[Cites 12, Cited by 38486]
[Constitution]
Constitution Article
Article 16 in Constitution of India
16. Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment
Clause 1 states that there shall be equal opportunity for the citizens in the matter of employment or appointment to any office under the State. This clause does not provide the right to employment; it only gives the right to equal opportunity in case of any available vacancy in public employment. This clause also applies to promotions or termination and other aspects of state employment. This equality is applied only to the people who are applying for the same employment opportunity or are working in the same post.
Clause 2 states that there will be no discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence in employment. The state cannot discriminate only on the basis of the above criterias.
It is stated in clause 3 of Article 16 that nothing in this article shall prevent Parliament from making any law which prescribes to the citizens who are appointed to any office under the State in regard to any requirements as to residence within that State or Union territory prior to employment or appointment to any office under the State.
Article 16(4) of the Indian constitution provides for the reservation of services under the State in favor of the backward class of citizens. Backward class includes Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
In the case of Balaji v. State of Mysore, AIR 1963 the court held that caste cannot be the sole determining criteria for gauging the backwardness of a community. It can be their Poverty or the place where they live also. In the case of T. Devadashan v. Union of India, AIR 1964, the court struck down the carry forward rule for the vacancies of backward classes. The Court held that, following Balaji, the reserve vacancies in any one year had risen to more than 50% because they were not constitutional because of the carry-forward clause. The 50% rule only applies to proper reservations, i.e., backward classes reservations made under Article 16(4). The law cannot be applied to exemptions, concessions, or reliefs given to retroactive classes in compliance with Article 16(4).
In the landmark judgment,Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 (Mandal case), the Supreme Court dealt with the issue of “carry forward” reservations. The Second Backward Classes Committee, headed by BP Mandal, submitted its report which recommended 27 percent reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and 22.5 percent for the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes.
The Central government, however, acted on the report a decade later, by issuing an office memorandum (OM), providing 27 percent vacancies for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes to be filled by direct recruitment.
Indra Sawhney, the petitioner in this case, made three principal arguments against the Order- The extension of reservation violated the Constitutional guarantee of equality of opportunity, caste was not a reliable indicator of backwardness and that the efficiency of public institutions was at risk.
The Supreme Court upheld the government order that caste was an acceptable indicator of backwardness. Thus, the recommendation of reservations for OBCs in central government services was finally implemented in 1992. The Supreme Court states that 27% central government reservation for OBCs is valid. However, some states denied the existence of the creamy layer, and a report commissioned by the supreme court was implemented. The case was pressed again in 1999 and the supreme court reaffirmed the creamy layer exclusion and extended it to SCs and STs. This judgment also overruled Rangachar v. General Manager Southern Railway and Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India verdicts, which said that reservations could be made in promotions as well as appointments. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India held that reservations cannot be applied in promotions.
Later, the Parliament enacted the 77th Amendment Act, 1995 and added clause (4A) to Article 16 of the Constitution, thereby enabling the Parliament to make provisions for reservation for SCs and STs in promotion posts. This simply meant that even after the judgment of mandal case, the reservation in promotion in government jobs, shall continue.
Clause (4B) was added to the Indian Constitution by way of 81st Amendment Act, 2000. It was added to the Constitution with the intent that the backlog vacancies which could not be filled due to unavailability of eligible candidates of the SEBC category in a previous or preceding year, shall not be clubbed with the 50 percent reservation for the SCs and STs and Other Backward Classes on the total number of vacancies in the next year.
Clause (5) exempts a law from the application of clauses (1) and (2), which require the incumbent of any office to be religiously qualified for appointment.
The case M. Nagaraj v. Union of India dealt with Articles 16 (4A) and (4B) of the Constitution. It was held in this case that in order to grant reservations to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the State must collect ‘quantifiable data’ to demonstrate their backwardness. It was held that the concept of the creamy layer will also apply to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and therefore, they would not be entitled to any such reservations. Further, the decision was altered as it was argued by the Attorney-General of India that both the holdings were incorrect as they were contrary to the judgment which was given in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (non-exclusion of creamy layer in matters of reservations).
Clause (6) was added to Article 16 by the 103rd Amendment Act, 2019, which came into effect on January 14, 2019, and empowers the State to make various provisions for reservation in appointments of members of the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) of society to government posts. However, these provisions must be within the 10% ceiling, in addition to the existing reservations.
In the case of Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022) the constitutionality of the 103rd Amendment was contested, alleging that it violated the fundamental structure of the Indian Constitution. However, the majority decision, with a 3:2 ratio, upheld the amendment as constitutionally valid. Justice Maheshwari explained that reservations go beyond being mere affirmative actions or measures to address social and educational backwardness; instead, they serve to combat various forms of disadvantages. The majority also ruled that a 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in addition to the existing 50% reservation limit, as established in the Indra Sawhney Case, is constitutional. Additionally, all three judges agreed that the 50% limit is not rigid and may be surpassed in exceptional circumstances.
References
Social Laws Today
IndianKanoon
News Article
Blog Ipleaders