K PAVITHRA AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

                          [2020] 4 S.C.R. 1041                           1041


                    B K PAVITHRA AND ORS.                                A
                                  v.
                  UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
                      (M.A. No. 1323 of 2019)
                                 In                                      B
                 (Writ Petition (C) No. 764 of 2018)
                         MARCH 19, 2020
               [UDAY UMESH LALIT AND
         DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]                              C
       Supreme Court Rules, 1966: Or.XL – On 10.05.2019,
judgment was rendered in B K Pavitra II whereby constitutionality
of the Reservation Act 2018 was upheld – Government of
Karnataka issued GO dated 15.05.2019 – The Preamble to the GO
noted that on 27.02.2019, instructions were issued for implementing      D
Reservation Act 2018 subject to judgment that was to be delivered
on the validity of Reservation Act 2018 – Following the judgment
in B K Pavitra II upholding the Reservation Act 2018, the
Government of Karnataka by GO dated 15.05.2019 directed all
appointing authorities to abide by GO dated 27.02.2019 in
implementation of the Reservation Act 2018 – On 24.06.2019, a            E
circular was issued by the Government of Karnataka noting that
while preparing seniority lists in conformity with GO dated
27.02.2019, meetings were held following which a list of FAQs was
prepared with the answers – Grievance of the applicants is that
until the backlog is cleared, the proportion of Scheduled Castes/        F
Scheduled Tribes will exceed 15% and 3% – MAs challenging the
action of State Government to carry into effect the provisions of
the Reservation Act, 2018 – Maintainability of – Held: The
judgment in B K Pavitra II concerned the constitutional validity
of the Reservation Act 2018 and not actions taken thereunder or
in pursuance of its implementation – The instant MAs, though styled      G
as applications for directions, sought to lay challenge to the actions
of the State government to carry into effect the provisions of the
Reservation Act 2018 – This is clear from the nature of the reliefs
sought in the MAs, which impugn both GO dated 15 May 2019
and Circular dated 24 June 2019, both of which are subsequent            H
                                1041
1042            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2020] 4 S.C.R.


 A     to the judgment of this Court in B K Pavitra II – The remedy,
       styled as directions, sought by the applicants cannot lie in the form
       of MAs – MAs are in effect a substantive challenge to the actions
       of the State Government in implementing the Reservation Act 2018
       through GO dated 15.05.2019 and the circular dated 24.06.2019
       – If the applicants were aggrieved by the steps which were taken
 B
       by the State Government, it was open to them to pursue a
       substantive remedy for challenging the steps taken by the State
       Government in independent proceedings – MAs of this nature are
       not maintainable – Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority
       to Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservations (to
 C     the posts in the Civil Services of the State) Act 2018.

              Supreme Court Rules, 1966: Or.LV r.6 – Exercise of power
       under, scope – Held: Or.LV empowers Supreme Court to, for
       sufficient cause, excuse parties from compliance with any of the
       requirements of 2013 Rules and issue such directions as it
 D     considers just and expedient – r.6 of Or.LV mirrors the constitutional
       power conferred under Art.142 of the Constitution which empowers
       the Supreme Court to pass such decree or make such order as is
       necessary for doing complete justice – Constitution of India –
       Art.142 – Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
 E
             B K Pavitra & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2019)
             16 SCC 129 ; Himachal Pradesh Scheduled Tribes
             Employees Federation v. Himachal Pradesh Samanaya
             Varg Karamchari Kalayan Mahasangh (2013) 10 SCC
             308 : [2013] 9 SCR 384 ; Abu Salem Abdul Qayyum
 F
             Ansari v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2013) 12
             SCC 1 : [2013] 7 SCR 1061 ; Nagaraj v. Union of
             India (2006) 8 SCC 212 : [2006] 7 Suppl. SCR
             336 ; Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban
             (2000) 7 SCC 296 : [2000] 2 Suppl. SCR 496 ; Zahira
 G           Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2004) 5 SCC
             353 : [2004] 2 Suppl. SCR 571 ; Common Cause v.
             Union of India (2004) 5 SCC 222 ; Ram Chandra
             Singh v. Savitri Devi (2004) 12 SCC 713 ; APSRTC v.
             Abdul Karim (2007) 3 SCJ 168 ; M C Mehta v. Union
 H           of India (2019) 2 SCJ 640 – referred to.
  B K PAVITHRA AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.                        1043


                       Case Law Reference                                 A
(2019) 16 SCC 129                  referred to           Para 1
[2013] 9 SCR 384                   referred to           Para 8
[2013] 7 SCR 1061                  referred to           Para 8
                                                                          B
[2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 336            referred to           Para 9
[2000] 2 Suppl. SCR 496            referred to           Para 19
[2004] 2 Suppl. SCR 571            referred to           Para 20
(2004) 5 SCC 222                   referred to           Para 20          C

(2004) 12 SCC 713                  referred to           Para 20
(2007) 3 SCJ 168                   referred to           Para 20
(2019) 2 SCJ 640                   referred to           Para 20          D
      CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Miscellaneous Application
No. 1323 of 2019 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 764 of 2018.
      Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
      With                                                                E

       Miscellaneous Application No. 1325/2019 in Writ Petition (Civil)
No. 850/2018 and Miscellaneous Application No. 1324/2019 in Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 769/2018.
       Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Shekhar Naphade, Ms. Indira Jaising, Dinesh     F
Dwivedi, Basava Prabhu S. Patil, R. Balasubramaniam, Sr. Advs.,
Kumar Parimal, Smarhar Singh, Anuj Saxena, Mohd. Naved,
Ms. Nehmat Kaur, Prakash Sharma, Rameshwar Prasad Goel,
Ms. Prakrati Raj, Achyut Saxena, Mohd. Naved, Rahul Dev Singh, V.N.
Raghupathy, Ms. Rachitha Hiremath, Chinmay Deshpande, Geet Ahuja,
                                                                          G
Mahendra Pal Gupta, Prakash Jadhav, Shubrahanshu Padhi, Ashish
Yadav, Rakshit Jain, Ms. Shraddha Deshmukh, B.V. Balaram Das, S.K.
Kulkarni, M. Gireesh Kumar, Ankur S. Kulkarni, Dinesh Kumar Garg,
Dhananjay Garg, Abhishek Garg, S.J. Amith, Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta,
Sarbendra Kumar, R.P. Goyal, Kabir Dixit, Joseph Aristotle S., Advs.
for the appearing parties.                                                H
1044             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2020] 4 S.C.R.


 A            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
              DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
             1. On 10 May 2019, this Court delivered its judgment in B K
       Pavitra & Ors. v Union of India & Ors.1 (“B K Pavitra II”),
       upholding the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Extension of
 B     Consequential Seniority to Government Servants Promoted on the Basis
       of Reservations (to the Posts in the Civil Services of the State) Act
       20182. The conclusion which was arrived at by the Court is extracted
       below:
              “144. For the above reasons, we have come to the conclusion
 C            that the challenge to the constitutional validity of the Reservation
              Act 2018 is lacking in substance. Following the decision in B K
              Pavitra I, the State government duly carried out the exercise of
              collating and analysing data on the compelling factors adverted
              to by the Constitution Bench in Nagaraj. The Reservation
              Act 2018 has cured the deficiency which was noticed by B K
 D
              Pavitra I in respect of the Reservation Act 2002. The
              Reservation Act 2018 does not amount to a usurpation of judicial
              power by the state legislature. It is Nagaraj and Jarnail
              compliant. The Reservation Act 2018 is a valid exercise of the
              enabling power conferred by Article 16 (4A) of the Constitution.”
 E           2. 277 applicants are before this Court in three Miscellaneous
       Applications3. The reliefs sought in the lead MA are thus:
                  “(a) Direct the State of Karnataka to implement ‘post based
                       reservation’ in terms of the judgment passed by this
                       Hon’ble Court in R.K. Sabharwal vs State of Punjab –
 F                     (1995) 2 SCC 745 and to re-work all promotions on
                       ‘post’ basis before any further action.
                   (b) Direct the State of Karnataka to apply ‘creamy layer’
                       and to exclude individuals belonging to the Scheduled
                       Castes and Scheduled Tribes who no longer require
 G                     reservation under Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution
                       with a further direction to the State to apply creamy
                       layer at entry level to disqualify those who were creamy
       1
         (2019) 16 SCC 129
       2
         “Reservation Act 2018”
       3
 H       “MAs”
    B K PAVITHRA AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.                           1045
          [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

                  layer at that stage and to conduct the exercise from 17 th   A
                  June, 1995, i.e. the date of the Seventy Seventh
                  Amendment.
             (c) estrain the State and its instrumentalities from taking any
                 action where, no exercise is undertaken for that service
                 or cadre on adequacy or where there is adequacy of            B
                 representation particular when every specific application
                 of order in relation to each cadre must be Nagaraj
                 compliant.”
     Similar reliefs have been sought by the applicants in the other
two MAs.                                                                       C
     3. Dr Rajeev Dhavan, learned Senior Counsel prefaced his
arguments by submitting that:
           (i) The present MA is for directions and not for review of
               the recent judgment of this Court in B K Pavitra II;
               and
          (ii) The directions which have been sought emanate from              D
               the judgment of this Court in B K Pavitra II.
       4. The Government of Karnataka issued a Government Order4
on 15 May 20195. The preamble to the GO notes that on 27 February
2019, instructions have been issued for implementing the Reservation
Act 2018 subject to the judgment that would be delivered by this Court         E
on the validity of the Reservation Act 2018. Subsequently, in pursuance
of an interim order of this Court dated 1 March 2019,6 instructions were
issued in a GO dated 5 March 2019 to the effect that no further action
should be taken for implementing the GO dated 27 February 2019
until further directions. Following the judgment of this Court in B K
Pavitra II upholding the Reservation Act 2018, the Government of               F
Karnataka, by the GO dated 15 May 2019 withdrew the earlier GO
dated 5 March 2019 and directed all appointing authorities to abide by
the GO dated 27 February 2019 in the implementation of the Reservation
Act 2018.
      5. On 24 June 2019, a circular was issued by the Government              G
of Karnataka7. The circular notes that while preparing the seniority lists
4
  “GO”
5
  Government Order No. DPAR 186 SRS 2018, Bengaluru.
6
  In IA 36981 of 2019 in Writ Petition (C) No. 764 of 2019
7
  No : DPAR 186 SRS 2018                                                       H
1046                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2020] 4 S.C.R.


 A     in conformity with the GO dated 27 February 2019, meetings were held
       under the auspices of the Chief Secretary and Additional Chief
       Secretary to the Government of Karnataka, following which a list of
       Frequently Asked Questions8 has been prepared together with answers.
       The annexure to the circular contains a reference to the FAQs and
       the answers provided by the Government.
 B
              6. Dr Rajeev Dhavan, learned Senior Counsel has more
       specifically adverted to items 2 and 3 of the FAQs in the annexure
       which are extracted below:
              “2.Whether to consider the scheduled caste and scheduled
              tribe candidate for promotions for the purpose of
 C
              calculating their representation for such of the candidates
              who are selected in general merit rather than against the
              roaster points under direct recruitment.
              Answer: Even though the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe
              candidates are selected under general merit rather than against
 D            roaster points under direct recruitment, they shall be considered
              against their roaster points for the purpose of calculating their
              representation. This has been clearly told in the Government
              Order No. DPAR 29 SBC 77 dated 01.06.1978 and the same
              point is explained in the form of an example in the Schedule of
 E            the Act 2017.
              3. Whether to consider the total no. of post in the
              respective cadres while revising the seniority list from
              27.04.1978? or to consider the number of Government
              employees working in the respective cadre (Excluding the
              vacant post of the cadre strength)
 F
              Answer: The consequential seniority is to be given to those
              belonging to the reserved category employees who have been
              promoted against promotional roaster points at the time of revising
              the seniority list from 27.04.1978 to 02.02.1999.
               3.1 After the date 3.2.1999, only it is to be revised by considering
 G
               on the basis of total number of Government employees in the
               respective cadres (Cadre working strength excluding vacant
               posts). Thus it is not allowed to calculate the representation on
               the basis of total number of posts in the respective cadres. In
       8
 H         “FAQs”
     B K PAVITHRA AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.                            1047
           [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

         this regard attention is drawn towards Government order number          A
         DPAR 21 SBC 97 dated 03.02.1999 and Government order even
         number dated 13.04.1999.”
      7. The grievance of the applicants is that until the backlog is
cleared, the proportion of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes will
exceed 15 per cent and 3 per cent. The principal points which have               B
been urged in the present MAs are:
               (i) The State government has not taken any step to correct
                   the illegality of following a vacancy-based roaster since
                   27 April 1978, when the policy of reservation in
                   promotions was introduced in the State Civil Services         C
                   of Karnataka;
              (ii) The State government was bound by the statement
                   contained in its Counter Affidavit filed before this Court
                   in B K Pavitra II that the reservation policy would be
                   implemented on the principle of post-based reservations;      D
              (iii) Since reservations in the state are contemplated
                    retrospectively from 27 April 1978, the State government
                    is obliged to apply the ‘creamy layer’ principle to
                    disqualify those who fall within the creamy layer at the
                    entry level and this exercise should be conducted at least   E
                    from 17 June 1995, when the Seventy Seventh
                    Amendment to the Constitution came into force; and
             (iv) Though it was mandatory for the State of Karnataka to
                  balance Article 16(4-A) against Article 16(1) of the
                  Constitution and to collect cadre-wise data before             F
                  implementing the Reservation Act 2018, the GO dated
                  15 May 2019 and the circular dated 24 June 2019 are
                  silent on the above issues as a result of which, the State
                  government is implementing the Reservation Act 2018
                  in an arbitrary manner.
                                                                                 G
       8. Dr Dhavan relied on the inherent powers of this Court, as
recognised by Order LV of the Supreme Court Rules 20139 to urge
that the invocation of the jurisdiction of this Court in the form of the
present MAs is based on the recourse to that inherent power. Reliance
9
    “2013 Rules”                                                                 H
1048             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2020] 4 S.C.R.


 A     in this regard was placed on the decisions of this Court in Himachal
       Pradesh Scheduled Tribes Employees Federation v Himachal
       Pradesh Samanaya Varg Karamchari Kalayan Mahasangh 10 and
       Abu Salem Abdul Qayyum Ansari v Central Bureau of
       Investigation 11.
 B           9. Mr Shekhar Naphade, learned Senior Counsel appearing on
       behalf of the applicant in MA 1324 of 201912, submitted that no data
       had been collected for the departments in which the applicants have
       been engaged as required by the judgment of this Court in Nagaraj v
       Union of India13.

 C           10. Mr Basava Prabhu S Patil, learned Senior Counsel and Mr
       Dinesh Dwivedi, learned Senior Counsel have opposed the MAs and
       urged that:
                    (i) The prayers in the MAs are not adjunct to the main
                        decision of this Court in B K Pavitra II; and
 D                 (ii) The applicants have sought to challenge the subsequent
                        directions and clarifications issued by the State
                        government through the present MAs.
              The MAs, it was urged, are not maintainable.
              11. Ms Indira Jaising, learned Senior Counsel submitted that:
 E
                    (i) No provision of law has been invoked while filing the
                        present MAs;
                   (ii) This Court, upon delivering its decision on 10 May 2019,
                        has been rendered functus officio;
 F                 (iii) There is a bar contained in Order XII Rule 3 of the 2013
                         Rules for entertaining such an application, except for
                         correcting arithmetical errors; and
                   (iv) A petition for review has been filed by the applicants
                        and hence the MAs are not maintainable.
 G            12. Addressing the Court on the reliefs which have been sought
       in the MAs, Ms Jaising submitted that:
       10
          (2013) 10 SCC 308
       11
          (2013) 12 SCC 1
       12
          KPTCL General Category Association (Regd.)
       13
 H        (2006) 8 SCC 212
  B K PAVITHRA AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.                             1049
        [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

            (i) The relief which has been sought in prayer (a) is              A
                founded on a fresh cause of action for re-drafting the
                seniority list;
            (ii) The nature of the reliefs sought require the filing of a
                 fresh substantive Writ Petition;
           (iii) The relief in prayer (b) was not an issue in the judgment     B
                 of this Court in B K Pavitra II since the Court did not
                 deal with recruitment at the entry level, but with
                 promotions and consequential seniority thereto; and
           (iv) Prayer (c) has been specifically dealt with and
                considered in paragraph 96 of the judgment of this Court       C
                in B K Pavitra II.
      13. In rejoinder, Dr Dhavan submitted that:
            (i) The concern is that the parties should not be required
                to go through endless stages of litigation; and                D
            (ii) The judgment delivered by this Court on 10 May 2019
                 requires directions and even the State government has
                 thought it fit so as to implement the Reservation Act
                 2018.
      14. The rival submissions fall for consideration.                        E
       15. It is necessary for this Court to address at the outset the
preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel opposing the MAs
that, though styled as an application for directions, they seek to lay a
substantive challenge to the subsequent directions and clarifications
issued by the State government in implementing the Reservation Act             F
2018.
      16. Order XII Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules provides that:
      “3. Subject to the provisions contained in Order XLVII of these
      rules, a judgment pronounced by the Court or by a majority of
      the Court or by a dissenting Judge in open Court shall not               G
      afterwards be altered or added to, save for the purpose of
      correcting a clerical or arithmetical mistake or an error arising
      from any accidental slip or omission.”
       Rule 3 stipulates that, save for the purpose of correcting a clerical
or arithmetical mistake or any error arising from an accidental slip or        H
1050             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2020] 4 S.C.R.


 A     omission, no alteration or addition may be made to a judgment
       pronounced by the Court. This is in keeping with the principle of
       according finality to a judgment of the Court. The rule is made subject
       to Order XLVII of the 2013 Rules which contains provisions for the
       filing of a review before this Court. The parameters that guide the
       exercise of the review jurisdiction of this Court are contained in Order
 B
       XLVII. Subject to the review jurisdiction of this Court, Rule 3 mandates
       that the Court “shall not” alter or delete any part of a judgment that
       has been pronounced, save for the purposes of minor corrections or
       accidental mistakes.
              17. Order LV of the 2013 Rules titled ‘Power to Dispense and
 C     Inherent Powers’ contains provisions that empower this Court to adopt,
       notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules, such course as it
       considers just and expedient. Order LV, in so far as is relevant provides
       thus:
             “1. The Court may, for sufficient cause shown, excuse the parties
 D           from compliance with any of the requirements of these rules, and
             may give such directions in matters of practice and procedure
             as it may consider just and expedient.
             …

 E           6. Nothing in these rules shall be deemed to limit or otherwise
             affect the inherent powers of the Court to make such orders as
             may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of
             the process of the Court.”
              Order LV empowers this Court to, for sufficient cause, excuse
 F     parties from compliance with any of the requirements of the 2013 Rules
       and issue such directions as it considers just and expedient. Rule 6 of
       Order LV clarifies that nothing in the rules shall be deemed to limit or
       otherwise affect the inherent powers of the Court to make such orders
       as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of
       the process of the Court. Rule 6 of Order LV mirrors the constitutional
 G     power conferred by Article 142 of the Constitution which empowers
       this Court to pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for
       doing complete justice.
             18. Dr Rajeev Dhavan, learned Senior Counsel has urged that
       this Court may issue the directions sought in exercise of its inherent
 H     power. In effect, Order LV of the 2013 Rules has been pressed in aid
     B K PAVITHRA AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.                           1051
           [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

of the submission that this Court may grant the reliefs sought in exercise      A
of its inherent power to do complete justice.
       19. This Court has, on several previous occasions, considered
whether the filing of applications, though styled as applications for
directions/ modification/recall/correction are, in substance, of a different
nature and consequentially not maintainable. In Delhi Administration            B
v Gurdip Singh Uban14 (“Gurdip Singh”), this Court disapproved of
the practice of filing applications for “clarifications”, “modifications” and
“recall” of final judgments and orders, noting that this was an attempt
to bypass the provisions for review contained in Order XL of the
Supreme Court Rules 1966. The Court observed:
                                                                                C
         “17. We next come to applications described as applications for
         “clarification”, “modification” or “recall” of judgments or orders
         finally passed. We may point out that under the relevant Rule
         XL of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 a review application has
         first to go before the learned Judges in circulation and it will be
         for the Court to consider whether the application is to be rejected    D
         without giving an oral hearing or whether notice is to be issued.
         …
         In case notice is issued, the review petition will be listed for
         hearing, after notice is served. This procedure is meant to save
         the time of the Court and to preclude frivolous review petitions       E
         being filed and heard in open court. However, with a view to
         avoid this procedure of “no hearing”, we find that sometimes
         applications are filed for “clarification”, “modification” or
         “recall” etc. not because any such clarification,
         modification is indeed necessary but because the applicant
         in reality wants a review and also wants a hearing, thus               F
         avoiding listing of the same in chambers by way of
         circulation. Such applications, if they are in substance
         review applications, deserve to be rejected straight away
         inasmuch as the attempt is obviously to bypass Order XL Rule
         3 relating to circulation of the application in chambers for           G
         consideration without oral hearing…
         By describing an application as one for “clarification” or
         “modification”, — though it is really one of review — a
         party cannot be permitted to circumvent or bypass the
14
     (2000) 7 SCC 296                                                           H
1052             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2020] 4 S.C.R.


 A           circulation procedure and indirectly obtain a hearing in the
             open court. What cannot be done directly cannot be
             permitted to be done indirectly.
                                                            (Emphasis supplied)
              The Court observed that many applications, though styled as
 B     applications for clarification or modification are, in substance,
       applications for review. This practice was presumably adopted to bypass
       the procedure stipulated for the consideration by this Court of review
       petitions. A party, it was held, would not be permitted to circumvent
       substantive procedures by filing such applications. With the above
       observations, the Court affirmed a fundamental principle of jurisprudence
 C
       that “what cannot be done directly cannot be permitted to be done
       indirectly.”
              20. The view of the two judge Bench in Gurdip Singh has been
       reiterated by this Court in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v State of
       Gujarat15, Common Cause v Union of India16, Ram Chandra Singh
 D     v Savitri Devi17 and APSRTC v Abdul Karim18.
              21. Recently, in M C Mehta v Union of India19, a two judge
       Bench of this Court rejected an application filed before it seeking a
       clarification that the applicant is permitted to carry out construction on
       the land in question in the following terms:
 E
             “…the view expressed by this Court in Gurdip Singh Uban cannot
             be limited only to applications for modification, clarification or
             recall. There is a growing tendency to provide different
             nomenclatures to applications to side-step the rigours and
             limitations imposed on an applicant and the Court in dealing with
 F           a review petition. Applications can be and are titled as applications
             for directions, rehearing, reconsideration, revisiting etc. etc. One
             has only to open a thesaurus and find an equivalent word and
             give an application an appropriate nomenclature so that it could
             be taken up for consideration in open Court and on its merits
             and not as a review petition by circulation. In our opinion, the
 G           nomenclature given to an application is of absolutely no
       15
          (2004) 5 SCC 353
       16
          (2004) 5 SCC 222
       17
          (2004) 12 SCC 713
       18
          (2007) 3 SCJ 168
       19
 H        (2019) 2 SCJ 640
  B K PAVITHRA AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.                         1053
        [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

      consequence-what is of importance is the substance of the            A
      application and if it is found, in substance, to be an application
      for review, it should be dealt with by the Court as such, and by
      circulation.
                                                   (Emphasis Supplied)
       22. The Court noted the growing practice, despite the decision      B
of this Court in Gurdip Singh, of filing applications before this Court
with different nomenclatures in order to bypass or circumvent the
procedure envisaged for the consideration of the reliefs sought. This
Court clarified that the nomenclature of an application is of no
consequence and courts must assess the contents and reliefs sought in      C
the application to determine what is the true nature of the application.
      23. Though the cases adverted to above were rendered in the
context of applications before this Court which were held to be, in
substance, applications for the review of a judgment, the principle of
law that emerges is that courts may scrutinise applications to assess
whether they, in substance, seek a relief that may not be granted in       D
those applications. Where the court is of the opinion that the nature of
the application differs from its nomenclature and there is a method
prescribed in law for the grant of the reliefs sought, it may hold that
the application before it is not maintainable.
       24. In the present case, the basis of the MAs is founded in the     E
steps taken by the State of Karnataka pursuant to the judgment of this
Court in B K Pavitra II. The MA adverts to the GO dated 15 May
2019 and the circular dated 24 June 2019, both of which were issued
subsequent to the decision of this Court.
      25. By the GO dated 15 May 2019, the stay on the earlier GO          F
dated 27 February 2019 which stipulated instructions for the
implementation of the Reservation Act 2018 was lifted. Consequently,
the Reservation Act 2018, as upheld by this Court, was to be
operationalised in terms of the instructions contained in the GO dated
27 February 2019. By the circular dated 24 June 2019, a list of FAQs
and their answers were annexed to the Schedule which concerned the         G
preparation of the seniority list in accordance with the GO dated 27
February 2019.
      26. The judgment of this Court in B K Pavitra II concerned
the constitutional validity of the Reservation Act 2018 and not actions
taken thereunder or in pursuance of its implementation. The present        H
1054              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2020] 4 S.C.R.


 A     MAs, though styled as applications for directions, seek to lay challenge
       to the actions of the State government to carry into effect the provisions
       of the Reservation Act 2018. This is clear from the nature of the reliefs
       sought in the MAs, which impugn both the GO dated 15 May 2019
       and the circular dated 24 June 2019, both of which are subsequent to
       the judgment of this Court in B K Pavitra II.
 B
             27. The remedy, styled as directions, sought by the applicants
       cannot lie in the form of MAs. Prayer (a) which seeks a direction to
       “re-work” all promotions on the basis of ‘post based reservations’
       impugns item 3 of the FAQs annexed to the circular dated 24 June 2019
       which states that the list is to be revised on the basis of the total number
 C     of government employees in the respective cadre. Prayer (b) seeks the
       issuance of a direction to the State of Karnataka to apply the creamy
       layer principle at the entry level. As it has been noted above, the
       judgment of this Court in B K Pavitra II concerned the grant of
       consequential seniority and not the applicability of the creamy layer at
       the entry level. Prayer (c) seeks the issuance of a direction to the State
 D
       Government to ensure, in the implementation of the Reservation Act
       2018, compliance with the decision in Nagaraj.
             28. The present MAs are, in effect, a substantive challenge to
       the actions of the State government in implementing the Reservation
       Act 2018 through the GO dated 15 May 2019 and the circular dated
 E     24 June 2019. If the applicants are aggrieved by the steps which have
       been taken by the State government, it is open to them to pursue a
       substantive remedy for challenging the steps taken by the State
       government in independent proceedings.
             29. We are clearly of the view that MAs of this nature are not
 F     maintainable. Having come to this conclusion, no need arises for this
       Court to adjudicate upon the other contentions urged by Dr Rajeev
       Dhavan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants.
              30. We consequently dismiss the Miscellaneous Applications, but
       leave it open to the applicants to pursue such independent remedies as
 G     may be available in the law. We clarify that no observations have been
       made on the merits of the matter.
              31. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.


       Devika Gujral                                                 M.As dismissed.
 H