Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(iii) Though Backward Class is not synonymous with backward caste or backward community, the Members of an entire caste or community may in the social, economic educational and occupational scale of values, may on that account be treated as a Backward Class, but that is not because they are Members of a caste or community, but because they by sharing some common characteristics, form a distinct class."

In paras 44 and 45 of the Judgment, the learned Judge observed that:

"From these observations, it is apparent that the Supreme Court in BALAJI's case only indicated the broad principles to be kept in view while classifying the citizens as Backward leaving liberty to the State to decide the matter consistent with the equality classes. We may incidentaly point out that in BALARAM's case , the Supreme Court has even upheld the validity of the classification of certain classes of citizens whose educational average was slightly above the State average.

"Class poverty, not individual poverty, is therefore the primary test. Other ancillary tests are the way of life, the standard of living, the place in the social hierarchy, the habits and customs, etc. etc. Despite individual exceptions, it may be possible and easy to identify social backwardness with reference to caste, with reference to residence, with reference to occupation Or some other dominant feature. Notwithstanding our antipathy to caste and sub-regionalism, these are facts of life which cannot be wished away. If they reflect poverty which is the primary source of social and educational backwardness, they must be recognised for what they are along with other less primary sources. There is and there can be nothing wrong in recognising poverty wherever it is reflected as an identifiable group phenomena whether you see it as a caste group, a sub-regional group, an occupational group or some other class. Once the relevant factors are taken into consideration, how and where to draw the line is a question for each State to consider since the economic and social conditions differ from area to area. Once the relevant conditions are taken into consideration and the backwardness of a class of people is determined, it will not be for the Court to interfere in the matter. But, lest there be any misunderstanding, judicial review will not stand excluded."

In para 95 of its Judgment, the Supreme Court dealt with the history of reservations in the State of Karnataka which originated in 1918. After a review of various decisions of this Court and the report of the Backward Class Committees constituted in 1918 and also in the year 1960, the Supreme Court observed thus:

"The occupations of citizens may also contribute to make classes of citizens socially backward. There are some occupations which are treated as inferior according to conventional beliefs and classes of citizens who follow these occupations are apt to become socially backward. The place of habitation also plays not a minor part in determining the backwardness of a community of persons. In a sense, the problem of social backwardness is the problem of Rural India and in that behalf, classes of citizens occupying a socially backward position in rural area fall within the purview of Article 15(4). The problem of determining who are socially backward classes is undoubtedly very complex. Sociological, social and economic considerations, come into play in solving the problem and evolving proper criteria for determining which classes are socially backward is obviously a very difficult task; it will need an elaborate investigation and collection of data and examining the said data in a rational and scientific way. That is the function of the State which purports to act under Article 15(4). All that this Court is called upon to do in dealing with the present petitions is to decide whether the tests applied by the impugned order are valid under Article 15(4). If it appears that the test applied by the order in that behalf is improper and invalid, then the classification of socially backward classes based on that test will have to be held to be inconsistent with the requirements of Article 15(4)."

There is one other basis on which a classification made for purposes of Article 15(4) or Article 16(4) of the Constitution has received the approval of this Court in Chitralekha's case (supra). in that case the Court was concerned with a list of backward classes prepared on the basis of economic condition and occupation. According to that Government order, persons whose family income was Rs. 1,200/- per annum or less and who were engaged in occupations such as agriculture, petty business, inferior services, crafts or other occupations involving manual labour were treated as belonging to backward classes. The petitioner who had filed the petition in the High Court did not challenge the validity of the said classification. But on a submission made on behalf of the State Government, the Court expressed its general approval to the method of classification. Even in the case before us now, there is a reservation of 15% of seats of posts in favour of Members falling under a classification styled as 'special group' which is based on similar occupation-cum-income considerations. Even here no serious objection is taken by any party to the said classification treating persons who satisfied the prescribed tests as being eligible for reservation. It is apparent that this 'special group' is a creature of social, economic and political necessity. Since a classification made on the above said basis has received the approval of a Constitution Bench of equal strength and its correctness is not challenged before us, we treat this classification as a valid one even though a criticism of this kind of classification was made, not unjustifiably as we now see, by the Mysore High Court in D.G. Viswanath's case AIR 1964 Mys.132. This classification would include persons of all castes, groups and communities provided the two tests namely, occupation test and income test are satisfied."