Module 11

Article 16
Article 16: Equality of opportunity in
matters of public employment.
 Article 16: Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.
(1) There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to
employment or appointment to any office under the State.
(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place
of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against
in respect of, any employment or office under the State.
(3) Nothing in this article shall prevent Parliament from making any law
prescribing, in regard to a class or classes of employment or appointment to
an office 1 [under the Government of, or any local or other authority within,
a State or Union territory, any requirement as to residence within that State
or Union territory] prior to such employment or appointment.
(4) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for
the 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.
2 [(4A) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any
provision for reservation 3 [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.]
[(4B) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from considering any
unfilled vacancies of a year which are reserved for being filled up in that
year in accordance with any provision for reservation made under clause
(4) or clause (4A) as a separate class of vacancies to be filled up in any
succeeding year or years and such class of vacancies shall not be
considered together with the vacancies of the year in which they are being
filled up for determining the ceiling of fifty per cent reservation on total
number of vacancies of that year.]
(5) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any law which
provides that the incumbent of an office in connection with the affairs of
any religious or denominational institution or any member of the governing
body thereof shall be a person professing a particular religion or belonging
to a particular denomination
[(6) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any
provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any
economically weaker sections of citizens other than the classes mentioned
in clause (4), in addition to the existing reservation and subject to a
maximum of ten per cent. of the posts in each category.]
• Article16(1) is a facet of Art. 14.
• Arts. 14 and 16(1) are closely interconnected. Art. 16(1) takes its roots from Art.
14.
• Art. 16(1) particularizes the generality of Art. 14 and identifies, in a
constitutional sense, “equality of opportunity” in matters of employment under
the state.
• An important point of distinction between Arts. 14 and 16 is that while Art. 14
applies to all persons, citizens as well as non-citizens, Art. 16 applies only
to citizens and not to non-citizens
• The State although is a model employer, its right to create posts and recruit
people emanates from the statutes or statutory rules and/or rules framed under
the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
• The recruitment rules are to be framed with a view to give equal opportunity to
all the citizens of India entitled for being considered for recruitment in the
vacant posts.
Art 15 & 16
• On a comparative basis, Art. 16 deals with a very limited subject, viz.,
public employment. On the other hand, the scope of Art. 15(1) is much
wider as it covers the entire range of state activities.
• The ambit of Art. 16(2) is restrictive in scope than that of Art. 15(1)
because Art. 16(2) is confined to employment or office under the state,
meaning services under the Central and State Governments and their
instrumentalities. However, Art. 15 being more general in nature covers
many varied situations of discrimination.
• Article 15 does not mention ‘descent’ and ‘residence’ as the prohibited
grounds of discrimination, whereas Art. 16 does. Thus, with regard to
the grounds of discrimination, Art. 15 is somewhat narrower than Art.
16
• Articles 16(1) and 16(2) give effect to Arts. 14 and 15. All these Articles
form part of the same constitutional code of guarantees and supplement
each other. Art. 16(1) should, therefore, be construed in a broad and
general way, and not in a pedantic and technical way
The right of equality guaranteed by Arts. 16(1) and (2) are subject to a few
exceptions.
• (a) ART. 16(3) First, under Art. 16(3), Parliament may make a law to
prescribe a requirement as to residence within a State or Union Territory
for eligibility to be appointed with respect to specified classes of
appointments or posts.
• Thus, Art. 16(2) which bans discrimination of citizens on the ground of
‘residence’ can be qualified as regards residence
• Thus a ‘residential qualification’ can be imposed on the right of
appointment in the State for specified appointments.
• This provision, therefore, introduces some flexibility, and takes cognisance
of the fact that there may be some very good reasons for restricting certain
posts in a State for its residents.
(b) ART. 16(5) Secondly, Art. 16(5) provides that a law may prescribe that
the incumbent of an office in connection with the affairs of a religious or
denominational institution, or a member of the governing body thereof,
shall belong to the particular religion or denomination.
(c)RESERVATIONS IN SERVICES
• ART. 16(4)
• Under Art. 16(4), the state may make 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 public services under the state.
• It is “an enabling provision” conferring a discretionary power on the state for
making any provision or 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 service of the state.
• Art. 16(4) neither imposes any constitutional duty nor confers any
Fundamental Right on any one for claiming reservation (Indra Sawhney v.
Union of India)
• The equality of opportunity guaranteed by Art. 16(1) is to each individual
citizen of the country while Art. 16(4) contemplates special provision being
made in favour of the socially disadvantaged classes. Both must be balanced
against each other. Neither should be allowed to eclipse the other. (Indra
Sawhney v. Union of India)
• The term ‘Backward Class’, as used in Art. 16(4), takes within its fold
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Art. 15(4) speaks about “socially
and educationally backward classes of citizens”.
• Art. 16(4) speaks only of “any backward class of citizens.”
• However, it has been settled by a series of judicial pronouncements that
the expression “backward class of citizens” in Art. 16(4) means the same
thing as the expression “any socially and educationally backward classes of
citizens” in Art. 15(4).
• Thus, to qualify for being called a ‘backward class citizen’ under Art. 16(4),
one must be a member of a ‘socially and educationally backward class’
“A word of sociological caution. In the light of experience, here and
elsewhere the danger of ‘reservation’, it seems to me, is three-fold. Its
benefits, by and large, are snatched away by the top creamy layer of the
‘backward’ caste or class, thus keeping the weakest among the weak
always weak and leaving the fortunate layers to consume the whole
cake. Secondly, this claim is over-played extravagantly in democracy by
large and vocal groups whose burden of backwardness has been
substantially lightened by the march of time and measures of better
education and more opportunities of employment, but wish to wear the
“weaker section” label as a means to score over their near-equals
formally categorised as the upper brackets. Lastly, a lasting solution to
the problem comes only from improvement of social environment,
added educational facilities and cross fertilisation of castes by
inter-caste and inter-class marriages….”
• Article 335. Claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to services
and posts.—The claims of the members of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes shall be taken into consideration, consistently with
the maintenance of efficiency of administration, in the making of
appointments to services and posts in connection with the affairs of
the Union or of a State:
• [Provided that nothing in this article shall prevent in making of any
provision in favour of the members of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes for relaxation in qualifying marks in any examination or
lowering the standards of evaluation, for reservation in matters or
promotion to any class or classes of services or posts in connection with
the affairs of the Union or of a State.]
[Link] v. Union of India, AIR 1964 SC 179
• The case revolved around challenging of the Carry Forward rule.
• Rule: "If a sufficient number of candidates considered suitable by the recruiting authorities, are not
available from the communities for whom reservations are made in a particular year, the
unfilled vacancies should be treated as unreserved and filled by the best available candidates. The
number of reserved vacancies thus treated as unreserved will be added as an additional quota
to the number that would be reserved in the following year in the normal course: and to the
extent to which approved candidates are not available in that year against this additional quota, a
corresponding addition should be made to the number of reserved vacancies in the second following year".
• The ‘carry forward’ rule envisaged that in a year, 17½ per cent posts were to be reserved for
Scheduled Castes/Tribes; if all the reserved posts were not filled in a year for want of
suitable candidates from those classes, then the shortfall was to be carried forward to the next
year and added to the reserved quota for that year, and this could be done for the next two
years. The result of the rule was that in a year out of 45 vacancies in the cadre of section
officers, 29 went to the reserved quota and only 16 posts were left for others. This
meant reservation upto 65% in the third year, and while candidates with low marks from
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were appointed, candidates with higher marks
from other classes were not taken
• Basing itself on the Balaji v State of Mysore(1963) principle, the
Supreme Court declared that more than 50 per cent reservation of posts
in a single year would be unconstitutional as it per se destroys Art. 16(1).
• The Court emphasized that in the name of advancement of backward
communities, the Fundamental Rights of other communities should not
be completely annihilated.
• By a majority of 4:1, the Court held that as Art. 16(4) was a proviso or an
exception to Art. 16(1), it should not be interpreted so as to nullify or
destroy the main provision, as otherwise it would in effect render the
guarantee of equality of opportunity in the matter of public employment
under Art. 16(1) wholly illusory and meaningless
• The Court observed: “The overriding effect of Cl. (4) of Art. 16 on Cls.
(1) and (2) could only extend to the making of a reasonable number of
reservations of appointments and posts in certain circumstances.
• A ‘reasonable number’ is one which strikes a reasonable balance between
the claims of the backward classes and those of other citizens.”
• The Court emphasized that each year of recruitment has to be
considered by itself and the reservation for backward communities
should not be so excessive as to create a monopoly or to disturb
unduly the legitimate claims of other communities
• State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas, AIR 1976 SC 490
• The Kerala Government made rules to say that promotion from the cadre of
lower division clerks to the higher cadre of upper division clerks depended on
passing a test within two years. For S/Cs and S/Ts, exemption could be granted
for a longer period. These classes were given two extra years to pass the test.
• This exemption was challenged as discriminatory under Art. 16(1) on the
ground that Art. 16 permitted only reservation in favour of backward classes but
it was not a case of reservation of posts for S/Cs and S/Ts under Art. 16(4) and
that these persons were not entitled to any favoured treatment in promotion
outside Art. 16(4).
• By majority, the Supreme Court rejected the argument. It ruled that Art. 16(1)
being a facet of Art. 14, would permit reasonable classification and, thus,
envisaged equality between the members of a the same class of employees but
not equality between members of a separate, independent class. Classification on
the basis of backwardness did not fall within Art. 16(2) and was legitimate for
the purposes of Art. 16(1). Giving preference to an under-represented backward
community was valid and would not contravene Arts. 14, 16(1) and 16(2).
• A view was also expressed that the rule of 50% reservation evolved in Balaji was “a
mere rule of caution” and was not meant to be exhaustive of all categories
• The majority adopted a very liberal attitude in Thomas as regards S/Cs and
S/Ts and backward classes. The result of the pronouncement is to enable the
state to give the backward classes a preferential treatment in many different
ways other than reservation of posts as envisaged in Art. 16(4).
• This even though helpful could also lead to erosion of equality if this preferential
treatment is overdone under political pressure
• It is obvious that in Thomas, the Court has taken a more flexible view of Art.
16(1) than had been taken by it in earlier cases.
• It was clearly established that Art. 16(4) does not cover the entire field covered by Arts.
16(1) and (2) and some of the matters relating to employment in respect of which
equality of opportunity is guaranteed by Arts. 16(1) and (2) do not fall within Art. 16(4).
• The Thomas decision threw into the melting pot the decision in Devadasan in
which the “carry forward rule” was called in question.
• Even the rule requiring that the overall limit of reservation should not exceed
50% was now sought to be diluted
Identification of BACKWARD CLASSES
• In view of Article 16(4) of the Constitution and in response to demands for
reservation and other benefits for Backward Classes in other parts of India and
in the Centre, the Govt. of India appointed a Backward Classes
Commission under Article 340 of the Constitution on 29th January 1953.
• The First Commission, popularly known as the Kaka Kalelkar
Commission, was required "to investigate the conditions of socially and
educationally backward classes within the territory of India and the difficulties
under which they labour and to make recommendations as to the steps that
should be taken by the Union or any State to remove difficulties and to
improve their conditions."
• The Commission submitted its report on 30th March 1955. It was considered
by the Government over the next half-decade but was rejected in 1961
• The Mandal Commission was appointed by the Government of India in
terms of Art. 340 of the Constitution in 1979 to investigate the conditions
of socially and educationally backward classes.
• The Mandal Commission was the second Socially and Educationally Backward
Classes Commission. It was headed by B. P. Mandal and submitted its report in
1980([Link]
ort%20of%20the%201st%20Part%[Link]) and
was implemented in 1990.
• One of the major recommendations made by the Commission was that,
besides the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs), for Other
Backward Classes (OBCs) which constitute nearly 52% component of
the population, 27% government jobs be reserved so that the total
reservation for all, SCs, STs and OBCs, amounts to 50%.
• 11 grounds for indicators for Backwardness were evolved by the Commission
basis which data was collected.(ref Ch XI of the Report at page 52) These
indicators are social, educational, and economic.
• Pro rata reservation of Scheduled Caste (SC) 15% Scheduled Tribe (ST) 7.5%
was already established (22.5 % in total)
• The Mandal Commission Report advocated for a 27% (so total 49.5%) quota
for OBCs (which included 3743 castes) in educational institutions and other
government jobs. The recommendation was made on the reasoning that the
OBC constitute 52% of the Indian population.
• No action was taken on the basis of the Mandal Report for long after it was
submitted, except that it was discussed in the Houses of Parliament twice, once
in 1982 and again in 1983.
• On Aug. 13, 1990, the V.P. Singh Government at the centre issued an
office memorandum accepting the Mandal Commission
recommendation and announcing 27% reservation for the socially
and educationally backward classes in vacancies in civil posts and
services under the Government of India.
• This memorandum led to widespread disturbances in the country.
• In 1991, the Narasimha Rao Government modified the above
memorandum in two respects:
• one, the poorer sections among the backward classes would get preference over
the other sections;
• two, 10% vacancies would be reserved for other “economically backward sections”
of the people who were not covered by any existing reservation scheme.
• Ultimately, the constitutional validity of the memorandum came to be
questioned in the Supreme Court through several writ petitions.
• Indira Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477
• The question of constitutional validity of the memorandum was
considered by a Bench of 9 Judges. Six opinions were delivered. The
leading opinion was delivered by JEEVAN REDDY, J., on behalf of
himself, KANIA, C.J., VENKATACHALIAH, and AHMADI, JJ. Two
judges, PANDIAN and SAWANT, JJ., in separate opinions concurred
with REDDY, J. Three judges, THOMMEN, KULDIP SINGH and
SAHAI, JJ., in separate opinions dissented from REDDY, J., on several
points.
• Read the points of judgement from the textbook
 Concept of Creamy layer
• In the Mandal case, the Supreme Court has clearly and authoritatively laid down
that the “socially” advanced members of a backward class, the “creamy layer”,
has to be excluded from the backward class and the benefit of reservation under
Art. 16(4) can only be given to the “class” which remains after the exclusion of
the ‘creamy layer’. This would more appropriately serve the purpose and object
of Art. 16(4).
• The Court has opined that exclusion of creamy layer, i.e., socially advanced
members, will make the class a truly backward class
• A line has to be drawn between the forward in the backward class and the rest of
the backward. If the creamy layer is not excluded, the truly disadvantaged
members of the backward class to which they belong will be deprived of the
benefits of reservation.
• If the creamy layer among backward classes were given same benefits as
backward classes, it will amount to treating unequals equally which amounts to
the violation of the equality clause
• It is difficult to draw a line where a person belonging to the backward class ceases
to be so and becomes part of the ‘creamy layer’.
• It is not possible to lay down the criteria exhaustively. But the Court specifically
laid down one criterion.
• There are certain positions the occupants of which can be treated as socially
advanced without any further inquiry.
• The Court has specifically declared that the children of the I.A.S., I.P.S., or any
other All India Services in the Backward Classes constitute the creamy layer and
this is true without further inquiry. The social status of any such officer rises and
he is no longer socially disadvantaged. His children get full opportunity to realise
their potential. They are in no way handicapped in the area of life. It is but logical
that his children be not given the benefit of reservation for by giving them the
benefit of reservation other disadvantaged members of that backward class may
be deprived of the benefit.
• In other cases, in a big country like India, norms may differ from State to State or
from region to region. Accordingly, the Court has directed that a body be
constituted both at the Centre and at the State level to identify the creamy layer
within the backward classes.
• Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (II)AIR 2000 SC 498
• The Kerala Legislature passed an Act in 1995 declaring that there was no
creamy layer in the State of Kerala. The validity of the State Act was
challenged in the Supreme Court. The Court explained further the
rationale underlying the rule of exclusion of ‘creamy-layer
• In the instant case, the Court declared the Kerala Act declaring that there
are no socially advanced sections in any backward class in the State as
unconstitutional as being violative of Arts. 14 and 16(1).
• According to the Court, the Act has shut its eyes to the realities and facts;
it has no factual basis. “The declaration is a mere cloak and is unrelated to
facts in existence”
Indira Sawhney Judgement and Art 16
• After Indra Sawhney, two Constitutional Amendments have been incorporated
in Art. 16(4) to somewhat tone down the impact of the Supreme Court
pronouncement
• Promotions and Reservations:
• In Gen. Manager, Southern Rly. v. Rangachari, (AIR 1962 SC 36) the Supreme
Court by majority had held that Art. 16(4) permitted reservation of posts not
only at the initial stage of appointment but also included promotion to selection
posts.
• This proposition was reiterated in several subsequent pronouncements by the
Supreme Court.
• The Supreme Court had thus interpreted the term ‘appointment’ in Art. 16
liberally as including initial appointment as well as promotion. This position
continued till the Indra Sawhney pronouncement.
• In Indra Sawhney, majority Judges opined that Art. 16(4) was confined
to initial appointments only and it did not permit or warrant
reservations in the matter of promotion.
• The Court however permitted the existing rules in that behalf to operate
for a period of five years from the date of the judgment. Thus, Rangachari
decision was overruled.
• The 77th Constitutional Amendment was brought into effect in 1995
permitting reservation in promotion to the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes by adding Art 16(4A)
• Thus, by amending the Constitution, Parliament has removed the base as
interpreted by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney that “appointment”
does not include “promotion”.
• It may however be noted that Art 16(4A) permits reservation in
promotion posts only for the members of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes but not for other Backward Classes.
• This means that the position taken by the Supreme Court in Indra
Sawhney still prevails as regards OBCs in respect of promotion posts.
No reservation can be made in promotion posts for the OBCs.
• Promotion of S/C and S/T employees out of turn because of the scheme
of reservation gives rise to several problems, especially, pertaining to
seniority of such persons over the employees belonging to the general
category.
• 81st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2000: It introduced Article 16(4B), which says
unfilled SC/ST quota of a particular year, when carried forward to the next year, will be
treated separately and not clubbed with the regular vacancies of that year.
• 82nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2000: The State added a proviso to Article
335. According to Article 335, the claims of SCs/STs to services and posts have to be
consistent with overall administrative efficiency. It introduced a proviso which held that
nothing in Article 335 would prevent the State from relaxing the qualifying marks or
lowering the standard of evaluation for reservation in matters of promotion to
members of SC and STs
• 85th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2001: It provided for the reservation in
promotion under Article 16(4A), can be applied with ‘consequential seniority’ for the
government servants belonging to the SCs and STs with retrospective effect from June
1995.
Catch Up Rule and idea of Consequential Seniority
• Promotion of S/C and S/T employees out of turn because of the scheme of
reservation gave rise to several problems, especially, pertaining to seniority of such
persons over the employees belonging to the general category.
• The Supreme Court has sought to grapple with such problems keeping in view
considerations of equity and fairness
• This led to the evolution of Catch Up Rule and idea of Consequential Seniority
• Catch up rule-The rule held that senior general candidates who were promoted after
SC/ST candidates would regain their seniority over general candidates, promoted
earlier.
• In Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan(1996), a two-Judge Bench of the
Supreme Court reiterated what the Court had said in Indra Sawhney that providing
reservation in promotion was not warranted by Art. 16(4). The rule of reservation
gives accelerated promotion, but it does not give the accelerated
“consequential seniority”
• In Ajit Singh Januja v. State of Punjab (1996), a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme
Court has gone a step ahead than Virpal. Reading Arts. 14, 16 and 335, the Supreme
Court has now categorically laid down that when there arises a question to fill up a post
reserved for a SC/ST candidate in a still higher grade, then a SC/ST candidate is to be
promoted first, but when the question is in respect of promotion to a general category
post, then the general category candidate who has been promoted later would be
considered first for promotion
• But, then, in Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana, a three Judge Bench differed from the
above rulings.
• Ultimately, the Court reconsidered the whole matter in Ajit Singh II(1999)
• The Court has ruled that Virpal and Ajit Singh I have been correctly decided but
not Jagdish Lal.
• The court held that doctrine of equality of opportunity in Art. 16(1) is to be reconciled
in favour of backward classes under Art. 16(4) in such a manner that Art. 16(4), while
serving the cause of backward classes shall not unreasonably encroach upon the field of
equality.
• It is necessary to strike such a balance so as to attract meritorious and
talented persons to the public services.
• It is also necessary to ensure that the rule of adequate representation in Art.
16(4) for the backward classes and the rule of adequate representation in
promotion for SC/ST under Art. 16(4-A) do not adversely affect the
efficiency in administration as warranted by Art. 335
• Parliament intervened against the ruling in 2001, with the 85th
Constitutional Amendment to provide consequential seniority. The
amendment substituted the words ‘in matters of promotion to any class’
with the words ‘in matters of promotion, with consequential seniority, to
any class’ in clause (4A) of Article 16 of the Constitution
M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212
• The petitioners challenged the 77th, 81st, 82nd and 85th Amendments before the
Supreme Court
• The Court held that the concept of reservation in Article 16(4) is hedged by three
constitutional requirements, namely,
• backwardness of a class,
• inadequacy of representation in public employment of that class
• overall efficiency of the administration.
• These requirements are not obliterated by the impugned constitutional amendments
• Therefore, in each case the Court has got to be satisfied that the State has exercised its
opinion in making reservations in promotions for SCs and STs
• For this opinion the concerned State will have to place before the Court the requisite
quantifiable data in each case and satisfy the Court that such reservations became
necessary on account of inadequacy of representation of SCs/ STs in a particular class
or classes of posts without affecting general efficiency of service as mandated
under Article 335 of the Constitution.
• 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.
• 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.
• Subject to above, the Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Constitution
(Seventy-Seventh Amendment) Act, 1995, the Constitution (Eighty-First
Amendment) Act, 2000, the Constitution (Eighty-Second Amendment) Act,
2000 and the Constitution (Eighty-Fifth Amendment) Act, 2001.
• [Link]
view/
• Following Nagaraj, which introduced the three controlling conditions,
various High Courts and the Supreme Court struck down Statutes and
Rules extending reservation in promotion policies.
• The various courts ruled that the State had failed to furnish enough data
to meet the controlling conditions.
• Various States have filed an appeal before the Supreme Court to review its
Nagaraj judgment. The 3 controlling conditions that Nagaraj introduced
made it very difficult to advance reservation in promotion policies.
B.K. Pavitra v/s Union of India - II (2018)

• The Supreme Court has upheld the law of Karnataka Reservation Act 2018 which
provides reservation in promotions in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
• The court upheld the law which provides consequential seniority .i.e. a person promoted
would also get seniority as a consequence.
• The state of Karnataka passed the 2002 Act (The Karnataka Determination of Seniority
of the Government servants promoted on the basis of Reservation) which was declared
invalid by the 2 judge bench of the Supreme Court on the ground that such Act was made
with inadequate quantifiable data.
• After this Judgment, the Karnataka government made a committee namely Ratna Prabha
Committee that was assigned to collect data on the three Nagaraj criteria: (i) current
backwardness of SC/STs, (ii) cadre-wise representation of SC/STs in Government
Departments, (iii) effect on administrative efficiency due to reservation in promotion.
• On the basis of the Ratna Prabha Committee report, Karnataka passed the 2018
Reservation Act.
• Justice Chandrachud introduced an inclusive definition of administrative efficiency.
He examined the definition of efficiency under Article 335 of the Constitution and
observed that it ‘does not define what the framers meant by the phrase “efficiency of
administration”.
• The Court held that the State had furnished sufficient data to demonstrate both that
SC/STs are inadequately represented and that the policy would not adversely affect
efficiency
Janhit Abhiyan vs Union Of India
• Group of petitions challenging the Constitution Amendment which
amended Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India by adding two
new clauses viz., clause (6) to Article 15 with Explanation and clause (6)
to Article 16 and thereby, the State has been empowered, inter alia, to
provide for a maximum of ten per cent. reservation for “the economically
weaker sections” of citizens other than “the Scheduled Castes”, “the
Scheduled Tribes” and the non-creamy layer of “the Other Backward
Classes”
• The amendment was held valid