{"id":227281,"date":"2020-03-19T14:13:22","date_gmt":"2020-03-19T08:43:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=227281"},"modified":"2020-03-20T20:42:28","modified_gmt":"2020-03-20T15:12:28","slug":"sc-upholds-validity-of-karnatakas-2018-reservation-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/03\/19\/sc-upholds-validity-of-karnatakas-2018-reservation-law\/","title":{"rendered":"Petition challenging implementation of Karnataka Reservation Act 2018 held not maintainable"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court<\/strong>:\u00a0 The bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud and UU Lalit, JJ has refused to entertain the applications challenging the validity of Karnataka\u2019s 2018 reservation law, which granted reservation in promotion to employees belonging to SC and ST categories. The Court held that applications filed by a group of general category employees for applying \u2018post-based quota\u2019 and the principle of the creamy layer at entry-level in public employment were not maintainable.<\/p>\n

The maintainability of the MAs was challenged on the ground that though styled as an application for directions, they seek to lay a substantive challenge to the subsequent directions and clarifications issued by the State government in implementing the Reservation Act 2018.<\/p>\n

The Court took note of various judgments wherein it was noticed that many applications, though styled as applications for clarification or modification are, in substance, applications for review. It noticed that this practice was presumably adopted to bypass the procedure stipulated for the consideration by this Court of review petitions. A party would not be permitted to circumvent substantive procedures by filing such applications<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Court held that in B K Pavitra II, the Court was concerned with the constitutional validity of the Reservation Act 2018 and not actions taken thereunder or in pursuance of its implementation. However, the present MAs, though styled as applications for directions, seek to lay challenge to the actions of the State government to carry into effect the provisions of the Reservation Act 2018.<\/p>\n

The Court noted,<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cthe nomenclature of an application is of no consequence and courts must assess the contents and reliefs sought in the application to determine what is the true nature of the application.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

In the present case the remedy, styled as directions, sought by the applicants cannot lie in the form of MAs.<\/p>\n