The Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar of the High Court of J&K and Ladakh while refusing to quash selection and appointment of private respondents as Junior Legislative Assistants made by the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly Secretariat, Jammu, and to select and appoint her against the third post meant for Scheduled Caste category as per reservation roster, answered “Whether there can be any reservation as per the reservation roster in a three posts cadre where such reservation has the effect of breaching reservation ceiling of 50% fixed by the Supreme Court in Indira Sawhney vs Union of India and Ors, 1992 Supp.(3) SCC 217?”

The Court was addressing a case wherein the Respondents had called for applications for selection and appointment to three vacant posts of Jr. Legislative Assistants, and upon conducting the selection process, vide order impugned, private respondents were selected and consequently appointed as Junior Legislative Assistants. The Petitioner’s sole ground of challenge was that as per the reservation roster provided under Rule 14 of Reservation Rules of 1994, the third post should have been earmarked for SC category, under which Petitioner was the only eligible candidate. The Respondents argued that- allocating one post to backward area and one to the SC category would exceed the 50% reservation ceiling set by the Supreme Court in Indira Sawhney vs Union of India and Ors, [1992 Supp.(3) SCC 217], and as such reservation was provided strictly as per Rule 10 of Rules of 1994.

The Court, in light of various pronouncements of the Apex Court, observedthat the situation presented in this case has perhaps not been addressed by the Supreme Court previously.

The Court, upon consideration of the Reservation Rules 1994, noted that if the reservation roster provided under Rule 14 was followed, “In the instant case, the cadre consists of only three posts and if we have to go by the reservation roster provided under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1994, it would amount to reservation to the extent of 67 per cent which is way beyond 50% reservation ceiling. This would violate both, statutory provisions as well as precedents established by the Supreme Court.

The Court referenced the pronouncements of Apex Court in Indira Sawhney vs Union of India and Ors, 1992 Supp.(3) SCC 217, and Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil vs The Chief Minister and others. (2021) 8 Supreme Court Cases 1, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 362, to emphasize that reservation beyond 50% limit is unconstitutional.

Therefore, the Court concluded that accepting the Petitioner’s to earmarkthird post for SC category as per 100% roster indicated in Rule 14 of Rules of 1994 would be permitting reservation beyond ceiling limit of 50%. 

The Court, thus, upheld the Assembly Secretariat ‘s reliance on Rule 10, instead of following the roster points as indicated in Rule 14. It clarified that while the 100% roster in Rule 14 must be followed to implement the reservation provided under Rule 10, in cases where the total number of posts in a cadre is one or three, following the roster points in Rule 14 would result in breaching the 50% ceiling fixed in Indira Sawhney’s case and reaffirmed in Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil’s case. 

Consequently, the Court dismissed the Petition, finding it meritless.