Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

One may easily sympathise with holders of non-selection posts, They are many in number in the lower stations of life. They are economically backward and burdened with drudgery of life. That is why there is a ballyhoo raised by a larger number of people when some categories in far more distressing social situations enter the arena with preferential treatment. Looking at the problem from the point of view of law and logic and the constitutional justification under Article 16(4) for reservation in favour of the panchama proletariat there is nothing to strike down in Annexure K. As between the socially even economically, depressed and the economically backward, the Constitution has emphatically cast its preference for the former. Who are we, as Judges to question the wisdom of provisions made by Government within the parameters of Article 16(4)? The answer is obvious that the writ of the Court cannot quash what is not contrary to the constitution, however tearful the consequences for those who may be adversely affected. The progressive trend must, of course, be to classify on the have - not basis but the SC/ST category is, generally speaking, not only deplorably poor but also humiliatingly pariah in their lot. May be, some of the forward lines of the backward classes have the best of both the worlds and their electoral muscle qua caste scares away even radical parties from talking secularism to them. We are not concerned with that dubious brand. In the long run, the recipe for backwardness is not creating a vested interest in backward castes but liquidation of handicaps, social and economic, by constructive projects. All this is in another street and we need not walk that way now.