<p>The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a plea to review its May 10, 2019 judgement, which has upheld the validity of the Karnataka's 2018 law for granting reservation in promotion to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe employees.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices U U Lalit and D Y Chandrachud rejected a contention by general category of employees that this court did not consider the binding principles laid down by a Constitution bench in Nagaraj vs Union of India and Jarnail Singh vs Lachhmi Narain Gupta and that, in any case, the matter should have been referred to a bench of higher strength.</p>.<p>B K Pavitra and others, through petitions filed by advocate Kumar Parimal and settled by senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, claimed that there was an error apparent in the findings of this court on the retrospective application of the Reservation Act 2018 and the inapplicability of the 'creamy layer' concept to consequential seniority.</p>.<p>"Every ground raised in the review petitions has been addressed on merits in the judgment under review. Consistent with the parameters that guide the exercise of the review jurisdiction, we do not find any error apparent on the record to justify interference. The review petitions are therefore dismissed," the bench said.</p>.<p>The order was passed in judges chamber through the circulation of documents as per SC Rules.</p>.<p>The apex court's order would pave the way for the Karnataka government to bring about the promotion of SC/ST employees in the state.</p>.<p>In their plea, over 100 general category petitioners, led by B K Pavitra, contended the judgement by the two-judge bench of Justices Lalit and Chandrachud has "totally upset and diluted" the settled criteria to determine the nature, extent and purpose of reservation in the entire state of Karnataka. It was also contrary to the law laid down by the Constitution benches in the Nagaraj (2006) and Jarnail Singh (2018) cases.</p>.<p>The verdict has sought to "re-write the law of reservation defying the reasonable balance which the Supreme Court followed for the last 70 years," their plea has stated.</p>.<p>On May 10, 2019, the top court had dismissed a batch of petitions filed by Pavitra and others against the validity of '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, 2018', passed to "circumvent" the 2017 verdict, then delivered on petitions by Pavitra and others.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a plea to review its May 10, 2019 judgement, which has upheld the validity of the Karnataka's 2018 law for granting reservation in promotion to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe employees.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices U U Lalit and D Y Chandrachud rejected a contention by general category of employees that this court did not consider the binding principles laid down by a Constitution bench in Nagaraj vs Union of India and Jarnail Singh vs Lachhmi Narain Gupta and that, in any case, the matter should have been referred to a bench of higher strength.</p>.<p>B K Pavitra and others, through petitions filed by advocate Kumar Parimal and settled by senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, claimed that there was an error apparent in the findings of this court on the retrospective application of the Reservation Act 2018 and the inapplicability of the 'creamy layer' concept to consequential seniority.</p>.<p>"Every ground raised in the review petitions has been addressed on merits in the judgment under review. Consistent with the parameters that guide the exercise of the review jurisdiction, we do not find any error apparent on the record to justify interference. The review petitions are therefore dismissed," the bench said.</p>.<p>The order was passed in judges chamber through the circulation of documents as per SC Rules.</p>.<p>The apex court's order would pave the way for the Karnataka government to bring about the promotion of SC/ST employees in the state.</p>.<p>In their plea, over 100 general category petitioners, led by B K Pavitra, contended the judgement by the two-judge bench of Justices Lalit and Chandrachud has "totally upset and diluted" the settled criteria to determine the nature, extent and purpose of reservation in the entire state of Karnataka. It was also contrary to the law laid down by the Constitution benches in the Nagaraj (2006) and Jarnail Singh (2018) cases.</p>.<p>The verdict has sought to "re-write the law of reservation defying the reasonable balance which the Supreme Court followed for the last 70 years," their plea has stated.</p>.<p>On May 10, 2019, the top court had dismissed a batch of petitions filed by Pavitra and others against the validity of '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, 2018', passed to "circumvent" the 2017 verdict, then delivered on petitions by Pavitra and others.</p>
