 were obiter, since the question was not before the Court.
Related Reading
This is the final part. Start at Part 1, see all twelve parts, or practise in the Reservation Roster Trainer.