Supreme Court lifts stay on 30% quota for women domiciled in Uttarakhand in state services

The High Court had stayed the government order on the prima facie view that the order was contrary to the mandate of Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India.

Supreme Court of India, New Delhi.
Supreme Court of India, New Delhi.

November 4, 2022

On November 4 the Supreme Court bench comprising Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice V. Ramasubramanian lifted the stay which the Uttarakhand High Court had imposed on the government order which provided 30% reservation to the women domiciled in the State of Uttarakhand in state services.

The bench also issued notice to the respondent seeking a reply on the special leave petition filed by the State of Uttrakhand.

The State filed the plea assailing the interim order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court staying the 2006 order of the State of Uttarakhand. The High Court had stayed the govt order on the prima facie view that the order was contrary to the mandate of Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India.

The State had challenged the interim order passed by the bench of Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Ramesh Chandra Khulbe, stating that, “The High Court in the garb of interim relief has granted final relief at the interim stage, especially when no prima facie case has been made out by the party asking for the said relief, is not sustainable in law. The impugned order deserves to be set aside on this very ground itself.”

The petition also mentioned that the High Court has not taken into consideration the fact that the govt order of 2006 was not challenged for around 15 years. The petition also highlighted that the govt order also provided for Geographical Classification on the basis of place of residence which is permissible under the Constitution of India.

The Division Bench of the High Court was hearing a writ petition filed by Pavitra Chauhan, Ananya Attri, and others from outside the state belonging to the unreserved category who appeared for the state civil examination.

It was their case that despite securing higher marks in the preliminary test of the state civil examination than the cut-off marks (79) for women candidates with state domicile, they were not allowed to take the main exam.

Thus, they challenged two govt orders on the ground that they provide horizontal reservation [in the examination conducted for the posts of Uttarakhand Combined Service, Senior Service of the State Public Service Commission] on the basis of the ‘domicile’ of women candidates in the State of Uttarakhand.

 

 

Share with others