Article 15 of Indian constitution

 On the basis of reports that the inhabitants of certain
villages were harboring dacoits, the government of
Rajasthan sanctioned posting of additional police in those
villages.
 The expenses were to be borne by the villagers but the
Harizan & Muslim inhabitants of these villages were
exempted from this liability.

 Under the City of Bombay Police Act, while a person
born outside Greater Bombay could be extern if he
was convicted of any of the offences mentioned in
Police Act, none such action could be taken against
a person born within Greater Bombay.

 The residents of Madhya Bharat were exempted
from payment of a capitation fee for admission to
the State Medical college, while the non-residents
were required to pay the same .

 Rule- granting a special allowance to the women principals
working in a wing of the Punjab Educational Services was
challenged on the ground that their male counterparts were
not given the same benefit although both performed identical
duties.

 The Government of Andhra Pradesh in the year 1984 decided
that women were not getting their due share of public
employment.
 It decided to take certain remedial measures.
 On 2.1.1984 it issued G.O.Ms. No.2, General Administration
(Services-A) Department stating policy decisions taken by the
State Government in respect of reservations for women in
public services, to a specified extent.
 Pursuant to this policy decision, Rule 22-A was introduced in
the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules
under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India.

 It reads as follows:- "22-A: Notwithstanding anything
contained in these Rules or Special or Ad-hoc Rules-
 (1) In the matter of direct recruitment to posts for which
women are better suited than men, preference shall be given
to women; (G.O..Ms.MNo.472, G.A. dated 11.10.1985):
 Provided that such absolute preference to women shall not
result in total exclusion of men in any category of posts.
 (2) In the matter of direct recruitment to posts for which
women and men are equally suited, other things being equal,
preference shall be given to women and they shall be selected
to an extent of at least 30% of the posts in each category of
O.C., B.C., S.C., and S.T. quota.
 (3) In the matter of direct recruitment to posts which are
reserved exclusively for being filled by women they shall be
filled by women only."
 Sub-rule (2) of this Rule was challenged before the Supreme
Court.

 The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on
grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or
any of them.
 Clause 1 prohibits the state form discriminating against
citizens on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex,
place of birth or any of them.
 The expression ‘discriminate against’ according to
Concise Oxford Dictionary, means ‘select of unfavorable
treatment’.
 Discrimination in this sense involves an element of
prejudice.
 If prejudice is disclosed and is based on any of the
grounds mentioned in Article 15, the law must be struck
down.

 Article 15 is a facet of Article 14.
 Like Article 14, Article 15(1) also cover the entire range of
state activities.
 Scope of Article 15 is narrower than that of Article 14.
1. Article 14 is general in nature in the sense it applies
both to citizens and non citizens.
 Article 15(1) cover only the Indian citizens. No non-citizen
can claim right under Article 15(1).
2. Article 14 permits any reasonable classification on
the basis of any rational criterion
 Article 15(1), certain grounds mentioned therein can
never form the basis of classification.

 On the basis of reports that the inhabitants of certain
villages were harboring dacoits, the government of
Rajasthan sanctioned posting of additional police in those
villages. The expenses were to be borne by the villagers but
the Harizan & Muslim inhabitants of these villages were
exempted from this liability.
 This was quashed as being discriminatory on the ground of
‘caste’ or ‘religion’ as it discriminated against the peace
loving villagers other than harizans & Muslims.
 State of Rajasthan v. Pratap Singh, AIR 1960 SC 1208

 Under the City of Bombay Police Act, while a person
born outside Greater Bombay could be extern if he
was convicted of any of the offences mentioned in
Police Act, none such action could be taken against
a person born within Greater Bombay.
 This was discrimination on the basis of ‘place of
birth’, and so was invalid under Article 15(1).
 In re Shaikh Husein Shaik Mahomed AIR 1951 SC
Bom 285

 The residents of Madhya Bharat were exempted
from payment of a capitation fee for admission to
the State Medical college, while the non-residents
were required to pay the same .
 The Supreme Court negatived the plea of
discrimination by the non-residents under Article
15(1) because the ground of exemption was
‘residence’ and not ‘place of birth’.
 D.P.Doshi v. Madhya Bharat, AIR 1955 SC 334

 Article 15(2) contains a prohibition of a general
nature and is not confined to the state only.

 Article 15(3)
 Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from
making any special provision for women and
children.
Article 16(2)
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.

 Rule – Male candidate ineligible for the post of
senior Tutor in the school of Nursing.
 Held – Violative of Article 16 (2) and was not saved
by Article 15(3).
 Delhi H.C took the view that the matter relating to
employment falls under Article 16 and not under
Article 15(3).
Walter Alfred Baid, Sister Tutor (Nursing) Irwin
Hospital v. U.O.I, AIR 1976 Del. 302

 Rule- granting a special allowance to the women principals
working in a wing of the Punjab Educational Services was
challenged on the ground that their mail counterparts were
not given the same benefit although both performed identical
duties.
 Constitutional Validity of the rule was challenged under
Article 16(2).
 Petitioner’s Contention
 Reservation of posts or appointment for any backward class
is permissible under Article 16(2) but not for women—so no
reservation can be made as it would amount to
discrimination on the ground of sex in public employment
which would be violative of Article 16(2).

 Upheld the rule under Article 15(3), holding that
even though the discrimination was based on the
ground of sex, it was saved by Article 15(3).
 Article 15(3) could be invoked for construing &
determining the scope of Article 16(2).
 Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1970 P&H
372

 Petitioner filed a writ petition before the Andhra Pradesh High
Court challenging rule 22-A (2).
 Ground of challenge
 Rule is violative of Articles 14 and 16(4) of the Constitution and
had seriously affected all male unemployed persons in the State
of Andhra Pradesh.
 Single Judge
 A single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld the
validity of Rule 22-A.
 Division Bench
 In appeal before the High Court, however, a Division Bench
struck down a portion of Rule 22-A(2) as unconstitutional while
upholding sub-rules (1) and (3) of Rule 22-A.
 The portion of sub-rule (2) which is struck down is the last
portion of that sub-rule containing the words "and they shall
be selected to an extent of at least 30% of the posts in each
category of O.C., B.C., S.C., and S.T. quota".

 Issue before the Supreme Court
 Does sub-rule (2) of Rule 22-A violate Articles 14 or 16(4)?
 Respondents arguments:-
 If Article 16(2) is read with Article 16(4) it is clear that
reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward
class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not
adequately represented in the services under the State is
expressly permitted.
 But there is no such express provision in relation to reservation
of appointments or posts in favour of women under Article 16.
 Therefore State cannot make any reservation in favour of
women in relation to appointments or posts under the State.
 This would amount to discrimination on the ground of sex in
public employment or appointment to posts under the State
and would violate Article 16(2).

 Supreme Court’s Observations-
 Article 15(1) would prevent a State from making any
discriminatory law on the ground of sex alone.
 The State, by virtue of Article 15(3), is permitted, despite
Article 15(1), to make special provisions for women, thus
clearly carving out a permissible departure from the rigours of
Article 15(1).
 Interrelation between Articles 14, 15 and 16
 Article 15 deals with every kind of State action in relation to
the citizens of this country.
 Every sphere of activity of the State is controlled by Article
15(1).
 There is, therefore, no reason to exclude from the ambit of
Article 15(1) employment under the State.

 In dealing with employment under the State, it has to
bear in mind both Articles 15 and 16 - the former being
a more general provision and the latter, a more specific
provision.
 Since Article 16 does not touch upon any special
provision for women being made by the State, it
cannot in any manner derogate from the power
conferred upon the State in this connection under
Article 15(3).
 The power conferred by Article 15(3) is wide enough to
cover the entire range of State activity including
employment under the State.

 The insertion of clause (3) of Article 15 in relation to women is
a recognition of the fact that for centuries, women of this
country have been socially and economically handicapped.
 As a result, they are unable to participate in the socio-economic
activities of the nation on a footing of equality.
 It is in order to eliminate this socio-economic backwardness of
women and to empower them in a manner that would bring
about effective equality between men and women that Article
15(3) is placed in Article 15.
 Its object is to strengthen and improve the status of women.

 An important limb of this concept of gender equality is
creating job opportunities for women.
 To say that under Article 15(3), job opportunities for women
cannot be created would be to out at the very root of the
underlying inspiration behind this Article.
 Making special provisions for women in respect of
employment or posts under the State is an integral part of
Article 15(3).
 This power conferred under Article 15(3), is not whittled
down in any manner by Article 16.

 Summary
 S.C rejected the argument and ruled that
 Posts can be reserved for women under Article15 (3) as it is
much wider in scope and covers all state activities.
 Making special provision for women in respect of
employment or posts under the state is an integral part of
Article 15(3).
 Power conferred by Article 15(3) is not whittled down in any
manner by Article 16.
 Under Article 15(3), the State may fix a quota for
appointment of women in government services.

 In this case court upheld an order of Orissa Government
reserving 30% quota for women in the allotment of
24 hours medical stores as part of self employment
scheme.

 Reservation of 50% seats for women
teachers in the selection of primary
school teachers in UP was upheld.

 An agreement reached between the employees and
management of airlines that while all male and female
employees may serve up to the age of 58 years , the
female will be relieved of flying duties after the age of
50 and will be assigned ground duties while, male
employees may continue in flying duties until their
retirement at the age of 58.
 It was upheld by the Court on the ground that the
difference was made on the basis of an agreement to
which female were party and that it was a special
provision for women favouring them.

 Nothing in this article or in clause (2) of article 29 shall
prevent the State from making any special provision for the
advancement of any socially and educationally backward
classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes.
 Article 29(2)-No citizen shall be denied admission into any
educational institution maintained by the State or receiving
aid out of State funds on grounds only of religion, race,
caste, language or any of them.
 Article 16(4)
 Nothing in this article shall prevent the State/ from making
any provision/ for the reservation of appointments or
posts/ in favour of any backward class of citizens/ which,
in the opinion of the state/ is not adequately represented in
the services under the state.

 Article 15(4) – added by the Constitution (First Amendment)
Act, 1951.
 State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan AIR 1951 SC 226
 Facts-Madras Government issued a Communal G.O.
 Object - to help the backward classes
 Order fixed the proportion of students of each community
that could be admitted into the State medical & engineering
colleges.
 Article 46- lays down that the state should promote with
special care the educational & economic interests of the
weaker sections of the people & protect – them from social
injustice.
 Court held- “DPSP have to conform to and run as subsidiary
to the Chapter of F.R.” –
 Struck down the G.O.
 Now Clause 4 enables the state to make special provisions.

 Historical Aspect
 1850s these communities were loosely referred to as the
"Depressed Classes".
 The Morley-Minto Reforms Report, Montagu-Chelmsford
Reforms Report, and the Simon Commission were some of the
initiatives that happened in this context.
 Reservation of seats for the Depressed Classes was
incorporated into the Government of India Act 1935 act, which
came into force in 1937.
 The Act brought the term "Scheduled Castes" into use, and
defined the group as including "such castes, races or tribes or
parts of groups within castes, races or tribes, which appear to
His Majesty in Council to correspond to the classes of persons
formerly known as the 'Depressed Classes', as His Majesty in
Council may prefer."
 This discretionary definition was clarified in The Government
of India (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1936 which contained a list,
or Schedule, of castes throughout the British administered
provinces.

 After independence, the Constituent Assembly
continued the prevailing definition of Scheduled
Castes and Tribes, and gave (via articles 341, 342)
the President of India and Governors of states
responsibility to compile a full listing of castes and
tribes, and also the power to edit it later as required.
 The actual complete listing of castes and tribes was
made via two orders The Constitution (Scheduled
Castes) Order, 1950, and The Constitution
(Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 respectively.

 Two contentious issues in the applications of Article 15(4)
& Article 16(4)
◦ Determination of backward classes
◦ Extent or quantum of reservation
 Schedule Castes & Schedule Tribes –Defined in Article 366
u/clause (24) & (25)
 “Schedule Castes” means such castes, races or tribes or
parts of or groups within such castes, races or tribes as are
deemed under article 341 to be Schedule Castes for the
purpose of this Constitution.
 “Schedule Tribes” means such tribes or tribal communities
or parts of or groups within such tribes or tribal
communities as are deemed under article 342 to be
schedule tribes for the Purpose of this Constitution.

 THE CONSTITUTION (SCHEDULED CASTES) ORDER, 1950]
 In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of article 341 of
the Constitution of India, the President, after consultation with the
Governors and Rajpramukhs of the States concerned, is pleased to make
the following Order, namely:-
 1. This Order may be called the Constitution (Scheduled Caste) Order,
1950.
 2. Subject to the provisions of this Order, the castes, races or
tribes or parts of, or groups within, castes or tribes specified in
2[Parts to 3[XXII] 7{XXIII}8XXIV of the Schedule to this Order shall, in relation
to the States to which those Parts respectively relate, be deemed to
be Scheduled Castes so far as regards member thereof resident in the
localities specified in relation to them in those Parts of that
Schedule.

 THE CONSTITUTION (SCHEDULED TRIBES) ORDER, 1950
 In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of article 342 of
the Constitution of India, the President, after consultation with the
Governors and Rajpramukhs of the States concerned, is pleased to make
the following Order, namely:--
 1. This Order may be called the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes)
Order, 1950.
 2. The Tribes or tribal communities, or parts of, or groups within,
tribes or tribal communities, specified in 2[Parts I 3[XIX]6[XX]7[XXI]8[XXIIof the
Schedule to this Orders Shall, in relation to the States to which those Parts respectively
relate, be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes so far as regards members thereof
residents in the localities specified in relation to them respectively in those Parts of
that Schedule.

 Backward Classes- Not defined anywhere in the constitution
 Article 340 – Appointment of a commission to investigate the
conditions of backward classes.
 President exercised his power u/article 340 twice
 First in 1953 under the Chairmanship of Kaka kalelkar
 Second in 1978 u/ the Chairmanship of B.P.Mandal
 Both these commissions have taken caste as the dominant, if
not the sole factor in determining the backwardness – no
agreed formula has yet been found.
 As a matter of fact each state is experimenting with different
tests influenced by social & political consideration as well as
judicial decisions.

 Until 1985, the affairs of Backward Classes were looked after
by the Backward Classes Cell (BCC) in the Ministry of Home
Affairs. With the creation of a separate Ministry of Welfare in
1985 (renamed as Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment
on 25th May 1998) the matters relating to Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and
Minorities were transferred to the new Ministry.
 The Backward Classes Division in the Ministry looks after the
policy, planning and implementation of programmes relating
to social and economic empowerment of OBCs. It also looks
after matters relating to two institutions set up for the welfare
of OBCs : National Backward Classes Finance and
Development Corporation (NBCFDC) and the National
Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC).

 The First Backward Classes Commission was set up by a
presidential order on January 29, 1953 under the chairmanship of
Kaka Kalelkar.
 The commission submitted its report on March 30, 1955.
 It had prepared a list of 2,399 backward castes or communities
for the entire country and of which 837 had been classified as the
"most backward".
 Some of the most notable recommendations of the commission
were:
 Undertaking caste-wise enumeration of population in the census
of 1961;
 Relating social backwardness of a class to its low position in the
traditional caste hierarchy of Hindu society;

 Treating all women as a class as "backward";
 Reservation of 70 per cent seats in all technical and
professional institutions for qualified students of backward
classes.
 Reservation of vacancies in all government services and local
bodies for other backward classes.
 The commission in its final report recommended "caste as the
criteria" to determine backwardness.
 But this report was not accepted by the government as it feared
that the backward classes excluded from the caste and
communities selected by the commission may not be
considered and the really needy would be swamped by the
multitude and would hardly receive special attention.

 The decision to set up a second backward classes commission was
made official by the president on January 1, 1979. The commission
popularly known as the Mandal Commisssion, its chairman being
B. P. Mandal. It submitted the report in December 1980.
 The recommendations of the commission were:
 The population of OBCs which includes both Hindus and non-
Hindus is around 52 per cent of the total population. However only
27 per cent of reservation was recommended owing to the legal
constraint that the total quantum of reservation should not exceed
50 percent.
 States which have already introduced reservation for OBC
exceeding 27 per cent will not be affected by this recommendation.
With this general recommendation the commission proposed the
following over-all scheme of reservation for OBC:

 Candidates belonging to OBC recruited on the basis of merit in
an open competition should not be adjusted against their
reservation quota of 27 per cent.
 The above reservation should also be made applicable to
promotion quota at all levels.
 Reserved quota remaining unfilled should be carried forward for
a period of three years and de-reserved thereafter.
 Relaxation in the upper age limit for direct recruitment should
be extended to the candidates of OBC in the same manner as
done in the case of SCs and STs.
 A roster system for each category of posts should be adopted by
the concerned authorities in the same manner as presently done
in respect of SC and ST candidates.

 These recommendations in total are applicable to all
recruitment to public sector undertakings both under the
central and state governments, as also to nationalised banks.
All private sector undertakings which have received financial
assistance from the government in one form or other should
also be obliged to recruit personnel on the aforesaid basis. All
universities and affiliated colleges should also be covered by
the above scheme of reservation. Although education is
considered an important factor to bring a desired social
change, "educational reform" was not within the terms of
reference of this commission.
 To promote literacy the following measures were suggested:
 An intensive time-bound programme for adult education
should be launched in selected pockets with high
concentration of OBC population;

 Residential schools should be set up in these areas for
backward class students to provide a climate specially
conducive to serious studies.
 All facilities in these schools including board and lodging
should be provided free of cost to attract students from poor
and backward homes;
 Separate hostels for OBC students with above facilities will
have to be provided;
 Vocational training was considered imperative.
 It was recommended that seats should be reserved for OBC
students in all scientific, technical and professional institutions
run by the central as well as state governments. The quantum
of reservation should be the same as in the government
services, i e, 27 per cent. [1]

 Since 1958 the State of Mysore has been endeavouring to make a special
provision for the advancement of its socially and educationally backward
classes of citizens under Article 15(4) of the Constitution, and every time
when an order is passed in that behalf, its validity has been challenged by writ
proceedings.
 On July 26, 1958, the State issued an order that all the communities,
excepting the Brahmin community, fell within the definition of educationally
and socially Backward Classes and Scheduled Castes and Tribes, and
provided for the said communities and tribes reservation of 75% of seats in
educational institutions.
 In 1959, two separate orders were passed by the State on the 14th May and
22nd July respectively.
 By the first order, all communities, excepting Brahmins, Baniyas and
Kayasts among the Hindus and Muslims, Christians and Jains, were
classified as socially and educationally Backward Classes. It appears
that 65% of the seats were reserved for these socially and educationally
Backward Classes and Scheduled Castes Tribes.

 State then appointed a Committee called the Mysore Backward
Classes Committee with Dr. R. Nagen Gowda as its Chairman, to
investigate the problem and advise the Government as to the criteria which
should be adopted in determining the educationally and socially Backward
classes, and the special provisions which should be made for their
advancement.
 The Committee made an interim report, and in the light of the said report, the
State passed an order on the 9th June, 1960 regulating admissions for that
year into the professional and technical colleges. Broadly stated, the effect of
this order was that 60% of the seats were left open for what may be
conveniently described as the 'merit pool' available to candidates according to
their merits, 40% were reserved for the 'reservation pool', 22% of which were
reserved for the Backward Classes, 15% for the Scheduled Castes and 3%
for the Scheduled Tribes.
 High Court indicated the manner in which the reservation in favour of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes should
be worked out so as to avoid a successful challenge under Arts. 15(1) and
29(2).

 Therefore, the Nagen Gowda Committee made its
report in 1961 and in the light of the said report
and the recommendations made therein; the State
proceeded to make an order under Art. 15(4) on
the 10th July, 1961.

 On the 31st July, 1962, the State, passed the impugned order
which supersedes all previous orders made by the State under
Art. 15(4) for reservation of the seats in favour of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes as well as the Backward Classes.
 Under this order, the Backward Classes are divided into two
categories
 (1) Backward Classes and (2) More Backward Classes.
 The effect of this order is that it has fixed
 50% reservation of seats for Other Backward Classes;
 28% out of this is reserved for Backward Classes so-called and
 22% for More Backward Classes.
 The reservation of 15% and 3% for the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes respectively continues to be the same.

 The result of this order is that 68% of the seats
available for admission to the Engineering and
Medical Colleges and to other technical institutions
specified in the order passed on the 10th July, 1961, is
reserved, and only 32% is available to the merit pool.
 In other words, the percentage of reservation to the
extent of 68%, which, according to the order of July
10, 1961, would have been against the larger interests
of the State, has, by the impugned order, been
accepted.
 The petitioners contend that the classification made
by this order is irrational and the reservation of 68%
made by it is a fraud on Art. 15(4).

 The petitioner’s grievance and they urge that
 the impugned order which has denied them the facility of admission
in the respective colleges is void under Art. 15(1) and 29(2) and
should not be enforced against them.
 Accordingly, the petitioners pray that a writ of mandamus and/or any
suitable writ or direction should be issued against respondent No.1,
the State of Mysore , and the two Selection Committees which have
been impleaded as respondents 2 and 3.
 The petitioners' case is that the impugned order which has been
passed under Art. 15(4) is not valid because the basis adopted by the
order in specifying and enumerating the socially and educationally
backward classes of citizens in the State is unintelligible and
irrational, and the classification made on the said basis is
inconsistent with and outside the provisions of Article 15(4).
 It is also urged by them that the extent of reservation prescribed by
the said order is so unreasonable and extravagant that the order, in
law, is not justified by Art. 15(4), in substance, is a fraud on the power
conferred by the said Article on the State.

 Caste- not sole or even predominant factor though it may be a
relevant test.
 Backwardness u/A 15(4) must be social & educational & the social
backwardness is, in the ultimate analysis, the result of poverty.
 One’s occupation & place of habitation could be other relevant
factors.
 Sub-Classification between ‘backward classes’ and ‘more backward
classes’ not justified.
 Reservation of 68% made by the impugned order is plainly
inconsistent with the concept of the special provision authorised by
Art. 15(4)
 Cl. (4) of Article 15 enables the state to make special provision & not
exclusive provisions.
 State would not be justified ignoring altogether advancement of the
rest of the society in its zeal to promote the welfare of backwardness
classes.
 National interest would suffer if qualified & competent students were
excluded from admissions in institutions of higher education.

 Facts
 The Government of Mysore laid down
classification of socially and educationally
backward classes on the following basis:
 Economic Conditions (less than Rs.1,200
per year)&
 Occupations
 Petitioner’s Contention-
◦ Order of Government did not take into
consideration the caste of the applicant.

 Supreme Court held-
◦ Though caste of a group of citizens might be
relevant circumstances for ascertaining their
social backwardness, it could not be the sole or
dominant or even essential test in that behalf.
◦ Identification or classification of backward classes
on the basis of occupation-cum-income, without
reference to caste is not bad and would not offend
Art. 15(4).
 Judicial view has undergone some
change- and caste as a factor to access
backwardness has been given somewhat
more importance than Balaji &
Chitralekha.

 Petitioner’s Contention
 Rule 5, which provides for reservation for socially
and educationally backward classes, is bad, as it
violates Art. 15 of the Constitution on the ground
that it is based entirely on consideration of caste.
 If the reservation in question had been based only on
caste and had not taken into account the social and
educational backwardness of the caste in question, it
would be violative of Article 15 (1).

 S.C held
 A caste is also a class of citizens and if the caste as a whole
is socially and educationally backward reservation can be
made in favour of such a caste on the ground that it is a
socially and educationally backward class of citizens within
the meaning of Article 15 (4).
 S.C looked into the history as to how the list had come to be
formulated.
 The Court felt satisfied that caste was not taken as the sole
basis of backwardness.
 The main criterion for inclusion in the list was social and
educational backwardness of the castes based on their
occupations.

 Supreme Court invalidated an Andhra notification,
apparently based on exclusive caste criterion with
the observation that the expression ‘class’ in Article
15(4) means a homogeneous section of the people
grouped together because of certain likeness or
common traits in the determination of which caste
cannot be excluded together.
 “But in the determination of a class a test solely
based upon the caste or community cannot also be
accepted.”

 Supreme Court upheld a caste based test of
backwardness with the observation that it was
permissible so long as such castes were socially
and educationally backward though it warned
against vested interests being created in favour of
castes and asked for constant revision of the test.

 A list prepared by the Backward Commission appointed by
the Andhra Government was held valid even though
backward classes were enumerated mainly by their caste
names because the Court found that the Commission had
prepared the list after a detailed enquiry and applying
several tests like general poverty, occupations, caste and
educational backwardness.
 The court felt satisfied that the Commission had enough
material before it to be satisfied that the persons included in
the list were really socially and educationally backward.

 S.C held that – “a caste is also a class of citizens
and that a caste as such may be socially and
educationally backward. If after collecting the
necessary data, it is found that the caste as a whole
is socially & educationally backward……. the
reservation made of such persons will have to be
upheld notwithstanding the fact that a few
individuals in the group may be both socially &
educationally above the general average.”

 Admissions to medical colleges in U.P in favour of
candidates from
 (a) rural areas,
 (b) hill areas and
 (c) Uttarakhand areas was challenged.
 The classification was based on geographical or
territorial considerations.
 Candidates from these areas constituted socially
and educationally backward classes of citizens.

 Supreme Court held
 The place of habitation and its environment could be a
determining factor in judging the social & educational
backwardness.
 The court upheld reservations for persons from hill and
Uttarakhand areas.
 It was found that absence of means of communication,
technical processes and educational facilities kept the poor
and illiterate people in the remote and sparsely populated
areas backward.
 However, reservation of seats for rural areas was invalidated
because the division of the people on the ground that the
people in the rural areas were poor and those in the urban
were not, was not supported by the facts.
 Further, the rural population was heterogeneous and not all of
them were educationally backward.

 Facts
 A government order excluded the candidates belonging to
socially and educationally backward classes from claiming
the benefit of reservation of the aggregate annual family
income was Rs. 10,000 or over.
 The order was challenged by the candidate belonging to
the backward class, but who was denied the privilege of
preferential admission to medical college because her
family income exceeded Rs. 10,000 annually.

 The S.C emphasized that
 Social backwardness is the result of caste and poverty.
 Poverty or economic standard is a relevant factor in determining
backwardness, but cannot be the sole determining factor.
 Caste cannot be the sole or dominant test for the purpose.
 “Caste and poverty are both relevant for determining the
backwardness. But neither caste alone nor poverty alone will be the
determining tests”.
 Both of these factors are relevant to determine backwardness.
 Occupations, place of habitation may also be relevant factors for the
purpose.
 With the improvement in economic position of the family, social
backwardness disappears.
 To allow these persons to take advantage of the privileges meant for
backward person, will result in depriving the real backward persons
of their chance to make progress.

 From these and some other decisions of the Supreme
Court as well as of the High Courts,
 no clear and uniform policy, guidelines or test of
determining backwardness for purposes of Articles
(15(4) and 16(4) emerges.
 Tired with this judicial vacillation, perhaps, the State of
Karnataka asked the Supreme Court to give clear
guidelines on this vexed question in
 K.C Vasanth Kumar v. State of Karnataka.

 Chandrachud, C.J-
 Reservation in employment and education in favour of S.C &
S.T should continue for another period of 15 YEARS.
Thereafter, the test of economic backwardness ought to be
made applicable to them.
 For identifying the other backward classes for the purposes
of reservations, the following TWO TESTS should be
applied:
 They should be COMPARABLE TO THE S.C & S.T in the
matter of backwardness.
 They should satisfy the MEANS TEST i.e., the test of
backwardness such as the state Government may lay down in
the context of prevailing economic conditions.
 Policy of reservation should be reviewed EVERY FIVE
years.

 Desai,J.
 Root cause of social & educational
backwardness lies in economic
backwardness.
 Reservation must have a time span
otherwise concessions tend to become
vested interest.

 Chinnappa Reddy, J.
 No universal, exclusive or conclusive test to identify
backward classes & it may be futile to apply any rigid tests.
The generality & the totality of the situation have to be
seen.
 Courts are not necessarily the most competent to identify
the back ward classes or to lay down guidelines for their
identification except in broad & very general way.
 Poverty is the primary test to identify the SEBC. But class
poverty, not individual poverty should be the real test.

 Sen,J.
 ‘The predominant and the only factor for making
special provisions under Article 15(4) or for
reservation of posts and appointments under
Article 16(4) should be poverty ,and castes or
a sub-caste or a group should be used only for
purposes of identification of persons comparable
to Schedule Castes or Schedule Tribes.’

 Venkataramiaha,J.
 Lowest among the castes similar to SC and ST ,
 the means or economic condition and
 the occupation
may all be counted in making a determination of
backwardness.

 Chandrachud, C.J
 COMPARABLE TO THE S.C & S.T
 They should satisfy the MEANS TEST
 Desai,J.
 economic backwardness.
 Chinnappa Reddy, J.
 Poverty is the primary test. But class poverty, not individual
poverty should be the real test.
 Sen,J.
 Poverty
 Venkataramaiha,J.
 Lowest among the castes similar to SC and ST ,
 means or economic condition and
 occupation

 One of the contention before the Supreme Court was that the
first memorandum was based on the Mandal Commission
Report which took caste as a dominant, rather sole, criterion
for determining the SEBCs.
 Supreme Court rejected the contention of the Petitioners
 Supreme Court held that-
 Class or classes in Articles 15(4) and 16(4) respectively are not
to be construed in the Marxist sense.
 The constitution does not define these classes nor does it lay
down any methodology for their determination.
 The court could also not devise any method for their
determination.
 The central idea and overall objective should be to consider
all available groups, sections and classes in the society.

 Since caste represented an existing, identifiable social
group/class encompassing an overwhelming majority of the
country’s population, one could well begin with it and then
go to other groups, sections and classes.
 Caste, however, was not an essential factor for determining
the social and educational backwardness.
 It is also not necessary that SEBCs should be similarly
situated as SCs and STs.
 Within SEBCs classification between the backward and
more backwardis permissible.
 To maintain the cohesiveness and character of a class the
‘creamy layer’ can must be excluded from SEBCs.
 The economic criterion alone cannot be the basis of
backwardness although it may be a consideration along with
or in addition to social backwardness.

 The court also suggested CREATION OF A PERMANENT
BODY at the central and state levels to look into the
complaints of over and under-inclusion as well as to revise the
lists of SEBCs periodically.
 Following courts directions the Centre and the States have
appointed backward class commissions for constant revision
of such classes and for the exclusion of creamy layer from
amongst them.
 Wherever any government has failed to implement the
requirement of appointing a commission and exclusion of
creamy layer it has issued necessary directions compelling
them to do so.(Indra Sawhney v. UOI,(2000) 1SCC 168)
 With this larger Bench decision, the matter seems to have
settled that caste could be an important or ever sole factor in
determining the social backwardness and that poverty alone
could not be such a criterion.

 Court was required to adjudge the validity of the ‘Carry
forward’ Rule.
 The ‘Carry Forward’ rule envisaged that in a year, 17.5
percentage posts were to be reserved for schedule
Castes/Tribes; of all the reserved posts were not filled in a year
for want of suitable candidates from those classes, then the
shortfall was to be carried forward to the next year and added
to the reserved quota for that year, and this could be done for
the next two years.
 The result of the rule was that in a year out of 45 vacancies in
the cadre of section officers, 29 went to the reserved quota &
only 16 posts were left for others.
 This meant reservation up to 65% in the third year, & while
candidates with low marks from the S.C & S.T were appointed,
Candidates with higher marks from other were not taken.

 Supreme Court held-
 More than 50% reservation of posts in a single year would
be unconstitutional as it per se destroys Article 16(1).
 In the name of advancement of Backward Communities,
the F.Rs of other Communities should not be completely
annihilated.
 Article 16(4) is an exception to Article 16(1).
 Article 16(4) should not be interpreted so as to nullify or
destroy the main provision.
 Reservation for backward communities should not be so
excessive as to create a monopoly or to disturb unduly the
legitimate claims of other communities.
 State cannot ignore the F.Rs of the rest of the Citizens.

 Facts
 Promotion from the cadre of lower division clerks to the
higher cadre of upper division clerks depended on passing a
test within two years.
 For S.C & S.T extension could be granted for a longer
period.
 These classes were given two extra years to pass the test.
 This exemption was challenged as discriminatory under
Article 16(1).
 The ground of challenge was that
◦ Article 16 permitted only reservation in favour of backward
classes but it was not a case of reservation of posts for S.C
& S.T under Article 16(4) & that these persons were not
entitled to any favoured treatment in promotion outside
Article 16(4).

 The majority accepted the view of Subba Rao,J. (Dissenting
opinion in Devadasan).
 Article 16(4) is not in the nature of an exception to Article
16(1).
 “It is a facet of Article 16(1) which fosters & further the idea
of equality of opportunity with special reference to an under
privileged & deprived class of citizens.”
 Article 16(1) itself permits reasonable classification for
attaining equality of opportunity assured by it.
 Article 16(4) should be read along, and in harmony with
article 16(1).
 Indeed even without Article 16(4), the State could have
reserved posts for backward classes.
 Article 16(4) merely puts the matter beyond any doubt or
controversy in specific terms.

 S.C reiterated the Thomas proposition that under Article
16(1) itself, the State may classify, “based upon substantial
differentia, groups or classes” for recruitment to public
services, and “this process does not necessarily spell
violation of Article 14 & 16.
 Article 16(2) expressly forbids discrimination on the basis
of ‘caste’. S.Cs & S.Ts are not castes within the ordinary
meaning of caste. These are backward human groups.
 The “carry forward” rule for three years was not held bad.

• Also known as Mandal Commission Case.
• On January1, 1979 under the Chairman ship of B.P.Mandal, the
second Backward Class Commission under Article 340 was
appointed by the Union Government headed by Prime
Minister Morarji Desai.
• One of the major recommendation made by the commission
was that, besides the SCs and STs, for other backward classes
which constitute nearly 52% component of the population, 27%
government jobs be reserved so that that total reservation for
all, SC,ST and OBCs, amount to 50%.
• No action was taken on the basis of the Mandal Report for
long after it was submitted, except that it was discussed in the
Houses of Parliament twice, once in 1982and again in 1983.
• On August 13, 1990, the V.P.Singh Government at the Centre
issued an office memorandum accepting the Mandal
Commission recommendation and announcing 27%
reservation for the socially and educationally backward classes
in vacancies in civil posts and services under the Government
of India.

 This memorandum led to widespread disturbances in the country.
 The order was challenged in the Supreme Court.
 A three judge bench refused to interfere on the ground that the
matter was a political one.
 Public controversy and disturbances continued.
 The Supreme Court Bar Association moved a petition.
 In response Supreme Court constituted a 5 Judge Bench.
 The early order of the Supreme Court and the O.M were stayed.
 In the meanwhile the Government changed after General Elections.
 In 1991, the Narsimha Rao Government modified the above
memorandum in two respects:
 One, the poorer sections among the backward classes would get
preference over the other sections;
 Two, 10% vacancies would be reserved for other “economically
backward sections” of the people who were not covered by any
existing reservation scheme.

 The reservations contemplated in clause (4) of Art.16 should
not exceed 50%.
◦ Overruled: State of Kerala v. N.M.Thomas AIR 1976 SC 490
K.C. Vasanth Kumar v. State of Karnataka
◦ Approved: Balaji v. State of Mysore AIR 1963 SC 649
Devadsan v. Union of India AIR 1964 SC 649
 Creamy layer must be excluded from backward classes.
 No reservation in promotions.
 Reservation of appointments or posts under Art.16(4) is
confined to initial appointment only and cannot extend to
providing reservation in the matter of promotion.
 Overruled:
◦ General Manager, Southern Rly. V. Rangachari AIR 1962 S.C 36
◦ State of Punjab v. Hira Lal (1970) 3SCC 567
◦ A.B.S.K Sangh (Rly.) v. U.O.I AIR 1981 SC 298
◦ Com. & Aud. General of India,Gian Prakash v.
K.S.Jagannathan (1996) 2 SCC 679

 Reservation can be made by ‘Executive Order’.
 A 'provision' under Art.16(4) can be made by an executive
order. It is not necessary that it should be made by
Parliament/Legislature.
 Carry Forward rule is valid.
◦ Overruled: Devadsan v. Union of India AIR 1964 SC 649
◦ Approved: A.B.S.K Sangh (Rly) v. U.O.I AIR 1981 SC 298
 Article 16(1) permits classification
 Approved: State of Kerala v. N.M.Thomas AIR 1976 SC 490
 Reservations can also be provided under clause (1) of Art.16.
 Article 16(1) permits classification & under it special
provisions can be made for handicapped or disadvantaged
groups other than the backward classes.

 Clause (4) of Art.16 is not an exception to clause (1). It is an
instance and an illustration of the classification inherent in
clause (1).
 Overruled: Balaji v. State of Mysore AIR 1963 SC 649
 Approved: State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas AIR 1976 SC 490
 The expression 'backward class' in Art.16 (4) takes in 'Other
Backward Classes', SCs, STs and may be some other
backward classes as well.
 Economic criterion cannot be the sole basis for determining
the backward class of citizens contemplated by Art.16(4).
 Even under Art.16(1), reservations cannot be made on the
basis of economic criteria alone.
 Backward Classes in Article 16(4) are not similar to as
socially and educationally backward in Article 15(4).
◦ Overruled: Balaji v. State of Mysore AIR 1963 SC 649

 Article 16(4) permits classification of backward classes into
backward & more backward classes.
◦ Overruled: Balaji v. State of Mysore AIR 1963 SC 649
◦ Approved: State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas AIR 1976 SC 490
 Not necessary that SEBCs should be similarly situated as SCs
and STs.
 The government of India, each of the State governments and the
Administrations of Union Territories shall, within four months
from today, constitute a permanent body for entertaining,
examining and recommending upon requests for inclusion and
complaints of over inclusion and under -inclusion in the lists of
other backward classes of citizens.

 No reservation in promotions.
 Overruled:
◦ General Manager, Southern Rly. V. Rangachari AIR 1962
S.C 36
◦ State of Punjab v. Hira Lal (1970) 3SCC 567
◦ A.B.S.K Sangh (Rly.) v. U.O.I AIR 1981 SC 298
◦ Com. & Aud. General of India, Gian Prakash v.
K.S.Jagannathan (1996) 2 SCC 679
Clause 4A was amended by 85 th Amendment Act 2001.

State of M.P v. Nivedita Jain, AIR 1981 SC 2045
Relaxation of minimum qualifying marks for admission
for SCs & STs
Dr. Neelima v. Dean of P.G.Studies A.P.Agricultural
niversiity, Hydrabad, AIR 1993 SC 229
High caste girl marrying ST- Not entitled for
reservation benefit
Dr. Priti Srivastava v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR
1999 SC 2894
Merit, not quota test for admission in Super Speciality
courses in Medical and Engineering

 Article 15(4)
 Constitution 1st amendment Act, 1951
 Champakam Dorairajan v. State of Madras, AIR 1951 SC 226

Article 15(5)
Constitution 93rd Amendment
Act, 2005
P.A.Inamdar v .
State of Maharashtra,
(2005) 6SCC 537
T.M.A.Pai Foundation v.
State of Karnataka, (2002) 6 SCC
537
Nothing in this article or in
sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of
Article 19 shall prevent the state
from making any special
provision, by law, for the
advancement of any socially
and educationally backward
classes of citizens or for the SC
or the Sts insofar as such
special provisions relate to
their admission to educational
institutions including private
educational institutions,
whether aided or unaided by
the State, other than the
minority educational
institutions referred to in
clause (1) of Article 30.
“neither the policy of
reservation can be
enforced by the State
nor any quota or
percentage of
admissions can be
carved out to be
appropriated by the
state in an unaided
educational
institution.”
“ the right to establish an
educational institution, for charity
or for profits , being an
occupation, is protected by Article
19(1)(g)”, it went further held that
“ imposition of quota of State
seats in unaided professional
institutions are acts constituting
serious encroachment on the right
and autonomy of private
professional educational
institutions…which can not be
held to be a reasonable restriction
within the meaning of Article 19(6)
of the Constitution”.
 Article 15(5)
 Constitution 93rd Amendment Act, 2006

 Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission)
Act, 2006
 Act provides reservation for 15, 7.5 and 27% reservation in
Central Institutions of higher education and research for
members of SC, ST and SEBC.
 Ashok Kumar Thakur v UOI, (2007) 4 SCC 361
 Challenge the validity of the Act as well as the amendment
 By a majority of 4:1 the Court upheld the Amendment as well
as the act.
 The court left the validity of the amendment undecided insofar
as it applies to private unaided educational institutions
because no such institution came to the court to challenge its
validity.

 Article 16(4-A)
 Constitution (Seventy-seventh Amendment) Act, 1995 result of
Mandal Commission case.
 Constitution (Eighty-fifth) Amendment Act, 2001 result of
Union of India v. Vipul Singh Chauhan, (1995) 6 SCC 684 & Ajit
Singh(II) v. State of Punjab, (1999) 7 SCC 209
 Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any
provision for reservation in matters of promotion, with consequential
seniority (Constitution (85th Amendment) Act, 2001, to any class or
classes of posts in the services under the State in favour of the SCs
and the STs which, in the opinion of the State, are not adequately
represented in the services under the State.
 Inserted to overcome the decision in Mandal Commission case that
no reservation in promotions could be made under clause (4)

 Article 16(4-B)
 Constitution (Eight-first Amendment) Act, 2000 result of
Mandal Commission case
 Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from
considering any unfilled vacancies of a year which are
reserved for being filled up in that year in accordance with
any provision for reservation made under clause (4) or
(clause 4-A) as a separate class of vacancies to be filled up in
any succeeding year or years and such class of vacancies
shall not be considered together with the vacancies of the
year in which they are being filled up for determining the
ceiling of fifty percent reservation on total number of
vacancies of that year.

 Mandal Commission case laid down fifty percent upper limit
for reservation in a year under clause (4) and upheld forty-nine
and half percent reservations, no scope was left to fill in
the backlog vacancies and to hold special recruitment drives.
To overcome this handicap the Constitution (Eight-first
Amendment) Act, 2000 introduced an exception to the fifty
per cent limit for the purpose of filling the backlog vacancies.
 M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 a five judge
bench of the Court unanimously upheld the validity of the
above amendments introducing clauses (4-A) and (4-B) in
Article 16.

 The Constitution (One Hundred Seventeenth Amendment) Bill, 2012
 The Constitution (One Hundred Seventeenth Amendment) Bill, 2012
was introduced in the Rajya Sabha on September 5, 2012 by Mr. V
Narayansamy, Minster of State for Personnel, Public Grievances and
Pensions.
 In 1992, the Supreme Court in the case of Indira Sawhney v Union of
India had held reservations in promotions to be unconstitutional.
Subsequently in 1995, the central government had amended the
Constitution and inserted Article 16(4A). This provided for reservation
in promotions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes which in the
opinion of the state are not adequately represented in the services.

Article 16(4-A)
Const.(77th Amendment) Act,
1995 & Const.(85th Amendment )
Act, 2001
The Constitution (One Hundred
Seventeenth Amendment) Bill, 2012
Nothing in this article shall
prevent the State from
making any provision for
reservation in matters of
promotion, with
consequential seniority
(Constitution (85th
Amendment) Act, 2001, to any
class or classes of posts in the
services under the State in
favour of the SCs and the STs
which, in the opinion of the
State, are not adequately
represented in the services
under the State.
“(4A) Notwithstanding anything contained
elsewhere in the Constitution, the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes notified
under article 341 and article 342,respectively,
shall be deemed to be backward and nothing
in this article or in article 335 shall prevent the
State from making any provision for
reservation in matters of promotions, with
consequential seniority, to any class or classes
of posts in the services under the State in
favour of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes to the extent of the
percentage of reservation provided to the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in
the services of the State.”

 The Constitution (One Hundred Seventeenth Amendment) Bill,
2012
 “(4A) Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in the
Constitution, the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
notified under article 341 and article 342,respectively, shall be
deemed to be backward and nothing in this article or in article
335 shall prevent the State from making any provision for
reservation in matters of promotions, with consequential
seniority, to any class or classes of posts in the services under the
State in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
to the extent of the percentage of reservation provided to the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in the services of the
State.”

 In 2006, the Supreme Court in the case of M. Nagraj v Union of
India upheld the constitutional validity of the amendment.
While upholding the validity of the amendment, the court held
that before framing any law on this issue, the state will have to
satisfy the test of; (a) backwardness of the particular SC and ST
group; (b) inadequate representation of the said group; and (c)
efficiency of administration.
 In April 2012, the Supreme Court struck down the UP
Government Seniority Rules which provided for reservations in
promotions. The court held that the state government had not
undertaken any exercise to identify whether there was
backwardness and inadequate representation of Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the state government.


 In light of the recent judgment of the Supreme Court, the
central government has introduced the present Bill
amending the Constitution. The Bill seeks to substitute
Article 16(4A) of the Constitution of India.
 The Bill provides that all the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes notified in the Constitutional shall be
deemed to be backward.
Article 335 of the Constitution states that the claims of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes have to be
balanced with maintaining efficiency in administration.
The Bill states that provision of the amendment shall
override the provision of Article 355.

 The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes have been provided
reservation in promotions since 1955.
 This was discontinued following the judgment in the case of Indra
Sawhney Vs. Union of India, wherein it was held that it is beyond the
mandate of Article 16(4)of the Constitution of India.
 Subsequently, the Constitution was amended by the Constitution
(Seventy-seventh Amendment) Act, 1995 and a new clause (4A) was
inserted in article 16 to enable the Government to provide reservation
in promotion in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes.
 Subsequently, clause (4A) of article 16 was modified by the
Constitution (Eighty-fifth Amendment) Act, 2001 to provide
consequential seniority to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes candidates promoted by giving reservation.

 The validity of the constitutional amendments was challenged before the
Supreme Court.
 The Supreme Court while deliberating on the issue of validity of
Constitutional amendments in the case of M. Nagaraj Vs. UOI & Ors.,
observed that the concerned State will have to show in each case the
existence of the compelling reasons, namely, backwardness, inadequacy of
representation and overall administrative efficiency before making
provision for reservation in promotion.
 Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj case, the
High Court of Rajasthan and the High Court of Allahabad have struck
down the provisions for reservation in promotion in the services of the State
of Rajasthan and the State of Uttar Pradesh, respectively.
 Subsequently, the Supreme Court has upheld the decisions of these High
Courts striking down provisions for reservation in respective States.

 It has been observed that there is difficulty in collection of quantifiable data
showing backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that
class in public employment. Moreover, there is uncertainty on the
methodology of this exercise.
 Thus, in the wake of the judgment of the Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj
case, the prospects of promotion of the employees belonging to the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes are being adversely affected.
 Demands for carrying out further amendment in the Constitution were
raised by various quarters.
 A discussion on the issue of reservation in promotion was held in
Parliament on 3-5-2012. Demand for amendment of the Constitution in order
to provide reservation for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in
promotion has been voiced by the Members of Parliament.
 An All-Party Meeting to discuss the issue was held on 21-08-2012.

 There was a general consensus to carry out amendment in the
Constitution, so as to enable the State to continue the scheme
of reservation in promotion for the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes as it existed since 1995.
 In view of the above, the Government has reviewed the
position and has decided to move the constitutional
amendment to substitute clause (4A) of article 16, with a view
to provide impediment-free reservation in promotion to the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and to bring
certainty and clarity in the matter.
 It is also necessary to give retrospective effect to the proposed
clause (4A) of article 16 with effect from the date of coming
into force of that clause as originally introduced, that is, from
the 17th day of June, 1995.

Article 15 of Indian constitution

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to Article 15 of Indian constitution

Recently uploaded

Article 15 of Indian constitution