SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Tuesday, August 19, 2025

Printed For: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Bhanot
SCC Online Web Edition: [Link]
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1967 SCC OnLine SC 112 : (1968) 1 SCR 721 : (1968) 2 SCJ 19 :

AIR 1968 SC 507 : (1968) 2 LLJ 407

In the Supreme Court of India

(BEFORE K.N. WANCHOO, C.J. AND R.S. BACHAWAT, V. RAMASWAMI (I), G.K.
MITTER AND K.S. HEGDE, JJ.)

C.A. RAJENDRAN … Petitioners;

Versus
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS … Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 11 of 1967*, decided on September 29, 1967
Advocates who appeared in this case:
N.C. Chatterjee, K.B. Rohtagi and S. Balakrishnan, for Petitioner;
C.K. Daphtary, Attorney-General, A.S. Nambiar, R.H. Dhebar and
S.P. Nayar, for the Respondents;
K.B. Rohtagi, for the interveners.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
V. R AMASWAMI (I), J.— In this case the petitioner, C.A. Rajendran
has obtained rule from this Court calling upon the respondents to show
cause why a writ in the nature of mandamus under Article 32 of the
Constitution should not be issued for quashing the office memorandum
dated November 8, 1963 which is Annexure ‘C’ to the Writ Petition, and
for directing Respondent 1 to restore the orders passed by it in Office
Memorandum No. 2/11/55-RPS dated May 7, 1955 and No. 5/4/55-SCT
-(1) dated January 4, 1957. Cause has been shown by the Attorney
General on behalf of the respondents to whom notice of the rule was
ordered to be given.
2. The petitioner is a permanent Assistant in Grade IV (Class 3, non-
gazetted-ministerial) of the Railway Board Secretariat Service. He was
initially appointed as Accounts Clerk on February 6, 1953 in Southern
Railway. He was appointed as an Assistant on October 22, 1956 in the
Railway Board and confirmed as Assistant on April 1, 1960. The pay-
scale of the Assistant's grade is Rs 210-530. The next post to which the
petitioner claims promotion is that of the Section Officer in the same
service. The post of Section Officer is classified as Class II, Grade III,
Gazetted and it carries a pay-scale of Rs 350-900. The Railway Board
Secretariat Service (Reorganisation and Reinforcement) Scheme was
drawn up in consultation with the Ministry of Home Affairs and
introduced with effect from December 1, 1954 with the approval of the
Union Public Service Commission. According to the new Scheme the
Railway Board Secretariat Service consists of the following grades:
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 2 Tuesday, August 19, 2025
Printed For: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Bhanot
SCC Online Web Edition: [Link]
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Grade IV—Assistants in the scale of Rs 210-530 (Class III non-

gazetted) (to which Petitioner belongs).
Grade III—Section Officers in the scale of Rs 350-900 (Class II
gazetted) with effect from 1-7-1959. (Section Offcers grade).
Grade II—Amalgamated with effect from 1-7-1959 as Section
Officers grade.
Grade I—Assistant Directors/Under Secretaries in the scale of Rs
900-1,250. (Grade III was called, before 1-7-59, Assistant
Superintendent in the scale of Rs 275-500 and the scale of Grade II
Superintendents was Rs 530-800).”
Recruitment to permanent vacancies of Grade III of the Railway Board
Secretariat Service are made by the following three methods as per
para 18 of the Railway Board Secretariat Service Scheme:
“(a) 33-⅓% by direct recruitment on the results of the combined
Examinations held by the UPSC for the IAS, IPS & other Central
Services Class I and Class II.
(b) 33-⅓% by promotion on the basis of seniority subject to the
rejection of the unfit.
(c) 33-⅓% by limited competitive examination on the basis of a
test to be prescribed and conducted by the UPSC for
Assistants/Stenographers Grade II between 5 years and 10 years of
service in the grade in the Board's office.
Note.—For the years 1961-65 only 1/4 of the substantive
vacancies were to be filled by direct recruitment on the results of the
competitive examination under item (a) above.”
3. In 1955 the Government issued Office Memorandum dated May 7,
1955 (Annexure ‘E’ to the Writ Petition) whereby it reaffirmed its
decision that there will be no reservation for Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes in posts filled by promotion, but that certain
concessions were to be given to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes in the matter of promotion. The concessions were as follows:
“(i) While there would be no reservation for Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes in regard to vacancies filled by promotion, where
the passing of tests or examinations had been laid down as a
condition for promotion, the authority prescribing the rules for the
tests or examinations might issue suitable instructions to ensure
that the standard of qualification in respect of members of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes was not unduly high.
(ii) Where promotions were made on the basis of seniority subject
to fitness, cases of persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes were to be judged in a sympathetic manner
without applying too rigid a standard and cases of supersession of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes employees reviewed at a
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 3 Tuesday, August 19, 2025
Printed For: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Bhanot
SCC Online Web Edition: [Link]
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

high level viz. if a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes employee was

superseded in the matter of promotion to Class I and II posts filled
on the basis of seniority subject to fitness, the prior orders of the
Minister or Deputy Minister concerned were to be taken. If, however,
the supersession was in a Class III or IV post filled on the basis of
seniority subject to fitness, the matter was to be reported to the
Minister or Deputy Minister concerned within a month of the
decision. (Ministries were given powers to modify this procedure to
suit their requirements with the approval of the Minister in charge)”.
In 1957 the Government decided that there should be provision for
reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in all grades of
services filled by promotion through competitive examination limited to
departmental candidates, the quantum of reservation being 12-½% for
Scheduled Castes and 5% for Scheduled Tribes. The order of the
Government is contained in Office Memorandum dated January 4, 1957,
Annexure ‘D’ to the Writ Petition. In April, 1959 the Ministry of Railways
issued an order laying down that in the case of any promotion from
Class IV to Class III and from Class III to Class II and for any
promotion from one grade to another in Class III, where such
promotions were made by “selection” and not on the basis of seniority-
cum-fitness”, there should be reservation for the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes on the same scale as in the direct recruitment. This
order was challenged by Rangachari by a Writ Petition under Article 226
of the Constitution which was allowed by the Madras High Court and a
writ in the nature of mandamus was granted restraining the Railway
Authorities from giving effect to the order of the Railway Board
directing reservation of selection posts in Class III of the Railway
service in favour of the members of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes. An appeal was brought to this Court by the General
Manager, Southern Railway (General Manager, Southern Railway v.
Rangachari)1 against the judgment of the Madras High Court and it was
held in the majority judgment of this Court that the impugned circulars
of the Railway Board were within the ambit of Article 16(4) of the
Constitution and the appeal must succeed. Consequent upon the
judgment in this case the matter was reviewed by the Union
Government and it was advised that there was no constitutional
compulsion to make reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes in posts filled by promotion and the question whether the
reservation should be continued or withdrawn was entirely a matter of
public policy. The Union Government came to the conclusion that there
should not be any special treatment of Government servants belonging
to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the matter of promotions
particularly in promotion to Class I and Class II services which require
higher degree of efficiency and responsibility. As a result of this review
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 4 Tuesday, August 19, 2025
Printed For: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Bhanot
SCC Online Web Edition: [Link]
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

of the matter the Central Government issued a memorandum dated

November 8, 1963 (Annexure ‘C’ to the Writ Petition) which reads as
follows:
“In posts filled by promotion through competitive examinations
limited to departmental candidates, reservations at 12-½ per cent
and 5-½ per cent of vacancies were provided for Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes respectively vide this Ministry's OM No. 5/4/55
-SCT(I) dated 4th January, 1957 and para 3(iii) of the Brochure
issued with OM No. 1/2/61-SCT(I) dated 27th April, 1962. In regard
to promotions on the basis of seniority subject to fitness, and those
by selection no reservations were provided, but certain concessions
were allowed to persons belonging to scheduled castes and
scheduled tribes vide Ministry of Home Affairs Office Memorandum
No. 2/11/55-RPS dated 7th May, 1955 (as amended from time to
time), No. 1/1/59-RPS dated 17th March, 1958 and No. 1/4/60-RPS
dated 5th March 1960 and paras 20 and 21 of the aforesaid
brochure.
2. The Government of India have reviewed their policy in regard
to reservations and other concessions granted to scheduled castes
and scheduled tribes in posts filled by promotion and have, in
supersession of all previous orders in this regard, decided as follows:
(1) Class I and Class II appointments:
(a) There will be no reservation for Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes in appointments made by promotion to a Class
II or a higher service of post whether on the basis of seniority-
cum-fitness, selection, or competitive examination limited to
departmental candidates.
(b) In the case of promotions made in or to Class I or Class II
on the basis of seniority subject to fitness, cases involving
supersession of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe Officers,
will, however, continue to be submitted for prior approval of the
Minister or Dy. Minister concerned.
(2) Class III and Class IV appointments:
(a) In the cases of Class III and Class IV appointments, in
grades or services to which there is no direct recruitment
whatever, there will be reservation at 12½ and 5 per cent
vacancies for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes respectively
in promotions made by (i) selection or (ii) on the results of
competitive examinations limited to departmental candidates.
(b) Lists of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Officers
should be drawn up separately to fill the reserved vacancies;
officers belonging to these classes will be adjudged separately
and not along with other officers and if they should be included in
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 5 Tuesday, August 19, 2025
Printed For: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Bhanot
SCC Online Web Edition: [Link]
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the list irrespective of their merit as compared to that of the other

officers. Promotions against reserved vacancies will continue to be
subject to the candidates satisfying the prescribed minimum
standards.
(c) There will be no reservation in appointments made by
promotion on the basis of seniority subject to fitness; but cases
involving supersession of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe
Officers, if any, will as at present be reported within a month to
the Minister or Deputy Minister concerned for information.
3. The above decisions take effect from the date of issue of these
orders except where selections by the Departmental Promotion
Committee under the old orders have already been made, or rules for
a competitive examination published.
4. The contention of the petitioner is that this Office Memorandum
(Annexure ‘C’ to the Writ Petition) violates the guarantee given to
backward classes under Article 16(4) of the Constitution and is illegal
and ultra vires. It was alleged that the impugned Office Memorandum
(Annexure ‘C’) made a discrimination by making provision for
reservations in certain types of Class III and IV Services only and not
in Class II and I Services, and the classification was discriminatory and
there was no rational nexus sought to be achieved by the impugned
Office Memorandum. The argument was also stressed that Article 16(4)
was not an exception engrafted on Article 16, but was in itself a
fundamental right granted to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
and backward classes and as such it was untrammelled by any other
provision of the Constitution. The petitioner accordingly prays for the
grant of a writ in the nature of mandamus quashing the Office
Memorandum (Annexure ‘C’) and directing Respondent 1 to restore
retrospectively the orders made in its Office Memoranda No. 2/11/55-
RPS dated May 7, 1955 and No. 5/4/55-SCT-I dated January 4, 1957
and to consider the claim of the petitioner as member of the Scheduled
Caste for promotion as Section Officer in the Railway Board Secretariat
Service.
Article 14 of the Constitution states:
“The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or
the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.”
Article 15 provides:
“(1). The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on
grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of
them.
(2)-(3) * * *
(4) Nothing in this article or in clause (2) of Article 29 shall
prevent the State from making any special provision for the
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 6 Tuesday, August 19, 2025
Printed For: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Bhanot
SCC Online Web Edition: [Link]
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of

citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.”
Article 16 is to the following effect:
“(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) * * *
(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.
(5) * * *
Article 335 reads as follows:
“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.”
5. The first question to be considered in this case is whether there is
a constitutional duty or obligation imposed upon the Union Government
to make reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes either
at the initial stage of recruitment and at the stage of promotion in the
Railway Board Secretariat Service Scheme.
6. The relevant law on the subject is well-settled. Under Article 16 of
the Constitution, there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in
matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the
State or to promotion from one office to a higher office thereunder.
Articles 14, 15 and 16 from part of the same constitutional code of
guarantees and supplement each other. In other words, Article 16 of
the Constitution is only an incident of the application of the concept of
equality enshrined in Article 14 thereof. It gives effect to the doctrine of
equality in the matter of appointment and promotion. It follows
therefore that there can be a reasonable classification of the employees
for the purpose of appointment and promotion. To put it differently, the
equality of opportunity guaranteed by Article 16(1) means equality as
between members of the same class of employees, and not equality
between members of separate, independent classes. Dealing with the
extent of protection of Article 16(1) of the Constitution, this Court
stated in General Manager, Southern Railway v. Rangachari2 at pp. 596
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 7 Tuesday, August 19, 2025
Printed For: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Bhanot
SCC Online Web Edition: [Link]
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-597 of the Report as follows:

“It would be clear that matters relating to employment cannot be
confined only to the initial matters prior to the act of employment.
The narrow construction would confine the application of Article 16
(1) to the initial employment and nothing else; but that clearly is
only one of the matters relating to employment. The other matters
relating to employment would inevitably be the provision as to the
salary and periodical increments therein, terms as to leave, as to
gratuity, as to pension and as to the age of superannuation. These
are all matters relating to employment and they are, and must be,
deemed to be included in the expression ‘matters relating to
employment’ in Article 16(1). What Article 16(1) guarantees is
equality of opportunity to all citizens in respect of all the matters
relating to employment illustrated by us as well as to an
appointment to any office as explained by us. The three provisions
Article 16(1), Article 14 and Article 15(1) form part of the same
constitutional code of guarantees and supplement each other. If that
be so, there would be no difficulty in holding that the matters
relating to employment must include all matters in relation to
employment both prior, and subsequent, to the employment which
are incidental to the employment and form part of the terms and
conditions of such employment.”
The Court further observed in that case:
“Article 16(2) prohibits discrimination and thus assures the
effective enforcement of the fundamental right of equality of
opportunity guaranteed by Article 16(1). The words, in respect of
any employment used in Article 16(2) must, therefore, include all
matters relating to employment as specified in Article 16(1).
Therefore, we are satisfied that promotion to selection posts is
included both under Article 16(1) and (2)”
It is manifest that the scope of clause (4) of Article 16 is not co-
extensive with the guarantee of equality offered to all citizens by clause
(1) of that Article. In other words, clause (4) of Article 16 does not
cover the entire field covered by clauses (1) and (2) of that Article. For
instance, some of the matters relating to employment in respect of
which equality of opportunity has been guaranteed by clauses (1) and
(2) do not fall within the mischief of the exception clause (4). As
regards the conditions of service relating to employment such as salary,
increment, gratuity, pension and age of superannuation, there can be
no exception even in regard to the backward classes of citizens. The
only matter which clause (4) covers is a provision for the reservation of
appointments in favour of a backward class of citizens. It is well-settled
that clause (4) of Article 16 is an exception clause and is not an
independent provision and it has to be strictly construed (See the
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 8 Tuesday, August 19, 2025
Printed For: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Bhanot
SCC Online Web Edition: [Link]
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

judgment of this Court in General Manager, Southern Railway v.

2
Rangachari . It is also apparent that the language of Article 16(4) has
to be interpreted in the context and background of Article 335 of the
Constitution. In other words, in making a provision for reservation of
appointments or posts the Government has to take into consideration
not only the claims of the members of the backward classes but also
the maintenance of efficiency of administration which is a matter of
paramount importance. In this connection, Gajendragadkar, J., as he
then was, speaking for the majority in General Manager, Southern
Railway v. Rangachari3 observed at p. 606 of the Report as follows:
“It is true that in providing for the reservation of appointments or
posts under Article 16(4) the State has to take into consideration the
claims of the members of the backward classes consistently with the
maintenance of the efficiency of administration. It must not be
forgotten that the efficiency of administration is of such paramount
importance that it would be unwise and impermissible to make any
reservation at the cost of efficiency of administration. That
undoubtedly is the effect of Article 335. Reservation of appointments
or posts may theoretically and conceivably mean some impairment
of efficiency; but the risk involved in sacrificing efficiency of
administration must always be borne in mind when any State sets
about making a provision for reservation of appointments or posts. It
is also true that the reservation which can be made under Article 16
(4) is intended merely to give adequate representation to backward
communities. It cannot be used for creating monopolies or for
unduly or illegitimately disturbing the legitimate interests of other
employees. In exercising the powers under Article 16(4) the problem
of adequate representation of the backward class of citizens must be
fairly and objectively considered and an attempt must always be
made to strike a reasonable balance between the claims of backward
classes and the claims of other employees as well as the important
consideration of the efficiency of administration.”
The same view has been reiterated in a later case, M.R. Balaji v. State
4
of Mysore in which Gajendragadkar, J., as he then was, speaking for
the unanimous Court stated as follows:
“Whilst we are dealing with this question, it would be relevant to
add that the provisions of Article 15(4) are similar to those of Article
16(4) which fell to be considered in the case of General Manager,
Southern Railway v. Rangachari. In that case, the majority decision
of this Court held that the power of reservation which is conferred on
the State under Article 16(4) can be exercised by the State in a
proper case not only by providing for reservation of appointments,
but also by providing for reservation of selection posts. This
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 9 Tuesday, August 19, 2025
Printed For: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Bhanot
SCC Online Web Edition: [Link]
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

conclusion was reached on the basis that it served to give effect to

the intention of the Constitution-makers to make adequate
safeguards for the advancement of Backward Classes and to secure
their adequate representation in the Services. The judgment shows
that the only point which was raised for the decision of this Court in
that case was whether the reservation made was outside Article 16
(4) and that posed the bare question about the construction of
Article 16(4). The propriety, the reasonableness or the wisdom of the
impugned order was not questioned because it was not the
respondents case that if the order was justified under Article 16(4),
it was a fraud on the Constitution. Even so, it was pointed out in the
judgment that the efficiency of administration is of such a
paramount importance that it would be unwise and impermissible to
make any reservation at the cost of efficiency of administration; that,
it was stated, was undoubtedly the effect of Article 335. Therefore,
what is true in regard to Article 15(4) is equally true in regard to
Article 16(4). There can be no doubt that the Constitution-makers
assumed, as they were entitled to, that while making adequate
reservation under Article 16(4), care would be taken not to provide
for unreasonable, excessive or extravagant reservation, for that
would, by eliminating general competition in a large filed and by
creating wide-spread dissatisfaction amongst the employees,
materially affect efficiency. Therefore, like the special provision
improperly made under Article 15(4), reservation made under Article
16(4) beyond the permissible and legitimate limits would be liable to
be challenged as a fraud on the Constitution.”
In the present case the respondents have alleged in the counter-
5
affidavit that after the decision of Rangachari case the Union
Government reviewed the whole position and decided that there should
not be any special treatment to Government servants belonging to the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the matter of promotion to
Class I and Class II Services which require higher degree of efficiency
and responsibility. It was stated in the counter-affidavit that the Union
Government was satisfied that reservation quotas of promotion were
harmful from the point of view of efficiency of Railway Service and
therefore the Government issued the memorandum dated November 8,
1963 withdrawing the reservation quotas for Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes officers made in the previous Government Orders. On
behalf of the petitioner Mr N.C. Chatterjee submitted the argument that
the provision contained in Article 16(4) of the Constitution was in itself
a fundamental right of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and it
was not open to the Government to withdraw the benefits conferred on
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes by the Government Orders
dated May 7, 1955 and January 4, 1957. The learned Counsel based his
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 10 Tuesday, August 19, 2025
Printed For: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Bhanot
SCC Online Web Edition: [Link]
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

argument on the following observations of Subba Rao, J., as he then

was, in the minority judgment of this Court in T. Devadasan v. Union of
India6:
“The expression ‘nothing in this article’ is a legislative device to
express its intention in a most emphatic way that the power
conferred thereunder is not limited in any way by the main provision
but falls outside it. It has not really carved out an exception, but has
preserved a power untrammelled by the other provisions of the
Article.”
But the majority judgment of this Court in that case took the view that
Article 16(4) was an exception and it could not be so construed as to
render nugatory or illusory the guarantee conferred by Article 16(1). It
was pointed out that though under Article 16(4) of the Constitution a
reservation of a reasonable percentage of posts for members of the
Scheduled Castes and Tribes was within the competence of the State,
the method evolved by the Government must be such as to strike a
reasonable balance between the claims of the backward classes and
claims of other employees, in order to effectuate the guarantee
contained in Article 16(1), and for this purpose each year of
recruitment would have to be considered by itself. Accordingly, the
Court struck down the “Carry forward rule” on the ground that it
contravened Articles 14, 16 and 335 of the Constitution. In any case,
even the minority judgment of Subba Rao, J. does not support the
contention of Mr N.C. Chatterjee that Article 16(4) confers a right on
the backward classes and not merely a power to be exercised at the
discretion of the Government for making a provision for reservation of
appointments for backward classes which, in its opinion, are not
adequately represented in the Services of the State. Our conclusion
therefore is that Article 16(4) does not confer any right on the
petitioner and there is no constitutional duty imposed on the
Government to make a reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes, either at the initial stage of recruitment or at the stage of
promotion. In other words, Article 16(4) is an enabling provision and
confers a discretionary power on the State to make a reservation of
appointments in favour of backward class of citizens which, in its
opinion, is not adequately represented in the Services of the State. We
are accordingly of the opinion that the petitioner is unable to make
good his submission on this aspect of the case.
7. We shall next deal with the contention of the petitioner that there
is discrimination between the employees belonging to Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the Railway Service and similar
employees in the Central Secretariat Service. It was said that the
competitive departmental examination for promotion to the grade of
Section Officers was not held by the Railway Board for the years 1955-
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 11 Tuesday, August 19, 2025
Printed For: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Bhanot
SCC Online Web Edition: [Link]
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1963. On the contrary, such examinations were held for the Central
Secretariat Service and 74 employees belonging to Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes secured the benefit of the provisions of
reservation. In our opinion, there is no substance in this contention.
The petitioner being an employee of the Railway Board is governed by
the rules applicable to the officers in the Service to which he belongs.
The employees of the Central Secretariat Service belong to a different
class and it is not possible to accept the argument that there is any
discrimination against the petitioner and violation of the guarantee
under Article 14 of the Constitution.
8. It was also contended by Mr N.C. Chatterjee that the impugned
order, Annexure ‘C’, arbitrarily discriminates among Class III
employees themselves and Class IV employees themselves. Under the
impugned order reservation is kept for appointments for which there is
direct recruitment and for promotions made by (1) selection, or (2) on
the result of a competitive examination limited to departmental
candidates. There is no reservation for appointments made by
promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness. In our opinion, there is
no justification for this argument as it is well-established that there can
be a reasonable classification of employees for the purpose of
appointment by promotion and the classification as between direct
recruits and promotees is reasonable (See the decisions of this Court in
Mervyn Coutindo v. Collector of Customs7, Bombay, and in S.G.
8
Jaisinghani v. Union of India .
9. A grievance was also made by Mr N.C. Chatterjee that there is
discrimination as between Classes I and II where there is no
reservation and Classes III and IV where reservation has been made for
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The respondent stated in the
counter-affidavit that in Classes I and II posts a higher degree of
efficiency and responsibility was required and therefore reservation was
considered harmful so far as Classes I and II were concerned. In view
of the requirement of efficiency in the higher echelons of Service it is
obvious that the classification made in the impugned order is
reasonable and the argument of Mr Chatterjee on this point must also
be rejected as untenable.
10. For the reasons expressed we hold that the petitioner has made
out no case for the grant of a writ under Article 32 of the Constitution.
The application accordingly fails but, in the circumstances of the case,
we do not propose to make any order as to costs.
R.K.P.S.
Appeal dismissed.
———
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 12 Tuesday, August 19, 2025
Printed For: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Bhanot
SCC Online Web Edition: [Link]
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*
Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of fundamental
rights.

1
(1962) 2 SCR 586

2
(1962) 2 SCR 586

3
(1962) 2 SCR 586

4
(1963) Supp 1 SCR 439

5
(1962) 2 SCR 586

6
(1964) 4 SCR 680 at p. 700

7
(1966) 3 SCR 600

8
(1967) 2 SCR 703

Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/
regulation/ circular/ notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be
liable in any manner by reason of any mistake or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice
rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All
disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The authenticity of
this text must be verified from the original source.