g

1. • Equal pay for equal work :
• Randhir Singh v. UOI AIR 1982 SC 879
The words equal pay for equal work are not
expressly declared to be a fundamental right
But it is clearly a constitutional goal under
Art. 14, 16, 39(c) of the Constitution
Can be enforced by the courts in cases of
unequal scales of pay based on irrational
classification
SC in its number judgments reaffirmed the
principle of equal pay for equal work, and has
virtually become a fundamental right

2. • F.A.I.C. and C.E.S. v. UOI AIR (1988)3SCC 91
It was held that different pay scales fixed for
stenographers grade I of Central Secretariat and
those attached to the heads of subordinate offices
on the basis of recommendations of the Third Pay
Commission was not violative of Art. 14 and Art.
16 of the Constitution
Difference in duties and responsibilities of the
different grade posts are reasonable grounds for
such classification for the pay scale
In this case though the posts are of similar nature;
there is difference in degrees in the performance

3. • Art. 16 (2) : Descent and Residence –
• 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,
The provision itself clears that the grounds of descent
and residence can not be sole criteria for the
discrimination
Any such differentiation shall be contravening FR and
hence void
These two words not added to Art.15 but
Added to Art. 16 only to assure the national integrity

4. Art. 16(3): Residence can be a ground for
Reservation of Posts –
Art. 16(3) is an exception to Art. 16(2)
which forbids discrimination on the ground
of residence
It provides for reasonable grounds for
reserving certain posts in State for the
residents only
This Article empowers Parliament to
regulate by law permissible discrimination
on the grounds of residence

5. Parliament has passed the Public
Employment (Requirement as to Residence)
Act, 1957
It provides that no one will be disqualified
on the grounds that one is not the residence
of a particular State
An exception is for employment in
Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, Tripura and
Telangana
This exception is because of backwardness
of these area

6. Art. 16 (4): Reservation for Backward
Classes –
It is another exception to Art. 16(1) & (2)
It empowers the State to make special
provision
for the reservation of appointment of posts
in favour of any backward class of citizens
Which in the opinion of the State are not
adequately represented in the services
under the State

7. Art. 16(4): applies only if two conditions are
satisfied –
The class of citizens is backward
The said class is not adequately represented
in the services of the State
Balaji v. State of Mysore AIR 1963 SC 649
SC held that ‘caste’ of a person can not be the
sole test for ascertaining whether a particular
class is a backward class or not
Poverty, occupation, place of habitation may all
be relevant factors to be taken into
consideration

8. Carry forward Rule –
The scope of Art. 16 (4) was considered by
the Supreme Court in Devadason v. Union
of India AIR 1964 SC 179

9. • In the case, the constitutional validity of the
‘carry forward rule’ framed by the Government
to regulate appointment of persons of
backward classes in Government services was
involved
• This rule provided that if sufficient number of
candidates belonging to the SC and STs were
not available for appointment to the reserved
quota,
• The vacancies that remained unfilled would be
treated as unreserved and filled by the fresh
available candidates;

10. • but a corresponding number of posts would be
reserved in the next year for SC and STs in
addition to their reserved quota of the next
year
• The result was to carry forward the unutilised
balance, i.e.
unfilled vacancies in the second and third years
at one time
In actual effect, 68% of the vacancies were
reserved for the SC and ST

11. • SC struck down the ‘carry forward rule’
as unconstitutional on the ground that
the powers vested in Government
under Article 16(4) could not be exercised so as
to deny reasonable equality of opportunity
to other classes
Reservation ought to be less than 50%

12. • Indra Sawhney v. Union of India AIR 1993 SC
477
SC overruled Devadason’s case decision
Held that carry forward rule is valid so long in
a particular year,
But it should not exceed 50% of vacancies
Carry forward not to apply in absence of any rule or
regulation
e.g. medical, engineering, dental etc.
professional courses, this rule may unjust to
the meritorious candidates who are waiting for
admissions

13. • K.C. Vasanth Kumar v. St. of Karnataka
SC gave guideline as :
 Reservation for SC and ST shall continue to
overcome the baneful effects of social oppression,
isolation and humiliation;
 economic backwardness test apply to even
SC/ ST after 15 years
 OBC should be comparable to SC /ST for
backwardness to prevail reservation
 they should satisfy the means test (SEBC)
 review of reservation policy after every 5
years

14. • The Mandal Case
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India AIR 1993 SC 477
The scope and extent of Art. 16(4) has been
examined thoroughly by the SC
Facts : in 1979 Morarji Desai was PM
Govt. appointed the second Backward Classes
Commission under Art. 340
Under the Chairmanship of B.P. Mandal (MP),
To investigate the socially and educationally
backward classes within the territory of India
& recommend steps to be taken for their
advancement

15. • Art. 340 : appointment of a Commission to
investigate the conditions of backward classes
Commission submitted report in 1980
It identified 3743 castes as SEBC
And recommended for reservation of 27% Govt.
job
Meantime the Govt. (JD) collapsed due to internal
dissensions
PM Indira Gandhi came into power
Congress Govt. did not implement the Mandal
Commissions report till 1989

16. • Congress defeated in Parliamentary election;
JD came again in power;
JD Govt. decided to implement the Mandal
Commission report as it promised in the election
PM V.P. Sing issued the Office Memoranda (OM) in
1990 reserving 27% seats for backward classes in
Govt. services
Acceptance of report affected in disorder and
a violent anti-reservation movement rocked the
nation for three months
Resulting a huge loss of persons and property

17. • A writ petition on behalf of the SC Bar
Association was filed challenging the validity
of Office Memoranda and for staying its
operation
• The Five judge Bench of the Court stayed the
Operation of O.M. till the final disposal of the
case (Oct.1990)
• In 1991 against Congress Govt. came into
power;
• Govt. issued another O.M. on Sept 1991;

18. • Making changes in earlier OM as :
1. by introducing the economic criterion in
granting reservation by giving preference to
poorer sections of SEBCs in 27% quota
2. reserved another 10% of vacancies for other
SEBC economically backward sections of higher
castes
The economic criterion was to be specified
separately
The Bench referred the matter to 9 judge
Constitutional Bench

19. • Held
- the decision of 27% reservation for BC is
constitutionally valid
- creamy layer among them are eliminated
- reservation only for initial appointments and not
to promotions
- total reservation shall not exceed 50%
- struck down the O.M. of Congress for another
10% reservation

20. • SC held –
• Backward class on citizen in Art. 16(4) can be
identified on the basis of caste
And not on economic basis (but caste alone not the
basis of consideration)
• Art. 16(4) is not an exception to Art.16(1)
• Backward Classes in Art. 16(4) are not similar to as
socially and educationally backward in Art. 15(4)
• Creamy layer must be excluded from backward
classes
• Reservation shall not exceed 50%
• No reservation in promotion