THE EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY IN THE MATTERS OF PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT UNDER ARTICLE 16 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION. State shall not make any discrimination(unfairness) among the citizens on the ground of:-
- PLACE OF BIRTH
- ANY OF THEM
Article 16 guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of appointment in State services test recruitment for government services. The Protections and Rights provided under Article 15 and 16 for any welfare state. Dr. B.R Ambedkar has called the Rights under Article 15 and 16 as complimentary benefits.
Exceptions to Article 16(1) and 16(2)
- Art- 16(3):- Under Art- 16(3), Parliament may take a law to prescribe a requirement as to residence within a State or Union territory for eligibility to be appointed with respect to specified number of appointments or posts.
Case 1:- A.V.S.Narsimha Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR-1970)
The Supreme Court declared that part of the Act unconstitutional which prescribed a residence qualification for govt. services in Telangana – a part of the State of Andhra Pradesh.
- Art- 16(5):-
Art- 16(5) 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 professinge(believe) a particular religion or belonging to a particular denomination.
- Art- 16(4):-
Under Art- 16(4), the state may make any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favor of any ‘backward class’ of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately (sufficient) represented in the services under the State.
Cases which are important to understand Article 16
Case 1: Balbir kaur vs. Steel Authority of India ltd. (AIR 2000 SC 1596)
In this case the apex court held that appointment on compassionate grounds of a son, daughter or widow to assist the family to relieve economic distress because of the sudden demise in hardness of a govt. servant has been held to valid.
Case 2: Shiv Charan Singh vs. State of Mysore (AIR-1965)
Provisions for compulsory retirement of govt. servant in public interests do not infringe Art.14 and 16.
Case 3: Randhir Singh vs. Union of India (AIR-1982)
It has been held that equal pay for equal work although not expressly declared to be a Fundamental right is clearly a constitutional under Article-14, 16, and 39 (c) of the constitution and can be enforced by the courts.
Case 4: Devdason vs. Union of India (AIR-1964)
In this case the constitutional validity of “carry forward rule” in services was involved. The Supreme Court by a majority of 4 to 1 struck down the carry forward rule as unconstitutional on the ground that the power vested in govt. under Art.16(4) could not be exercised so as to deny reasonable equality of opportunity in matters of public employment for members of classes other than backward.
Case 5: Akhil bhartiya sashit karamchari vs. Union of India
In this case while overruling the T. Devadasan case, S.C held that carry forward rule is valid. Court held that the ceiling limit of 50% is just a guideline, and if its required the ceiling limit of 50% can be exceeded as well. In this case, the reservation reached upto 64% and it was held to be valid.
Case 6: N.M Thomas vs. State of kerala
It was held that reservation in promotion is valid.
Landmark judgment (INDIRA SAWHNEY CASE) KNOWN AS MANDAL COMMISSION.
Case 1: Indira Sawhney vs. Union of India (AIR 1993 SC 477)
justice B.P. jeevan Reedy, it was an constitutional bench judgment ratio 6:3.(Mandal Commission). Mandal case known as Indira Sawhney case
- It was held that the concept of reservation to an extent is an Anti-Maritarial. However it was also held that in order to do away with the social injustice to compromise has to be made to that extent.
- The extent reservation should be max. 50% including carry forward rule. However in M. Nagaraj vs. Union of India 2007 S.C. it was held that if it can be justified on the basis of quantifiable data (actual data) the reservation can go beyond 50%.
- The criteria for reservation shall be cast but at the same time economy criteria shall also be taken into the account. The creamy layer from other backward classes excluded. However the court did not talk about the exclusion of creamy layer from the SC&STs categories.
- Article 16(4) is exhaustive about reservation in govt. job only, however Article 15 (4) is not exhaustive about reservation in govt. jobs, reservation can be provided on certain grounds under Article 14 also.
- The backward classes can be further divided into has backward and more backward its known as horizontal classification.
- Article 15(3) or Article 15(4) & 16(4) are not exception to Article 15(1), 16(1), and also Article(4). They are extension/ of this Articles.
- It was held that reservation that cannot be granted in promotion.
Case 2: E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu 1974 S.C.
In this case justice Bhagwati has held that the concept of equality is not limited only to the concept reasonable classification. Reasonable classification is just one of the tool to attain the equality. The concept of fairness, justice, equity, reasonableness, non arbitrariness is certain concepts which are the real faces of the concept of equality. Thus, if under any law or executive action reasonableness or justice is denied or an arbitrary action is taken it is per-se a denial of equality.
Case 3: Ajay hasia vs. Khalid mushis 1981
S.C, justice Bhagwati held that arbitrariness is anti-thetical to equality. Equality and arbitrariness cannot go hand in hand. Reasonable classification is just one face of equality and we have to check the purpose of law and than reasonable classification.
If the law is arbitrary, unfair or amongst than the law will be stuck down on the face of which there is no question of getting R.C (Reasonable Classification).