The law divided SCs into four categories and provided for apportionment of reservation among them – 1 per cent for Group A, 7 per cent for Group B, 6 per cent for Group C and 1 per cent again for Group D.This law was upheld by the HC, but a five-judge Supreme Court bench in EV Chinnaiah case struck it down by ruling that SCs are a homogeneous group and cannot be sub-categorised.
In 2006, Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act was enacted providing for reservation of 25 per cent for SCs and within that, 50 per cent was be given to particular SC castes such as Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs in direct recruitment. This was struck down by the HC in 2010 adhering to the Chinnaiah judgment. When Punjab appealed against it, the SC had referred it to a seven-judge bench in 2011. History of deprivation of benefits of reservation to castes within the SC group is decades old. In 1997, the AP govt had set up Justice P Ramachandra Raju Commission, which opined that benefits of reservation had largely gone to a particular caste among the SCs and, therefore, recommended categorising SCs into four groups.
In 2001, UP had constituted the Hukam Singh Committee, which found that benefits of reservation had not percolated down to people belonging to the most depressed classes. It said Yadavs alone garnered the maximum share of jobs. It had recommended sub-categorisation of the list of SCs/OBCs.
In 2003, Maharashtra had set up the Lahuji Salve Commission to study socio-economic conditions of Mang caste in the list of SCs. The commission recommended sub-classification of SCs as Mangs, the lowest in the caste hierarchy, had not adequately benefited from quota.
In 2005, Karnataka set up Justice AJ Sadashiva panel to identify castes among SCs who had not benefited from quota. The panel recommended division of 101 castes into four categories with 15 per cent of the total reservation of SCs to each of the categories.
In 2007, Bihar’s Mahadalit panel recommended inclusion of 18 castes as extremely weaker castes from among the list of SCs. In the same year, Justice Jasraj Chopra Committee of Rajasthan recommended that Gurjars, being extremely backward, be provided with better facilities than those available to OBCs. In 2008, Tamil Nadu’s Justice MS Janarthanam panel recommended that Arunthathiyars deserved differential treatment in quota.
Based on K Ratna Prabha Committee recommendations in 2017, Karnataka enacted a law in 2018 providing consequential seniority to govt servants promoted on the basis of reservation. This law was upheld by the SC.