article 16 of indian constitution

Article 16(4)

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.

Devadsan v. Union of India AIR 1964 SC 649• 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.

Devadsan v. Union of India AIR 1964 SC 649

• 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.

State of Kerala v. N.M Thomas AIR 1976 SC 490

• 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).

State of Kerala v. N.M Thomas AIR 1976 SC 490

• 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.

A.B.S.K Sangh (Rly) v. Union of India AIR 1981 SC 298

• 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.

Indira Sawhney v. Union of India AIR 1993 SC 477


• 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.

Indira Sawhney v. Union of India AIR 1993 SC 477• 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.

Indira Sawhney v. Union of India AIR 1993 SC 477• 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

• 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.

Constitutional Developments after Indira Sawhney Case

• 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 679Clause 4A was amended by 85th Amendment Act 2001.

article 16 of indian constitution

Law