JUDGMENT : Ujjal Bhuyan, J. Matter relates to acquiring of quantifiable data by the State in the context of reservation in promotion in the services of the State. 2. Since the subject matter of both the writ petitions, i.e. WP(C) Nos. 1560 and 2680 of 2015 are inter-related, those were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 3. However, for the sake of convenience, facts and pleadings of both the writ petitions are summarised separately. WP(C) No.1560/2015 4. This petition has been filed by a society called Equality Forum, Assam which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Registration certificate of the society along with memorandum of association and its constitution have been placed on record. The writ petition has been filed by the Secretary of the society on being so authorized. 5. Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Welfare of Plains Tribes and Backward Classes Department (WPT & BC Department) issued notification dated 24-10-2013 appointing Shri Harish Sonowal, IAS (Rtd.) as the One-Man-Commission to study and acquire quantifiable data on the compelling conditions of backwardness of Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST), inadequacy of their representation in various Government services and posts and overall efficiency in public administration as laid down in Article 335 of the Constitution of India in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India reported in (2006) 8 SCC 212 and U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. v. Rajesh Kumar, reported in (2012) 7 SCC 1 as per terms of reference. The One-Man-Commission was requested to submit report expeditiously for examination by the Government and for taking further course of action. In this connection reference was made to two pending cases i.e. WP(C) Nos. 4034 and 2752 of 2013. The following were the terms of reference of the One Man Commission:- (1) Whether the social, economic and educational status of SC/ST communities in the State of Assam justifies reservation in promotion to various Government services and posts ? (2) Whether SCs/STs are adequately represented in various Government services and posts as mandated under Article 16 (4-A) of the Indian Constitution? (2) Whether SCs/STs are adequately represented in various Government services and posts as mandated under Article 16 (4-A) of the Indian Constitution? (3) The manner in which overall efficiency in public administration is affected due to Government providing for reservation in promotion to SCs/STs as required under Article 335 of the Indian Constitution and whether there are any adverse effects thereof? 6. Thereafter, subsequent notifications were issued by the Government of Assam in the WPT & BC Department extending the time for submission of report by the One Man Commission. 7. Ultimately the One-Man-Commission submitted its report dated 10-03-2014 to the Government of Assam in the WPT and BC Department. The One-Man-Commission concluded that SC & ST communities in Assam are still backward. Their representation in public employment is not adequate and overall efficiency in public administration has not been affected by providing for reservation in promotion to such communities. Therefore, the Commission recommended that reservation in promotion in favour of members of SCs & STs should continue till such time the State Government is satisfied that such groups have advanced to such level at par with the more advanced groups. 8. It appears that the WPT & BC Department had prepared a cabinet memorandum to obtain approval of the Cabinet on the recommendation of the One-Man-Commission and sought the views of the Personnel Department on the report of the One-Man-Commission. It further appears that the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Personnel Department submitted his comments on 22-10-2014. It was pointed out that the report of the One-Man-Commission was inadequate and required further elaboration having regard to the promotional cadres. 9. The report of the One-Man-Commission was thereafter placed before the Cabinet and its recommendations were accepted on 02-11-2014. Consequently WPT and BC Department issued Office Memorandum (OM) dated 29-12-2014 laying down guidelines for implementation of post based reservation in promotion. 10. Aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present writ petition for quashing of the report of the One-Man-Commission dated 10-03-2014, Cabinet decision dated 02-11-2014 and the OM dated 29-12-2014. Petitioner further seeks a direction to the respondents to comply with the requirement of Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution of India as explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj (supra) and in UP Power Corporation (supra) before providing for reservation in promotion. 11. Challenge to the report of the One-Man-Commission has been made on various grounds. Petitioner further seeks a direction to the respondents to comply with the requirement of Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution of India as explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj (supra) and in UP Power Corporation (supra) before providing for reservation in promotion. 11. Challenge to the report of the One-Man-Commission has been made on various grounds. It is contended that the report has been prepared in a very haphazard and perfunctory manner. The report does not disclose about the methodology adopted while preparing it. No comparable data has been used to examine backwardness of the SCs & STs. Since backwardness is a relative term, therefore backwardness of a community has to be examined with reference to a community not perceived to be backward. This exercise was not done. On the other hand, various criteria adopted to judge backwardness, such as, land holdings, educational status, health status etc. are inadequate to reach any objective conclusion as to backwardness of a community in the context of reservation in promotion. Moreover, from the tone and tenure of the report, it is evident that the One-Man-Commission had proceeded with a pre-determined mind and therefore the exercise undertaken clearly reflects a mechanical approach. It is contended that the report does not fulfil the requirement mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj (supra), which is reiterated in UP Power Corporation (supra). 12. Respondent No. 3 has filed affidavit. Locus-standi of the petitioner to file the writ petition has been questioned. It is contended that promotion is an individual right. A person affected because of reservation in promotion would only be entitled to institute a challenge to such promotion. A society like the petitioner cannot institute such a challenge in a representative capacity. It is also contended that the persons who would be affected by the challenge made by the petitioner have also not been made parties in the writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition is also hit by non-joinder of necessary party. On merit, it has been averred that the report of the One-Man-Commission has been prepared to facilitate promotion for SCs & STs. The existence of all the three compelling reasons to justify reservation in promotion viz; backwardness, inadequacy of representation and overall administrative efficiency have been gone into and reflected in the report. On merit, it has been averred that the report of the One-Man-Commission has been prepared to facilitate promotion for SCs & STs. The existence of all the three compelling reasons to justify reservation in promotion viz; backwardness, inadequacy of representation and overall administrative efficiency have been gone into and reflected in the report. Referring to the provisions of Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution, it is stated the said Article provides for reservation in promotion. However, the concerned State will have to show in each case the existence of the three compelling reasons. In the case of the State of Assam, the existence of the three compelling reasons have been indicated in the report of the One-Man-Commission, which was approved by the Cabinet on 02-11-2014. The Assam Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Vacancies in Services and Posts) Act, 1978, which provided for vacancy based reservation, has been amended in the year 2012 to provide for post-based reservation. This Act has not been put to challenge by the petitioner. One-Man-Commission has collected the quantifiable data, vis-a-vis, the three compelling reasons which is admittedly a difficult exercise. It is stated that concept of reservation is based on social backwardness and not on economic backwardness. The report clearly reflects backwardness of SCs & STs in the State of Assam. Existence of backlog vacancies of SCs and STs in promotional cadres is indicative of their inadequate representation in such cadres. Government had considered the views of all the departments including the Personnel Department on the report of the One-Man-Commission and, thereafter, accepted it through the Cabinet decision on 02-11-2014. Contending that no right of the petitioner has been violated, respondent No. 3 seeks dismissal of the writ petition. 13. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have filed a common affidavit. In their affidavit, they have traced the history leading to insertion of Article 16(4-A) in the Constitution of India, providing for reservation in promotion in favour of SCs and STs, which in the opinion of the State are not adequately represented in the services under the State. 13. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have filed a common affidavit. In their affidavit, they have traced the history leading to insertion of Article 16(4-A) in the Constitution of India, providing for reservation in promotion in favour of SCs and STs, which in the opinion of the State are not adequately represented in the services under the State. It is also stated that the Assam Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Vacancies in Services and Posts) Act, 1978 (hereinafter, referred to as "the 1978 Act"), has been amended by way of the Assam Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Vacancies in Services and Posts) (Amendment) Act, 2012, providing for post-based reservation following the decision in R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab; reported in (1995) 2 SCC 745 . Section 5 of the 1978 Act, provides for reservation for SCs and STs in posts to be filled up by way of promotion in the following manner 7 % for SC, 10 % for ST (P) and 5 % for ST (H). It also provides for a separate post-based roster for each cadre to be operated on the principle of replacement and not as a running account. Referring to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M. Nagaraj (supra), it is stated that Article 16 (4-A) being an enabling provision, it will be governed by 2 (two) compelling reasons, namely, backwardness and inadequacy of representation. The concepts of backwardness and inadequacy of representation are required to be identified and measured on the basis of quantifiable data. This position has been reiterated in the case of U.P. Power Corporation Limited (supra). The exercise to collect quantifiable data and to form an opinion about the need for reservation in promotion based on such data has been left to the discretion of the State. The opinion so formed by the State being a policy decision cannot be challenged in a Court of law on the ground of propriety, reasonableness and sufficiency, unless the said opinion or policy decision suffers from the vice of non-application of mind or formulation on literal grounds or being beyond the scope of the statute or being based on irrelevant or extraneous materials. However, the writ petition does not project any such ground to warrant interference in the policy decision taken by the State providing for reservation in promotion. However, the writ petition does not project any such ground to warrant interference in the policy decision taken by the State providing for reservation in promotion. It is also contended that without challenging the vires of the Amendment Act of 2012, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the process of collection of quantifiable data and the subsequent Office Memorandum dated 29.12.2014. It is contended that the State Legislature had the competence to enact the 1978 Act and the Amendment Act of 2012. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have also questioned the locus standi of the petitioner to file the related writ petition in a representative character. It is further stated that the report of the One-Man-Commission having received cabinet approval on 02.11.2014, reflects the subjective satisfaction of the State and in the absence of any of the grounds as mentioned above, the challenge made to the report of the One-Man-Commission cannot be sustained. The said respondents have asserted that improvement of status of the members of SCs and STs, which have been highlighted by the petitioner does not necessarily mean adequacy of representation in services, which, in any case is based on the subjective opinion of the State. Opinion of the Personnel department has been attacked on the ground that it was a lop-sided view tinged with bias and was rightly rejected by the Cabinet. 14. An additional affidavit has been filed by the said respondent Nos. 5 and 6. It is stated that the 2 (two) respondents belong to the reserve category, i.e., ST (P) and are serving as Executive Engineer in the Water Resources department, Government of Assam. It is stated that WPT & BC Department by way of a memo dated 27.07.2011 had informed all the departments under the Government of Assam that there were 18,404 backlog vacancies, earmarked for the reserve categories, which were required to be filled up through a special drive. This shows that there is inadequate representation of SCs and STs in the services under the State. WP(C) No. 2680 of 2015 15. This petition has been filed by 4 (four) petitioners who are serving as Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the Irrigation Department, Government of Assam and seek promotion to the next higher post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil). They are aggrieved by promotion of respondent Nos. WP(C) No. 2680 of 2015 15. This petition has been filed by 4 (four) petitioners who are serving as Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the Irrigation Department, Government of Assam and seek promotion to the next higher post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil). They are aggrieved by promotion of respondent Nos. 5 to 27, who belong to the reserve category, to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. While challenging their promotion based on the recommendation of the departmental promotion committee dated 11.02.2015, they have also challenged the legality and validity of the Office Memorandum dated 29.12.2014. 16. On 15.05.2015, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that challenge to the promotion of respondent Nos. 5 to 27 from the rank of Assistant Engineer (Civil) to the rank of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) in the Irrigation Department had already been decided by this Court in WP(C) No. 810 of 2015. That being the position, it was submitted that petitioners would like to confine the challenge in the writ petition to the legality and validity of the Office Memorandum dated 29.12.2014. Since the said Office Memorandum is also under challenge in WP(C) No. 1560 of 2015, the present case was directed to be listed along with WP(C) No. 1560 of 2015. 17. Petitioners have contended that the Office Memorandum dated 29.12.2014 was issued on the basis of the report submitted by the One-Man-Commission. Referring to the Irrigation Department, Government of Assam, petitioners have averred that in the higher ranks of the said department, there is more than adequate representation of SCs and STs. Therefore, there is no question of providing reservation to such categories in promotion in the Irrigation Department. The impugned Office Memorandum dated 29.12.2014 is in violation of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj (supra) and UP Power Corporation Ltd. (supra), which held that reservation for SCs and STs in promotion is permissible provided, they are not adequately represented in the services under the State. The Office Memorandum dated 29.12.2014, has been assailed as being arbitrary and having been prepared without taking into consideration the relevant factors. Petitioners would like to contend that because of continuous reservation in promotion despite adequate representation, there is a higher degree of frustration amongst candidates belonging to the unreserve category working in the Irrigation Department, which is affecting their performance and overall administrative efficiency. Petitioners would like to contend that because of continuous reservation in promotion despite adequate representation, there is a higher degree of frustration amongst candidates belonging to the unreserve category working in the Irrigation Department, which is affecting their performance and overall administrative efficiency. It is contended that in the State of Assam, reserve category candidates are adequately represented and therefore, continuation of such reservation may not be justified as inadequacy of representation is a compelling reason to justify such reservation. The report of the One-Man-Commission and the Office Memorandum dated 29.12.2014 have also been challenged on the ground of being discriminatory. 18. Heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 1560 of 2015 and Mr. S.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 2680 of 2015. Also heard Mr. A.C. Buragohain, learned Advocate General, Assam, who has produced the record. Mr. D.K. Das, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10. Mr. J. Payeng, learned counsel has appeared for respondent No. 7 in WP(C) No. 1560 of 2015. Also heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos. 5 and 6, Mr. H.K. Mahanta, learned Standing Counsel, Personnel Department and Dr. B. Ahmed, learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department have also been heard. 19. Leading the arguments on behalf of the petitioner in WP(C) No. 1560 of 2015, Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel have made extensive reference to the report of the One-Man-Commission, particularly, Annexures - V, VI and VII thereof. He submits that the said report suffers from sample bias. It is based on empirical data and not on comparable data, vis-a-vis, unreserve category. Making a scathing attack on the report, he submits that it is an insincere effort and a mechanical attempt put forward to justify pre-determined conclusions. He submits that there are 58 administrative departments in the State of Assam, out of which only 18 departments had participated in the exercise carried out by the One-Man-Commission. Thus, the report is neither adequate nor extensive. He further submits that major departments of the State Government were not consulted while finalising the report. He submits that there are 58 administrative departments in the State of Assam, out of which only 18 departments had participated in the exercise carried out by the One-Man-Commission. Thus, the report is neither adequate nor extensive. He further submits that major departments of the State Government were not consulted while finalising the report. Referring to the provisions of Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution and the decisions of the Apex Court in M. Nagaraj (supra), Suraj Bhaan Meena v. State of Rajasthan; reported in (2011) 1 SCC 467 and UP Power Corporation Limited (supra), he submits that conclusions of the One-Man-Commission are not supported by the data relied upon and a perusal of the report clearly indicates that it was tailor-made and pre-determined. Naturally, such an exercise cannot be a wholesome exercise and is quite inadequate having regard to the objective of the One-Man-Commission. He further submits that Personnel Department of the Government of Assam had given its elaborate opinion suggesting a further indepth exercise, but unfortunately, views of the Personnel Department were not taken into account, rather those were completely overlooked. So also the views of the Hill Areas Department. Referring to Rule 54 of the Assam Rules of Executive Business, 1968, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submits that WPT and BC Department did not follow the procedure prescribed under the aforesaid Rules while carrying out the exercise, which has vitiated the decision of the Cabinet approving the report of the One-Man-Commission. 20. Mr. S.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 2680 of 2015, while generally supporting the submissions advanced by Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 1560 of 2015, submits that right of promotion is not a fundamental right. Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution is an enabling provision which empowers the State to provide for reservation for SCs and STs in promotion subject to fulfilment of 2 (two) compelling reasons, namely, backwardness of the community and inadequacy of representation. The 2 (two) compelling reasons will then have to be balanced with the overall administrative requirement of efficiency in service. Only when the State is satisfied about the presence of the above, will it be entitled to go for reservation in promotion. He has also referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Ajit Singh Januja v. State of Punjab, reported in (1999) 7 SCC 209 . 21. Only when the State is satisfied about the presence of the above, will it be entitled to go for reservation in promotion. He has also referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Ajit Singh Januja v. State of Punjab, reported in (1999) 7 SCC 209 . 21. Mr. A.C. Buragohain, learned Advocate General has raised the question of maintainability of the writ petition. He submits that petitioner in WP(C) No. 1560 of 2015 is not an aggrieved person as is understood in law. Petitioner cannot file a writ petition in representative capacity. No legal or constitutional right of the petitioner has been violated. Moreover, the writ petition is more in the nature of PIL, but without fulfilling the necessary requirements it has been filed. Neither PIL nor an individual writ would be maintainable in this case. Referring to Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution, learned Advocate General submits that SCs and STs are creation of Parliament and considering the historical injustice suffered by the said communities and having regard to the mandate of Articles 15(4) and 15(4-B) of the Constitution, SCs and STs are entitled to reservation. Learned Advocate General further submits that India is a constitutional democracy and the objective is to have an inclusive society to ensure that disadvantaged and marginalized groups are at par with the more developed communities. It is in that background that reservation in promotion is necessary and should be continued. He submits that quantifiable data is now available courtesy, the One-Man-Commission. He further submits that the data relating to the 2 (two) compelling reasons are by its very nature variable and cannot be static. Villages have been selected randomly and not selectively. The One-Man-Commission had collected adequate materials and based thereon had prepared the report. The report of the One-Man-Commission is a basic document to determine the quantifiable data as per decision of the Apex Court in the case of M. Nagaraj (supra), and reiterated in UP Power Corporation Limited (supra). He submits that after acceptance of the report of the One-Man-Commission by the Cabinet, views of the Personnel Department are no longer relevant and have become redundant. He finally submits that challenge made by the petitioners to the report of the One-Man-Commission and the Office Memorandum dated 29.12.2014 is without any substance and is liable to be rejected. 22. Mr. He submits that after acceptance of the report of the One-Man-Commission by the Cabinet, views of the Personnel Department are no longer relevant and have become redundant. He finally submits that challenge made by the petitioners to the report of the One-Man-Commission and the Office Memorandum dated 29.12.2014 is without any substance and is liable to be rejected. 22. Mr. D.K. Das, learned counsel has also questioned the maintainability of the writ petition. He submits that need for reservation in promotion depends upon the subjective satisfaction of the State. The report of the One-Man-Commission has placed the quantifiable data before the State and its acceptance by the State is indicative of the subjective satisfaction of the State about the need to have reservation in promotion. Mr. Das further submits that State of Assam had enacted the 1978 Act, which was amended in the year 2012 providing for reservation in promotion to SCs and STs. In view of availability of quantifiable data which justifies making provision for reservation for SCs and STs in promotion, the provisions of the 1978 Act, as amended, have now become enforceable. Presence of a large number of backlog vacancies in different cadres is indicative of inadequate representation of backward classes thereby justifying reservation in promotion. Contending that the 2 (two) writ petitions are devoid of any substance, he seeks dismissal of the writ petitions. 23. Mr. Saikia, learned Senior Counsel has mainly argued on the maintainability of the writ petition in WP(C) No. 1560 of 2015. He submits that petitioner being a society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, it cannot be an aggrieved party in a service matter. Therefore, petitioner has no locus standi to file and maintain the writ petition. In support of his submissions, Mr. Saikia has placed reliance on the following decisions: (2007) 4 SCC 1 ; Nair Service Society v. State of Kerala; (2013) 4 SCC 465 ; Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra; (2013) 5 SCC 1 ; State of Punjab v. Salil Sabhlok & Others. 24. In his reply submissions, Mr. Choudhury asserts that the writ petition is maintainable. What is under challenge in the writ petition is not any individual promotion but the report of the One-Man-Commission and the consequential Office Memorandum dated 29.12.2014. 24. In his reply submissions, Mr. Choudhury asserts that the writ petition is maintainable. What is under challenge in the writ petition is not any individual promotion but the report of the One-Man-Commission and the consequential Office Memorandum dated 29.12.2014. He has placed reliance on the following decisions: (2001) 6 SCC 663 ; Green Park Theatres Associated (P) Ltd. v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy and Others; (2004) 1 SCC 755 ; Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers' Association v. Administrative Officer and Others; (2009) 16 SCC 1 ; Steel Authority of India Limited v. Sutni Sangam and Others; 2010 (2) GLT 673; Meghalaya Wine Dealers Association & Anr. v. State of Meghalaya & Others. 25. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have received the due consideration of the Court. Record produced by Mr. Buragohain, learned Advocate General has also been perused. 26. Since objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition, i.e., WP(C) No. 1560 of 2015 has been raised by the respondents, the same is taken up for adjudication at the outset. 27. As already noticed above, the 2 (two) writ petitions have been heard together. 28. WP(C) No. 1560 of 2015 has been filed by a society called Equality Forum and WP(C) No. 2680 of 2015 has been filed by 4 (four) individual petitioners, who are serving as Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the Irrigation Department, Government of Assam. In the two writ petitions, grievance has been made against the report of the One-Man-Commission and the Office Memorandum dated 29.12.2014, which has been issued pursuant to approval of the report of the One-Man-Commission by the Cabinet. As noticed above, WP(C) No. 1560 of 2015 is the leading case and has been filed by a society called Equality Forum. It is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. As per the memorandum of association and constitution of the society, its aims and objectives are to provide equality of opportunity and to fight legally for equality of opportunity, to uphold the fundamental rights in the greater interest of public administration, to promote efficiency of its members, to provide all kinds of mass-welfare to all sections of Government employees and corporation etc. 29. At this stage, it may be useful to bear in mind that the subject matter of the writ petition does not relate to any individual case of promotion. 29. At this stage, it may be useful to bear in mind that the subject matter of the writ petition does not relate to any individual case of promotion. In fact, this petition does not challenge any promotion of any member of SC or ST. On the other hand, what is under challenge is the report of the One-Man-Commission dated 10.03.2014, which was approved by the Cabinet on 02.11.2014 and the consequential Office Memorandum dated 29.12.2014. Though broadly speaking, petitioner seeks intervention of the Court in a matter relating to service jurisprudence, yet this petition is not related to any inter-se-service dispute between 2 (two) individual employees/public servants. Petitioner has stated that it espouses the cause of those Government servants/public servants, who would be prejudicially affected because of reservation being provided to SCs ad STs in matters of promotion. The report of the One-Man-Commission as approved by the Cabinet has recommended reservation for SCs and STs in promotion on the basis of which Office Memorandum dated 29.12.2014 has been issued. In such circumstances, Court is of the view that petitioner would have the locus to challenge the legality and validity of the report of the One-Man-Commission and the consequential Office Memorandum dated 29.12.2014. Moreover, the connected writ petition, i.e., WP(C) No. 2680 of 2015 has been filed by 4 (four) Government servants serving as Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the Irrigation Department. As per their case projected in the writ petition, they could not be promoted to the next higher rank because of reservation for SCs and STs. Accordingly, they have challenged the report of the One-Man-Commission and the consequential Office Memorandum. Since both the writ petitions have been heard together, it would neither be just nor proper to non-suit the petitioner in WP(C) No. 1560 of 2015 on the ground of lack of standing. 30. In Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Officers' Welfare Council v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another; reported in (1997) 1 SCC 701 , the petitioner was an association of SC and ST Officers serving in the Health Department in the State of Uttar Pradesh. 30. In Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Officers' Welfare Council v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another; reported in (1997) 1 SCC 701 , the petitioner was an association of SC and ST Officers serving in the Health Department in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Association had highlighted the grievance of the SC and ST Officers, who were aggrieved by issuance of a memo by the State of Uttar Pradesh dated 28.07.1986, increasing the minimum length of service for promotion from Medical Officer to Deputy Chief Medical Officer and from Deputy Chief Medical Officer to Chief Medical Officer on the ground that it was a pretext and subterfuge to deny promotion to the eligible officers belonging to SCs and STs. The writ petition was not only entertained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court but was also allowed by quashing the offending memo. The State was directed to consider the case of the 3 (three) officers belonging to SC and ST category and if found fit, to promote them or any other eligible officer, if necessary by creating supernumerary posts. That was a writ petition filed by an association challenging the legality and validity of a Government memo on the ground that it came in the way of promotion of eligible officers belonging to SCs and STs. 31. In Nair Service Society (supra), the writ petition was filed by Nair Service Society, initially registered under the Travancore Companies Act, 1914, and, thereafter, under the Companies Act, 1956. The question which fell for consideration in the said proceeding was as regards identification of creamy layer amongst the backward classes and their exclusion from the purview of reservation vis-a-vis the report of the Justice K.K. Narendran Commission and acceptance thereof by the State of Kerala by issuing notification dated 27.05.2000. The Apex Court made it clear at the outset that it was not possible to dismiss the writ petition summarily on the ground of lack of locus standi on the part of the petitioner, i.e., Nair Service Society. It was noticed that the said society had raised the question of reservation for backward classes again and again. The Apex Court made it clear at the outset that it was not possible to dismiss the writ petition summarily on the ground of lack of locus standi on the part of the petitioner, i.e., Nair Service Society. It was noticed that the said society had raised the question of reservation for backward classes again and again. The Apex Court held that when the question of such grave importance was brought to the notice of the Court, having regard to the principle underlying the purport and object for which the creamy layer was sought to be excluded, it could not shut its eyes and refuse to determine the question. In the said proceeding, the Apex Court set aside the report of the Narendran Commission and directed the State to appoint a fresh Commission to go into all aspects of the matter. 32. In (2013) 10 SCC 308 ; Himachal Pradesh Scheduled Tribes Employees Federation v. Himachal Pradesh Samanaya Varg Karamchari Kalayan Mahasangh, writ petition was filed before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh by the respondent questioning the legality and validity of the Government instructions dated 07.09.2007, providing for reservation in promotion with consequential seniority in favour of SCs and STs in all classes of posts in services under the State. The writ petition was allowed and instructions dated 07.09.2007 were quashed. It is against this order of the High Court that Himachal Pradesh Scheduled Tribes Employees Federation approached the Apex Court. On an interlocutory application filed by the appellant, the Apex Court directed the State of Himachal Pradesh to take a final decision to provide reservation in promotion to SCs and STs and to bring about certainty and clarity in the matter on the basis of data already collected. It is thus evident that when questions of grave importance, such as those related to reservation in public services, are brought before the Court, adjudication is not declined on technical pleas such as locus standi of the petitioner. 33. It may also be mentioned at this stage that the petitioner in WP(C) No. 1560 of 2015, had earlier filed writ petition before this Court, being WP(C) No. 4034 of 2013, which has been referred to in the Government Notification dated 24.10.2013 appointing the One-Man-Commission. WP(C) No. 4034 of 2013 was heard along with WP(C) No. 2752 of 2013 filed by one Md. Shakeel Saadullah and another. WP(C) No. 4034 of 2013 was heard along with WP(C) No. 2752 of 2013 filed by one Md. Shakeel Saadullah and another. It was admitted for final hearing on 07.08.2013 with the direction that interim order passed on 30.05.2013 in WP(C) No. 2752 of 2013 would be treated to be the interim order in both the cases and would continue till further orders. Interim order dated 30.05.2013 was to the effect that State would not take any action in violation of the law laid down by the Apex Court in UP Power Corporation Limited (supra). On 14.10.2014, when WP(C) No. 4034 of 2013 was called upon for hearing, it was submitted by the learned Advocate General of the State that the Cabinet would soon take a decision on the question of quantified data pending consideration before it. Thereafter, the Cabinet approved the recommendation of the One-Man-Commission. As noticed above, in the Government notification dated 24.10.2013 appointing the One-Man-Commission, specific reference was made to WP(C) No. 4034 of 2013 filed by the petitioner. 34. Having regard to the above and considering the seriousness of the issue having wide ramification in the services under the State, Court is of the view that it should not decline adjudication of the 2 (two) writ petitions on the preliminary objection raised by the respondents. Accordingly, the preliminary objection relating to maintainability of the 2 (two) writ petitions is hereby rejected. 35. Having answered the preliminary objection as above, the merit of the challenge may now be adverted to. To have the issue in a proper perspective, it would be apposite to briefly narrate the constitutional and legal provisions together with the judicial pronouncements on the subject. 36. Issue in this case relates to reservation in promotion for SCs and STs in public service under the State. Article 46 of the Constitution of India, which is one of the directive principles of State Policy provides that State shall promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people, particularly, SCs and STs and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation. 37. Article 16, which is a species of Article 14, mandates equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. 37. Article 16, which is a species of Article 14, mandates equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Under Article 16(4), the State has the liberty to make provision for reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens, which in the opinion of the State is not adequately represented in the services under the State. By virtue of the provisions contained in Article 16(4) of the Constitution, benefit of reservation to SCs and STs in initial appointment were extended to promotion as well. This position continued till the judgment of the Apex Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India; reported in 1992 Suppl. (3) SCC 217, which held that Article 16(4) provided for reservation only in initial appointment and did not provide for reservation in promotion. However, it was clarified that the said decision would have only prospective operation and not affect the promotions already made. In respect of those services, where reservation was provided in promotion, it was declared that such reservation may continue for a period of 5 (five) years. 38. Following the above decision in Indra Sawhney (supra), Parliament enacted the Constitution (77th Amendment) Act, 1995, inserting Article 16(4-A) in the Constitution. The said Article 16(4-A) underwent further amendment brought in by the Constitution (85th Amendment) Act, 2001. As a result of the above 2 (two) amendments, Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution now reads as under:- "(4A) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for reservation in matters of promotion with consequential seniority to any class or classes of posts in the services under the State in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes which, in the opinion of the State, are not adequately represented in the services under the State." 39. In the meanwhile, the Apex Court delivered judgments in 3 (three) cases having considerable bearing on the subject of reservation in promotion, which necessitated the above amendments, particularly, the 85th Amendment. In R.K. Sabharwal (supra), the Apex Court held that social reservation in favour of SCs and STs were post-based reservation with inbuilt concept of replacement and not vacancy based. In the meanwhile, the Apex Court delivered judgments in 3 (three) cases having considerable bearing on the subject of reservation in promotion, which necessitated the above amendments, particularly, the 85th Amendment. In R.K. Sabharwal (supra), the Apex Court held that social reservation in favour of SCs and STs were post-based reservation with inbuilt concept of replacement and not vacancy based. In Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan; reported in (1995) 6 SCC 684 , it was held that though the reserve category candidates were entitled to accelerated promotion, they were not entitled to consequential seniority. In other words, though the reserve category candidates would get the benefit of accelerated promotion by virtue of reservation, their inter-se-seniority vis-a-vis the general category candidates would be governed by their respective seniority in the feeder cadre. Thus, the general category candidates on promotion would regain their seniority by application of the catch up rule. This view was reiterated in Ajit Singh (1) and Ajit Singh (2). 40. It was with the view to overcome the above decisions, which the Parliament was of the opinion had adversely affected the interest of the Government servants belonging to SCs and STs that the 85th Amendment had to be brought in giving benefit of consequential seniority in addition to accelerated promotion to the SCs and STs. 41. Sub-Article (4-A) as it stands today provides that equality of opportunity as mandated by Article 16 shall not prevent the State from making any provision for reservation in matters of promotion with consequential seniority to any class or classes of posts in the services under the State in favour of SCs and STs, if in the opinion of the State they are not adequately represented in the services under the State. 42. At this stage, a brief reference to Article 335 of the Constitution may be made. Article 335 provides that claims of the members of SCs and STs in the making of appointments to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State shall be taken into consideration consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration. Article 335 provides that claims of the members of SCs and STs in the making of appointments to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State shall be taken into consideration consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration. As per the proviso, nothing in Article 335 would prevent in making of any provision in favour of SCs and STs for relaxation in qualifying marks in any examination or lowering the standards of evaluation for reservation in matters of promotion to any class or classes of services or posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State. 43. Constitutional validity of the Constitution (77th Amendment) Act, 1995, the Constitution (85th Amendment) Act, 2001 amongst others came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of M. Nagaraj (supra). The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court while upholding the constitutional validity of the aforesaid amending acts, however, held that Article 16(4-A) is an enabling provision. If the State wants to provide reservation for SCs and STs in matters of promotion it has to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment in addition to compliance with Article 335. More about this in the later part of the judgment. At this stage, it would suffice to note that before providing for reservation in promotion, the State must examine and make assessment of the backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment, which must be consistent with the requirement of overall administrative efficiency by collecting quantifiable data. This position has been reiterated in the subsequent cases of Suraj Bhaan Meena (supra) & Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (supra). 44. In so far the State of Assam is concerned, the State had enacted the Assam Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Vacancies in Services and Posts) Act, 1978, providing for reservation of vacancies in services and posts for members of SCs and STs. Section 5 of the said Act provided for reservation for SCs and STs in vacancies to be filled up by promotion in the manner indicated therein. There would be reservation to the extent of 7 % for SC, 10 % for ST (P) and 5 % for ST (H). For this purpose, a roster of 20 (twenty) vacancies was provided. Section 5 of the said Act provided for reservation for SCs and STs in vacancies to be filled up by promotion in the manner indicated therein. There would be reservation to the extent of 7 % for SC, 10 % for ST (P) and 5 % for ST (H). For this purpose, a roster of 20 (twenty) vacancies was provided. Rules have also been framed by the State Government to give effect to the provisions of the said Act. 45. Following the judgment in R.K. Sabharwal (supra), which ruled that reservation would be post-based and not vacancy based, the Assam Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Vacancies in Services and Posts) (Amendment) Act, 2012, has been enacted, amending the 1978 Act whereby instead of reservation in vacancies it has now been made reservation in posts though the percentage of reservation has been maintained. A separate post-based model of 100 point roster has also been provided. 46. In the meanwhile, a Division Bench of this Court in two cases including one filed by the petitioner, as mentioned above, had made it clear that State would not take action in violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P. Power Corporation Limited (supra). 47. In a separate proceeding relating to reservation in promotion in the Irrigation Department (MC No. 726 of 2014 in WP(C) No. 707 of 2014), this Court held that there was no quantifiable data before the State regarding the 3 (three) constitutional requirements, namely, backwardness of the class, inadequacy of representation in public services and overall efficiency in administration in the event of reservation in promotion. It was held that in the absence of such quantifiable data question of forming any opinion by the State to invoke the enabling provision of Article 16(4-A) would not arise. Accordingly, it was held that till the exercise of collection of quantifiable data relating to the three constitutional requirements as mandated in M. Nagaraj (supra) and Uttar Pradesh Corporation Limited (supra) and formation of opinion by the State based on the quantifiable data so collected that the enabling provision of Article 16(4-A) is to be invoked was carried out, the 1978 Act as amended in 2012 in so far it provides for reservation in promotion would remain in a dormant state. 48. At this stage, it will be useful to refer to the report of the One-Man-Commission. 48. At this stage, it will be useful to refer to the report of the One-Man-Commission. As already noticed above, the One-Man-Commission was constituted by the Government of Assam vide notification dated 24.10.2013 to study and acquire quantifiable data on the compelling conditions of backwardness of SCs and STs, inadequacy of their representation in various Government services and posts and overall efficiency in public administration because of reservation in promotion in the light of the decisions of the Apex Court in M. Nagaraj (supra) and U.P. Power Corporation Limited (supra) on the 3 (three) terms of reference mentioned in the said notification. The substance of the report are available in Annexures-V, VI and VII thereto. 49. Annexure - V deals with quantifiable data of backwardness of SCs and STs. The Commission made an overview of the demographic pattern of SCs and STs in the State of Assam noting that SCs comprise of 8.17 % of the total population of the State, whereas, STs constitute 15.91 % of the total population of the State. The Commission referring to the decision of the Apex Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, proceeded on the premise that the concept of creamy layer do not apply to SCs and STs. All SCs and STs are deemed to be backward and there cannot be further determination of backwardness amongst them. The Commission proceeded to hold that it is not the individual but the community as a whole that has to be taken into account to determine backwardness. Therefore, there is no burden on the part of the State to ascertain backwardness of SCs and STs. Nonetheless, the Commission examined backwardness of the 2 (two) communities on the yardstick of several indicators like economic status, access to education and health facilities etc. The Commission observed that SCs and STs in Assam predominantly live in rural areas. Referring to STs, it is stated that nearly 14.1% live below the poverty line. Though their main means of livelihood is cultivation, despite cultivating and occupying land for decades the tribal population does not have ownership over the land. Therefore, they have no legal right over their land. They do not get compensation when their lands are acquired by Government. They cannot avail loan for increasing productivity of the land. Though their main means of livelihood is cultivation, despite cultivating and occupying land for decades the tribal population does not have ownership over the land. Therefore, they have no legal right over their land. They do not get compensation when their lands are acquired by Government. They cannot avail loan for increasing productivity of the land. Riverine tribal population is subjected to perennial floods and erosion making a sizable portion of such population landless and forced to become farm labourers. Referring to Dhemaji and Majuli, it is stated that some people have to spend nearly six months every year on embankments due to floods and erosion. 49.1. In case of SCs, it is stated that 27.7 % of them live below poverty line though a large population of SCs are occupation based particularly relating to fishery and pottery making. Because of lack of market and age old prejudice towards certain caste based occupations, many of the SCs have left their traditional occupations. Referring to the studies undertaken by National Sample Survey Organization, the Commission has pointed out extremely limited degree of land ownership. Proportion of households possessing less than 1 (one) hectare of land amongst STs is 45.3 % and amongst SCs, it is 72.3 %. 49.2. Referring to access to education, the Commission reports that schooling within easy access has been relatively poor for SC and ST children as compared to the general population areas. Where SCs and STs are pre-dominant, there are very few primary schools in the neighbourhood. Percentage of school drop-out is very high amongst SC and ST children. Schemes like mid-day meal appears to have failed to lure the children to school. Drop-out rate of SC and ST children in Assam is relatively higher as compared to the all India drop-out rate. As per statistics, the drop-out rate in Class I to VIII among STs is 77.11 % as compared to the all India rate of 62.48 % and in Class - IX, it is 86.36 % as compared to the all India rate of 86.55 %. Drop out rate in Class - I to VIII in respect of SCs is at par with the all India rate of 69.53 % and in Class - IX, it is 83.84 % as compared to the all India rate of 75.68 %. Drop out rate in Class - I to VIII in respect of SCs is at par with the all India rate of 69.53 % and in Class - IX, it is 83.84 % as compared to the all India rate of 75.68 %. Referring to a study conducted by the Assam Institute of Research of STs and SCs, the Commission reports that there is high drop-out rate among STs as one climbs the academic ladder. It is because educational infrastructure is not available within their reach. Education becomes a costly affair as high schools and colleges are located at a distance. Quality of education received by SCs and STs cannot be compared to the education received in urban and general areas because of lack of quality schools, colleges and teachers. Due to non-availability of quality education in SC and ST areas, students of these communities fail to compete with students of other communities. In this connection, reference has been made to performance in matriculation examination and admission into some prominent educational institutions. Only 2.5 % of SC population and 2.3 % of ST population are graduates. As a result, number of qualified persons in these communities is negligible. 49.3. Referring to health and sanitation, it is stated that SCs and STs have very limited access to health facilities. The areas where they live lack basic health amenities. Being located in isolated and far-flung areas, these areas are prone to diseases like malaria, typhoid, cholera, diarrhea, tuberculosis etc. Many of the tribal villages in the hilly areas have no motorable road communication and can be reached only on foot. Though health centres have been established, these centres remain functionless because of absence of doctors and health workers. 49.4. The Commission also reports that SC and ST households lag behind in terms of having water facilities. Drinking water is a major problem faced by those communities. Only 33.06 % of SC households and 30.91 % of ST households have drinking water facilities. 49.5. It is also stated that SC and ST communities suffer from lack of basic sanitation facilities. The idea of having toilets within the house or in the vicinity is still a new concept for such communities even after so many years of independence. Referring to a survey conducted by the WPT and BC Department, it is stated that manual scavenging is still prevalent in Assam. The idea of having toilets within the house or in the vicinity is still a new concept for such communities even after so many years of independence. Referring to a survey conducted by the WPT and BC Department, it is stated that manual scavenging is still prevalent in Assam. There were 8434 numbers of identified manual scavengers in Assam as on 2012, with heavy concentration in Kamrup district. 49.6. SCs and STs also suffer from lack of housing. Even though there are schemes like Indira Awas Yojana (IAY), in reality such schemes do not seem to reach these communities due to lack of effective monitoring. 49.7. Persistent backwardness amongst the tribal population is primarily responsible for deep-rooted superstitious beliefs leading to inhuman practise like witch hunting, which is particularly prevalent in tribal dominated pockets. 49.8. Because of such under-development, according to the Commission, it has led to resentment amongst the tribal populace. State Government is trying to address the problem by creating autonomous councils. It is stated that creation of such councils suggest that the Government has realised the need to take affirmative action for development of SCs and STs. 49.9. The Commission also considered the status of 7 (seven) villages on sample basis inhabited by SC and ST people including 2 (two) villages of Nowapara and Teteliguri, both near the State capital. The report states that despite being situated near the State capital hardly at a distance of 24 and 17 kilometres respectively, the condition of the 2 (two) villages is most pathetic. There is lack of roads, education, health facilities etc. It is stated that economic condition of the people of the 2 (two) villages is deplorable. Because of economic compulsion and ignorance, villagers have been exploited by other general community people by purchasing their land at throw away price. Same is the position, if not worse, in the case of the other villages. 49.10. Finally, the One-Man Commission concluded that SCs and STs are economically, socially and educationally backward. They, particularly the STs, reside mostly in the foot-hills, hamlets and river-banks due to their historical background, geographical isolation and shyness of contact. They have unequal access to important indicators of progress like education and health. Despite efforts by the Government, it appears that there has been failure to deliver the benefits of development to SCs and STs. 50. They, particularly the STs, reside mostly in the foot-hills, hamlets and river-banks due to their historical background, geographical isolation and shyness of contact. They have unequal access to important indicators of progress like education and health. Despite efforts by the Government, it appears that there has been failure to deliver the benefits of development to SCs and STs. 50. Annexure - VI deals with quantifiable data on inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs in various Government services and posts. Reference has been made to the 1978 Act, which provides for reservation to SCs and STs both in direct recruitment and in promotion. It is stated that despite providing reservation to SCs and STs in public employment, still, there exists huge backlog vacancies meant for the SCs and STs. It is stated that reservation policy has not been implemented in its true spirit by various Government departments leading to de-reservation of a number of posts earmarked for SCs and STs. Backlog vacancies as on 2006 were reported to be 18,084, for which special recruitment drive had to be carried out. As per report of WPT and BC Department, as on 01.04.2013, the total shortfall against vacancies earmarked for SCs and STs was 5493. Therefore, the Commission has taken the view that inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs in public employment still exists and the Government departments have failed to take affirmative action to remove such inadequacy. 50.1. The Commission examined the roster registers of some departments like the Home-Guards, Directorate of Agriculture, Public Health Engineering Department, Sports and Youth Welfare, Panchayat and Rural Development, Tourism, Health and Family Welfare etc., but it has been stated that many of the major departments had not furnished data relating to various cadres in their respective departments to the Commission. Consequently, the shortfall vacancy in those departments could not be accounted for. Making an analysis of the available data, the Commission concluded that there are huge shortfall vacancies meant for SCs and STs in various cadres, which have remained unfilled since a long time. It is, however, observed that SC and ST employees, who are working in various cadres are there only because of reservation. 51. Annexure-VII deals with quantifiable data on overall efficiency of public administration due to reservation in Government services and posts. It is, however, observed that SC and ST employees, who are working in various cadres are there only because of reservation. 51. Annexure-VII deals with quantifiable data on overall efficiency of public administration due to reservation in Government services and posts. The One-Man-Commission noted that it is the duty of the State to take into consideration the claims of SCs and STs in matters of appointment subject to the condition laid down in Article 335. While holding that the controversy relating to overlapping of provisions of Article 16(4) and 335 was settled in the case of Indra Sawhney (supra) by laying down that reservation is not necessarily anti-meritorian because efficiency is not identical with merit in an examination, the Commission put a question to itself as to how to measure efficiency. Observing that efficiency of a person cannot be quantified, the Commission stated that there are several aspects of efficiency and referred to the observations of Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy in K.C. Vasanth Kumar v. State of Karnataka; reported in [1985 (Supp.) SCC 714]. Declaring that there is no place for inefficiency in public administration, the Commission has reported that feedback received from various departments do not reflect that reservation for SCs and STs in promotion have affected administrative efficiency. In every administrative department, there is a mechanism in place to consider promotion. There is selection board/departmental promotion committee in every department with laid down criteria to be considered while making selection for promotion. In matters of promotion, there is no relaxation of eligibility criteria for SCs and STs. Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) form the basis for assessing merit and efficiency of the person under consideration for promotion. Assessment is made on the basis of ACR gradings. Therefore, the Commission has stated that in Assam, there is no relaxation or lowering of marks for SCs and STs at the time of promotion. The One-Man Commission sought for the views of various departments on the following aspects:- (i) Departmental action initiated against SC & ST employees for dereliction of duty; (ii) Withholding of promotion of SC/ST employees to higher grades for inefficiency; (iii) Adverse reports received against SC and ST employees for inefficiency or dereliction of duty; (iv) Special training programme organised exclusively for SC/ST employees to enhance their efficiency in Government services. 51.1. 51.1. The Commission has stated that from the reports received there is neither any statistical evidence nor any example of negative impact on the administration due to reservation being provided to SCs and STs in promotion at various levels. 51.2. The Commission also noted that considering the past meritorious service of reserve category officials of the State, they were posted as Governor of State, Chief Secretary and Member of Assam Information Commission. Many such officials have been re-engaged after retirement due to their efficiency in service. 51.3. According to the One-Man-Commission, considering the smooth running of State administration and consistent growth of Assam, reservation in promotion to SCs and STs has had no adverse impact on the efficiency of public administration. Most of the revenue earning departments have sizeable SC and ST employees and have been performing satisfactorily over the years. In departments like PWD, Irrigation and Health and Family Welfare, important posts are being held by reserve category officers. Work in these departments has not suffered due to presence of SC and ST employees at various levels on account of reservation. Reference has been made to SC and ST members of the Assam Legislative Assembly and Parliament, stating that because of their merit and efficiency they have been instrumental in moulding policies of the Government. Therefore, the One-Man Commission concluded that despite existence of SC and ST quota in recruitment as well as in promotion in Government departments, it does not appear that the administrative efficiency of various departments have been affected at all, rather there has been significant improvement in key developmental indicators. Therefore, the Commission took the view that in-spite of providing reservation in appointments and promotions, the overall administrative efficiency of Government departments as provided under Article 335 has not been compromised at all. 52. The One-Man Commission collected data based on various census publications of National Sample Survey and other publications of the Central Government and the Government of Assam for the years 2001 and 2011. The Commission also interacted with the representatives of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Employees' Association as well as representatives of a few autonomous councils. The Commission also had interaction with various heads of departments under the Government of Assam. 53. Based on the above 3 (three) assessments, the One-Man Commission concluded that SCs and STs in Assam are still backward. The Commission also interacted with the representatives of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Employees' Association as well as representatives of a few autonomous councils. The Commission also had interaction with various heads of departments under the Government of Assam. 53. Based on the above 3 (three) assessments, the One-Man Commission concluded that SCs and STs in Assam are still backward. Their representation in public employment is not adequate and overall efficiency has not been affected by reservation in promotion. On the basis of the above conclusions, the One-Man Commission recommended that reservation in promotion for SCs and STs should continue and the State Government should evolve a mechanism to assess the advancement made by SCs and STs at regular intervals till such time the State Government is satisfied that SCs and STs have reached the level at par with the more advanced communities that the reservation policy may be reviewed. 54. As already stated in the earlier part of the judgment, recommendations of the One-Man Commission was approved by the Cabinet. Following the same and consequent upon the amendments made to the 1978 Act in 2012, Government of Assam in the WPT and BC Department issued the Office Memorandum dated 29.12.2014, laying down guidelines to implement the post-based roster in matters of reservation of posts for SCs and STs, both ST (P) and ST (H), in direct recruitment as well as in promotion. At this stage, it may not be necessary to delve into detail about the guidelines laid down in the said Office Memorandum as those guidelines basically lay down the manner of implementation of reservation. 55. A deep analysis of the report of the One-Man Commission would show inconsistencies in the said report even to the extent of making contradictory assertions. At certain stages of the report, it is stated that fruits of development have not trickled down to the SCs and STs, who are at the bottom of the social hierarchy; at several other places the report states that significant progress has been made in key development indicators, where SC and ST employees have played a significant role. However, generally the report portrays a negative picture. In the report relating to backwardness of SCs and STs, it is stated that measured in terms of various development indexes, SCs and STs do not figure in the developmental radar at all. However, generally the report portrays a negative picture. In the report relating to backwardness of SCs and STs, it is stated that measured in terms of various development indexes, SCs and STs do not figure in the developmental radar at all. Analysing the status of 7 (seven) villages including 2 (two), which are very near to the State capital, Guwahati, the report states that those villages have not seen any development despite formulation of several welfare schemes. Thus, as per the report there has been lack of developmental activities in areas inhabited by SC and ST people and this has contributed to their continued backwardness. 56. In Ram Singh v. Union of India, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 697 , the Supreme Court was considering challenge to Government notification including the Jat community in the central list of Backward Classes for several states in the country. The said notification was issued following a decision taken by the Union Cabinet rejecting the contrary advice of the National Commission for Backward Classes on the ground that the said advice did not adequately take into account the ground realties. In the said judgment, the Apex Court observed that the necessary data on which the exercise to determine backwardness is based has to be contemporaneous. While so observing, the Apex Court took the view that one may legitimately presume progressive advancement of all citizens on every front, i.e., social, economic and educational. Any other view would amount to retrograde governance. In that case, the Apex Court noticed with surprise that there was governmental affirmation of such negative governance projected to justify backwardness. The same is the position in the present case. The One-Man Commission has reported virtually no progress in the status of SCs and STs despite framing and implementation of a number of developmental schemes. The report of the One-Man Commission is a virtual indictment of the governance of the State with reference to SCs and STs. Approval of such report by the State Cabinet amounts to acknowledging its own failure of governance in key sectors, namely, improvement in the status of the marginalized sections of the society like SCs and STs. 57. The report of the One-Man Commission is a virtual indictment of the governance of the State with reference to SCs and STs. Approval of such report by the State Cabinet amounts to acknowledging its own failure of governance in key sectors, namely, improvement in the status of the marginalized sections of the society like SCs and STs. 57. On the quantifiable data on inadequacy of representation for SCs and STs in various Government services and posts, the One-Man Commission, had itself noted that many of the major departments like Finance, Education, General Administration, Power etc, had not furnished the desired data in-spite of several reminders. However, after examining the position in some of the cadres in the Agriculture Department, Public Health Engineering Department, Sports and Youth Welfare Department etc., the Commission concluded that there is inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs in the services under the State. Referring to the backlog vacancies of SCs and STs as of 2006, being 18,804, the Commission noted that there still exists huge backlog vacancies meant for SCs and STs. Like in the previous requirement, here also the Commission took the view that inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs in public employment still exists because the Government departments have failed to take affirmative action to eliminate the same. However, the Commission contradicted itself when it stated that as per statistics provided by the WPT and BC Department, as on 01.04.2013, the shortfall of SCs and STs was 5493, which shows that between 2006 and 2013, the backlog vacancies for SCs and STs had drastically come down. Moreover, the Commission is silent as to whether this shortfall pertained to only the promotional cadres or all the cadres including those required to be filled up by way of direct recruitment. Again, the Commission contradicted itself by stating that SCs are well represented in the cadres of Junior Engineer and Senior Grade Junior Engineer in the Public Health Engineering Department. Likewise, it is stated that ST (H) is well represented in the cadre of Assistant Engineer. Again, in the cadre of Executive Engineer, it is stated that SCs are well represented. 58. Likewise, it is stated that ST (H) is well represented in the cadre of Assistant Engineer. Again, in the cadre of Executive Engineer, it is stated that SCs are well represented. 58. What is noticed from the above is that the One-Man Commission made a general overview of the reservation position in the services under the State Government and based on the backlog position and the situation in some of the departments, came to the conclusion that there is inadequate representation of SCs and STs in Government services. What the Commission failed to keep in mind while carrying out the aforesaid exercise was that inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs in the services under the State was required to be assessed in the context of promotional cadres. In various services under different departments, certain posts are required to be filled up by direct recruitment, whereas, as one progresses in the upward hierarchy in the pyramidical structure of such services, the higher cadres are required to be filled up by way of promotion. It is in respect of such cadres in the services that inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs were required to be considered. 59. At this stage, it may be useful to refer to the views of the Personnel Department on the note prepared by the WPT and BC Department on the report of the One-Man Commission for obtaining approval of the Cabinet. Cabinet memorandum was prepared by the WPT and BC Department and circulated under Rule 17 of the Assam Rules of Executive Business. The Judicial Department took the stand that WPT and BC Department may obtain the specific views of the Personnel Department on the findings of the Commission concerning efficiency in administration and backwardness as well as the methodology followed in determining the same. It was further opined that it would be better to obtain the views of the learned Advocate General, Assam as the matter related to implementation of Supreme Court directives. This is how the matter was placed before the Personnel Department. On the issue of backwardness, the Personnel Department noted that the report was not comprehensive because key indicators like literacy level, out of school children, infant mortality rate, women empowerment, per capita income generation, etc., were not taken into account. This is how the matter was placed before the Personnel Department. On the issue of backwardness, the Personnel Department noted that the report was not comprehensive because key indicators like literacy level, out of school children, infant mortality rate, women empowerment, per capita income generation, etc., were not taken into account. Moreover, backwardness was examined taking SC and ST communities as a whole, but there was no assessment of the backwardness of individual SC and ST communities. In respect of inadequacy of representation in promotional cadres, it was noticed that the Commission had examined only some cadres, both direct recruitment and promotional cadres in few departments. Personnel Department pointed out that while examining the status of inadequacy in a cadre, basic requirement is the data on 3 (three) aspects, i.e., cadre strength, men in position and the categories of men in position. Only then a correct picture of inadequacy of representation would be available. Personnel Department pointed out that in respect of inadequacy of representation in promotional cadres, the One-Man Commission was bound by the conditions laid down in Article 16 (4-A) of the Constitution, which enables the State to provide for reservation in promotion. This would inevitably confine the exercise undertaken by the One-Man Commission to the promotional cadres only. While referring to the reliance placed by the Commission with regard to the backlog vacancies, Personnel Department stated that in the State of Assam, there are around 800 promotional cadres. A detailed analysis of the promotional cadres in various Government services on the question of inadequate representation would have made the report of the Commission an authentic document useful for guidance of selection committees/departmental promotion committees. Therefore, Personnel Department was of the view that further effort was required on this aspect as the Commission had not made available quantifiable data in respect of inadequacy of representation in promotional cadres. 59.1. Regarding report of the Commission on the impact in the efficiency of administration because of reservation in promotion, Personnel Department acknowledged that working out the limitation as expressed in Article 335 of the Constitution is a complex job requiring further analysis. 60. Having noticed the above, the decision in M. Nagaraj (supra) may once again be adverted to. As already noticed above, constitutional validity of the Constitution (77th Amendment) Act, 1995, Constitution (85th Amendment) Act, 2001 and another Amendment Act was examined. 60. Having noticed the above, the decision in M. Nagaraj (supra) may once again be adverted to. As already noticed above, constitutional validity of the Constitution (77th Amendment) Act, 1995, Constitution (85th Amendment) Act, 2001 and another Amendment Act was examined. While examining the constitutional validity of the aforesaid amendment acts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also considered the width and amplitude of the right of equal opportunity in public employment in the context of reservation in promotion. In Para-49 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court made an important observation that reservation is necessary for transcending castes and not for perpetuating it. Reservation has to be used in a limited sense otherwise it will perpetuate casteism in the country. Reservation is underwritten by a special justification. While equality in Article 16(1) is individual specific, reservation in Articles 16(4) and 16(4-A) is enabling. Discretion of the State to provide for reservation to SCs and STs by exercising the enabling power is, however, subject to the existence of their backwardness and inadequacy of representation in public employment. Backwardness has to be assessed on objective factors, whereas, inadequacy has to factually exist. This is where judicial review comes in. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has put in a caveat by clarifying that whether reservation in a given case is desirable or not as a policy, is not for the Courts to decide as long as the parameters mentioned in Article 16(4) and 16(4-A) are maintained. Thus, as per the aforesaid observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, whether inadequacy of representation factually exists in a given case would be amenable to judicial scrutiny in the exercise of the power of judicial review. 60.1. In the course of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also examined the role of the enabling provisions in the constitutional context. The enabling provisions brought in by the impugned constitutional amendments were held to be curative by nature. It has been held that the object in enacting the said enabling provisions is that the State is empowered to identify and recognise the compelling interests. The enabling provisions brought in by the impugned constitutional amendments were held to be curative by nature. It has been held that the object in enacting the said enabling provisions is that the State is empowered to identify and recognise the compelling interests. If the State has quantifiable data to show backwardness of SCs and STs and inadequacy of their representation in services under the State, then the State can make reservation in promotion for the said classes keeping in mind maintenance of efficiency in administration, which acts as a constitutional limitation on the discretion of the State to provide for reservation in promotion. Concepts of efficiency, backwardness and inadequacy of representation are required to be identified and measured. That exercise depends on availability of data. 61. Finally, while upholding the constitutional validity of the aforesaid amending acts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- "121. The impugned constitutional amendments, by which Articles 16(4-A) and 16(4-B) have been inserted flow from Article 16(4). They do not alter the structure of Article 16(4). They retain the controlling factors or the compelling reasons, namely, backwardness and inadequacy of representation which enables the States to provide for reservation keeping in mind the overall efficiency of the State administration under Article 335. These impugned amendments are confined only to SCs and STs. They do not obliterate any of the constitutional requirements, namely, ceiling limit of 50% (quantitative limitation), the concept of creamy layer(qualitative exclusion), the sub-classification between OBCs on one hand and SCs and STs on the other hand as held in Indra Sawhney, the concept of post-based roster with inbuilt concept of replacement as held in R.K. Sabharwal. 122. We reiterate that the ceiling limit of 50% , the concept of creamy layer and the compelling reasons, namely, backwardness, inadequacy of representation and overall administrative efficiency are all constitutional requirements without which the structure of equality of opportunity in Article 16 would collapse. 123. However, in this case, as stated above, the main issue concerns the "extent of reservation". In this regard the State concerned will have to show in each case the existence of the compelling reasons, namely, backwardness, inadequacy of representation and overall administrative efficiency before making provision for reservation. As stated above, the impugned provision is an enabling provision. The State is not bound to make reservation for SCs/STs in matters of promotions. In this regard the State concerned will have to show in each case the existence of the compelling reasons, namely, backwardness, inadequacy of representation and overall administrative efficiency before making provision for reservation. As stated above, the impugned provision is an enabling provision. The State is not bound to make reservation for SCs/STs in matters of promotions. However, if they wish to exercise their discretion and make such provision, the State has to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment in addition to compliance with Article 335. It is made clear that even if the State has compelling reasons, as stated above, the State will have to see that its reservation provision does not lead to excessiveness so as to breach the ceiling limit of 50% or obliterate the creamy layer or extend the reservation indefinitely." 62. Thus, it was held that the State is not bound to provide reservation for SCs and STs in matters of promotion. However, if the State wishes to make such a provision, which is permissible under Articles 16(4A) and 16(4-B), the State has to collect the quantifiable data showing backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment. In addition, the State must also ensure compliance of Article 335. In other words, before providing for reservation in promotion, the State must examine and make an assessment of the backwardness and inadequacy of representation which must be consistent with overall administrative efficiency. These three i.e., backwardness of the class, inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment and maintenance of efficiency of administration have been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M Nagaraj (supra) as constitutional requirements which are required to be fulfilled/satisfied before providing for reservation to SCs and STs in promotion. 63. Whether there should be reservation for SCs and STs in promotion in services under the State or not is a matter of policy. But if the State wants to make such a provision, which it is empowered to do by virtue of the enabling provision of Article 16 (4-A), it must satisfy the twin tests of backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that class in the public service or services which must then be harmonised with the maintenance of overall efficiency in administration. These three factors have been held to be constitutional requirements. The State must form its opinion whether to provide for reservation to SCs and STs in promotion or not keeping in mind the above three requirements based on the quantifiable data. Until this is done, the State would be precluded from invoking the enabling provision. In M. Nagaraj (supra), the Constitution Bench specifically declared that if the two compelling reasons of backwardness and inadequacy of representation do not exist, then the enabling provision cannot come into force; the State can make provision for reservation in promotion only if the above two circumstances exist. Even then also, it must keep in mind maintenance of efficiency in administration which has been held to be a constitutional limitation on the discretion of the State to make provision for reservation in promotion. Question as to whether the State concerned has indentified and valued the circumstances justifying it to make reservation is to be decided "case-wise". The question of reservation has to be decided on the facts of "each case". It was declared that validity of the constitutional amendments were upheld subject to the limitations. Therefore, it has been held that in "each case" the Court has got to be satisfied that the State has exercised its option in making reservation in promotion for SCs and STs and for which the State concerned will have to place before the Court the requisite quantifiable data in "each case" and satisfy the Court that such reservation has become necessary on account of inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs in a particular class or classes of posts without affecting the general efficiency of service. 64. The decision rendered by the Constitution Bench in M Nagaraj (supra) was extensively referred to and relied upon in the subsequent case of Suraj Bhan Meena (supra). In that case, notification of the Rajasthan Government providing for consequential seniority to the members of SC and ST following accelerated promotion was interfered with by the Rajasthan High Court. The question which was considered by the Supreme Court was whether the amended provision of Article 16 (4-A) of the Constitution intended that those belonging to the SC and ST communities, who had been promoted against reserved quota would also be entitled to consequential seniority on account of such promotion or would the catch-up rule prevail. The question which was considered by the Supreme Court was whether the amended provision of Article 16 (4-A) of the Constitution intended that those belonging to the SC and ST communities, who had been promoted against reserved quota would also be entitled to consequential seniority on account of such promotion or would the catch-up rule prevail. Referring to various decisions of the Supreme Court from Indra Sawhney (supra) to M Nagaraj (supra), it was held that the State is not bound to make reservation for SCs and STs in matters of promotion, but the State could collect quantifiable data touching upon backwardness of the applicants and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment for the purpose of compliance with Article 335 of the Constitution. It has been held that the position after the decision in M. Nagaraj (supra), is that reservation of posts in promotion is dependent on the inadequacy of representation of members of SCs and STs and subject to the condition of ascertaining as to whether such reservation was at all required. As no exercise was undertaken to acquire quantifiable data regarding inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs in public services, the Apex Court held that the Rajasthan High Court had rightly quashed the Government notification providing promotion and consequential seniority to SCs and STs on promotion. 65. Finally, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UP Power Corporation Limited (supra), after in-depth analysis of M. Nagaraj (supra), culled out the following principles which are quoted here under :- "81. From the aforesaid decision in M. Nagaraj case and the paragraphs we have quoted herein above, the following principles can be carved out:- (i) Vesting of the power by an enabling provision may be constitutionally valid and yet "exercise of power" by the State in a given case may be arbitrary, particularly, if the State fails to identify and measure the backwardness and inadequacy keeping in mind the efficiency of service as required under Article 335. (ii) Article 16(4) which protects the interests of certain sections of the society has to be balanced against Article 16(1) which protects the interests of every citizen of the entire society. They should be harmonised because they are restatements of the principle of equality under Article 14. (ii) Article 16(4) which protects the interests of certain sections of the society has to be balanced against Article 16(1) which protects the interests of every citizen of the entire society. They should be harmonised because they are restatements of the principle of equality under Article 14. (iii) Each post gets marked for the particular category of candidates to be appointed against it and any subsequent vacancy has to be filled by that category candidate. (iv) The appropriate Government has to apply the cadre strength as a unit in the operation of the roster in order to ascertain whether a given class/group is adequately represented in the service. The cadre strength as a unit also ensures that the upper ceiling limit of 50% is not violated. Further, roster has to be post-specific and not vacancy based. (v) The State has to form its opinion on the quantifiable data regarding adequacy of representation. Clause (4-A) of Article 16 is an enabling provision. It gives freedom to the State to provide for reservation in matters of promotion. Clause (4-A) of Article 16 applies only to SCs and STs. The said clause is carved out of Article 16(4). Therefore, clause (4-A) will be governed by the two compelling reasons-"backwardness" and "inadequacy of representation", as mentioned in Article 16(4). If the said two reasons do not exist, then the enabling provision cannot be enforced. (vi) If the ceiling limit on the carry over of unfilled vacancies is removed, the other alternative time factor comes in and in that event, the timescale has to be imposed in the interest of efficiency in administration as mandated by Article 335. If the timescale is not kept, then posts will continue to remain vacant for years which would be detrimental to the administration. Therefore, in each case, the appropriate Government will now have to introduce the duration depending upon the fact situation. (vii) If the appropriate Government enacts a law providing for reservation without keeping in mind the parameters in Article 16(4) and Article 335, then this Court will certainly set aside and strike down such legislation. (viii) The constitutional limitation under Article 335 is relaxed and not obliterated. As stated above, be it reservation or evaluation, excessiveness in either would result in violation of the constitutional mandate. This exercise, however, will depend on the facts of each case. (viii) The constitutional limitation under Article 335 is relaxed and not obliterated. As stated above, be it reservation or evaluation, excessiveness in either would result in violation of the constitutional mandate. This exercise, however, will depend on the facts of each case. (ix) The concepts of efficiency, backwardness and inadequacy of representation are required to be identified and measured. That exercise depends on the availability of data. That exercise depends on numerous factors. It is for this reason that the enabling provisions are required to be made because each competing claim seeks to achieve certain goals. How best one should optimize these conflicting claims can only be done by the administration in the context of local prevailing conditions in public employment. (x) Article 16(4), therefore, creates a field which enables a State to provide for reservation provided there exists backwardness of a class and inadequacy of representation in employment. These are compelling reasons. They do not exist in Article 16(1). It is only when these reasons are satisfied that a State gets the power to provide for reservation in the matter of employment." 66. The Hon'ble Supreme Court declared that it was of the firm view that a fresh exercise in the light of the Constitution Bench judgment in M. Nagaraj (supra) is a categorical imperative. It has been clarified that Articles 16(4-A) and 16(4-B) are enabling provisions which enable the State to make provision for reservation in promotion for SCs and STs subject to fulfilment of the conditions precedent which are constitutional requirements. 67. Thus, from a careful analysis of the pronouncements of the Apex Court in M. Nagaraj (supra), Suraj Bhan Meena (supra) and Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (supra), what is discernible is that the quantifiable data regarding backwardness and inadequacy of representation has to be acquired in respect of the promotional cadres. It has been stated and re-stated by the Apex Court that the requisite quantifiable data would be scrutinised in each case. In other words, the quantifiable data has to be both service and cadre specific. What the One-Man Commission has done is that it has made a general statement about backwardness of SCs and STs and has not provided quantifiable data either on backwardness or on inadequacy of representation having regard to the promotional posts. In other words, the quantifiable data has to be both service and cadre specific. What the One-Man Commission has done is that it has made a general statement about backwardness of SCs and STs and has not provided quantifiable data either on backwardness or on inadequacy of representation having regard to the promotional posts. Whether there is adequate representation or not has to be decided cadre-wise having regard to the service where the cadre is placed. Once it is found that in a particular cadre there is adequate representation of SCs and STs, providing for reservation to such communities in promotion to such cadre would not be justified. 68. It is true that following the law laid down by the Apex Court in Indra Sawhney, SCs and STs are deemed to be backward. It is further true that the concept of creamy layer is not applicable to SCs and STs. However, having said that, Court is of the considered opinion that the above factors would be relevant only at the time of initial recruitment. At the time of promotion, in the event reservation is sought to be introduced, then an assessment of backwardness of the said communities having regard to their representation in the promotional cadres would have to be carried out. 69. Backwardness of SCs and STs vis-a-vis promotion would have to be determined cadre-wise. If in a particular cadre, SCs and STs are not adequately represented, they may be considered as backward in so far that particular cadre is concerned. Conversely, if in a particular cadre, SCs and STs are adequately represented, then they may not be considered as backward for the purpose of promotion to that particular cadre. Therefore, it is quite evident that the concepts of backwardness and inadequacy of representation in the context of reservation in promotion are inter-twined. 70. The Full Bench of the High Court of Tripura in Jayanta Chakaraborty & Ors. v. State of Tripura & Ors. [WP(C) No.189/2011 and other connected cases] decided on 09-04-2015 has taken the following view:- ".................... backwardness of SCs and STs in the context of promotion in Government service will be closely interlinked to their inadequacy of representation in that particular Government service. We are of the view that this backwardness would be directly related to the inadequacy of the representation of the SCs and STs in the promotional cadres. backwardness of SCs and STs in the context of promotion in Government service will be closely interlinked to their inadequacy of representation in that particular Government service. We are of the view that this backwardness would be directly related to the inadequacy of the representation of the SCs and STs in the promotional cadres. In case, the SCs and STs are adequately represented in the cadre whether by means of reservation or on the basis of merit, then they cease to be backward for the purposes of getting benefit of reservation in promotion and this will have to be determined on cadre to cadre basis". I am in respectful agreement with the above view of the Tripura High Court. 71. The factum of SCs and STs being appointed/promoted against the open/unreserve posts in the State services is also a relevant factor to be considered while ascertaining both backwardness and inadequacy of representation. 72. Ascertainment of backwardness and inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs in the promotional cadres based on quantifiable data is a continuous process and cannot be a onetime exercise. As pointed out by the Apex Court, the situation has to be assessed and reviewed on each occasion when reservation in promotion is contemplated. 73. There is one more aspect, which needs to be mentioned. While examining the question of overall efficiency in the administration because of reservation in promotion, what is seen from the report of the One-Man Commission is that it has made an observation that there is no relaxation of eligibility criteria in matters of promotion for candidates belonging to SCs and STs. They must have the eligibility at par with the unreserve candidates and only then can they be promoted against posts earmarked for a particular category. In the understanding of the Court what Article 335 visualizes is impact on overall efficiency in the administration because of reservation in promotion. What is, therefore, required to be assessed is the effect on administrative efficiency due to the presence of reserve category candidates in the cadre because of accelerated promotion on account of reservation in promotion. Whether the presence of the reserve category candidates in the particular cadre on account of accelerated promotion due to reservation has impacted the administration adversely is required to be assessed by applying objective measurable standards. Whether the presence of the reserve category candidates in the particular cadre on account of accelerated promotion due to reservation has impacted the administration adversely is required to be assessed by applying objective measurable standards. No doubt, it is a difficult task but nonetheless it has to be carried out if the State desires to provide for reservation in promotion. 74. As held in M. Nagaraj (supra), implementation of the scheme of reservation in promotion and collection of quantifiable data for the same to form an opinion on backwardness and inadequacy of representation and to harmonise the same with the constitutional limitation of efficiency in administration under Article 335 is a categorical imperative. Collection of data and the opinion based thereon rendered by the One Man Commission do not conform to the norms laid down by the Apex Court in M. Nagaraj. Therefore, there can be no manner of doubt that the exercise carried out by the One-Man Commission does not fulfil the mandate laid down in M. Nagaraj (supra). The cabinet memorandum prepared by the WPT and BC Department while forwarding the recommendation of the One Man Commission to the Cabinet for approval also completely missed the point by stating in paragraph 8 thereof that the general established fact is that SCs and STs are comparatively lagging behind the general category in many areas like justice, social, economic and political fields; otherwise, the reservation provision would not have come into existence in the Constitution. Therefore, according to the WPT and BC Department, further analytical study in this regard in the name of collecting quantifiable data would be denial of justice to the SCs and STs. I am afraid the WPT and BC Department had completely misdirected itself and had totally overlooked the mandate of the Apex Court in M. Nagaraj, which has vitiated the cabinet memorandum and the consequent approval of the Cabinet to such recommendation. Though State has made provision for reservation in promotion by enacting the 1978 Act, which was amended in the year 2012, implementation of the same would depend on acquiring of quantifiable data with regard to the 2 (two) compelling reasons, which exercise has to be carried out cadre-wise in the context of the service where the cadre is placed. Though State has made provision for reservation in promotion by enacting the 1978 Act, which was amended in the year 2012, implementation of the same would depend on acquiring of quantifiable data with regard to the 2 (two) compelling reasons, which exercise has to be carried out cadre-wise in the context of the service where the cadre is placed. That having not been done, the report of the One-Man Commission would be of no legal consequence and would not enable the State to give effect to the provisions of the 1978 Act as amended in so far reservation in promotion is concerned. At the cost of repetition, it is reiterated that if the State desires to give effect to the provisions of the 1978 Act as amended in the year 2012 by providing for reservation in promotion, it would have to justify the same with the help of quantifiable data to show presence of the 2 (two) compelling reasons, backwardness and inadequacy of representation, cadre-wise in the context of the service where the cadre is placed, which would then have to be harmonised with efficiency in administration as mandated under Article 335. 75. Both the writ petitions are accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. However there shall be no order as to costs.