RESERVATIONS IN INDIA

( with relevant case-law analysis)

By
Y. SRINIVASA RAO,
M.A (English); B.Ed; B.L., (LL.M).
I Additional Junior Civil Judge,
Bhimavaram, West Godavari Dist.
Andhra Pradesh. India.

'' Dr Ambedkar stated that "the report of the Minorities Committee provided that all
minorities should have two benefits or privileges, namely representation in the
legislatures and representation in the services1."

'' India's first President Rajendra Prasad assured the Nation that the assembly and
the Government's aim was to "end poverty and squalor to abolish distinction and
exploitation and to ensure decent conditions of living"2.

The basis of providing reservation is giving proportionate opportunities to the people

of Scheduled Castes, Schedule Tribes and other backward classes.The reservation is
intended to aggrandize the social diversity in campuses and workplaces. Reservation
in our Country is known as ''Quota'' system. Article 15 of Indian Constitution lays
down that a citizen shall not be discriminated against, on grounds of
religion,race,caste or place birth. Lot of verdicts of our Indian Judiciary as to
reservations have been modified subsequently by our parliament through
Constitutional Amendments Acts. However, some rulings of our Courts have been
scoffed by State and Central Governments. Some Judgments upheld the reservations
and some rulings for fine turning its implementation regarding reservations. In this
context, it is also appropriate to see observation of a Distinguished Teaching Professor
at the University of Texas at Austin. ''While reservation is a political hot button, it is
about societal endurance, ethics, and value issues. If it is a pure political solution then,
unfortunately, premier institutions will probably lose the battle3''.
It was ordered to exclude Creamy layer of other backward classes from
enjoying reservation facilities. All states implemented but State of Tamil Nadu
did not implement it. Recent Reservation bill for providing reservations to
OBC in educational institutions also did not exclude ''Creamy layer'' in some
states in our country. However, this matter is still under the serious
consideration of Standing committee. Our Supreme Court ordered to restrict
reservations within 50% limit.- All states followed but State of Tamil Nadu did
not follow it. It is apt to remember that Our Judiciary declared separate
reservations for economically poor among forward castes as invalid. This
ruling was implemented.

 In 1951, in the case State of Madras Vs. Smt. Champakam Dorairanjan 4, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that caste based reservations as per
Communal Award violates Article 15(1). Yet, First constitutional amendment as
to Art. 15 (4) was brought forward. In consequence of this Amendment, the ruling
of Supreme Court was made invalid.

 The Hon'ble Hegde, J in A. Peeriakaruppan, etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu has

observed:''A caste has always been recognised as a class.''. The Hon'ble
Vaidialingam, J in State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. v. U.S.V. Balram etc. in
his conclusion upheld the list of '' Backward Class in that case as they satisfied the
1(See: CAD, 26 August 1949, vol. 9, p. 702).

2[Cornerstone at page 27, fn. 5 (quoting from Prasad in CAD V, I, 
2)].

3 Article ( ''Reservation in premier institutions'' by Prabhudev Konana )

4. AIR 1951 SC 226
 various tests, which have been laid down by this Court for ascertaining the social
and educational backwardness of a class even though the said list was exclusively
based on caste.''. The Hon'ble Chief Justice Ray in Kumari K.S. Jayasree and
Anr. v. The State of Kerala and Anr. was of the view that ' 'In ascertaining social
backwardness of a class of citizens it may not be irrelevant to consider the caste of
the group of citizens. Caste cannot however be made the sole or dominant test....''

 In 1963, M R Balaji v Mysore5 , the Hon'ble Court has put 50% limit on
reservations in this ruling. Almost all states did not exceed 50% limit but State of
Rajastan(68% quota including 14% for forward castes, post gujjar violence 2008)
and State of Tamil Nadu, in 1980, (69%, Under 9th schedule) exceeded the limit.
Despite the State of Andhra Pradesh tried to exceed the limit in 2005, it was
stopped running by the High Court. In 1992,The Supreme court of India in Indira
Sawhney & Ors v. Union of India 6, upheld Implementation of separate
reservation for ''Other Backward Classes'' as to central government jobs are
concerned. This ruling was implemented. In General Manager, S. Rly. v.
Rangachari7, State of Punjab v. Hiralal 8, Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari
Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India9 it was held that Reservation of appointments
or posts under Article 16(4) included promotions. This was overruled in Indira
Sawhney & Ors v. Union of India 10. : and held that Reservations cannot be
applied in promotions. Union of India Vs Varpal Singh11, Ajitsingh Januja &
Ors Vs State of Punjab12, Ajitsingh Januja & Ors Vs State of Punjab & Ors 13,
M.G.Badappanavar Vs State of Karnataka 14.; -Ashok Kumar Gupta:
Vidyasagar Gupta Vs State of Uttar Pradesh15, In this case, it was observed that '' It
would thus be clear that right to promotion is a statutory right. It is not a
fundamental right. The right to promotion to a post or a class of posts depends
upon the operation of the conditions of service. Article 16 (4A) read with Articles
16 (1) and 14 guarantees a right to promotion to Dalits and Tribes as fundamental
right where they not have adequate representation consistently with the efficiency
in administration. The Mandal's case, has prospectively overruled the ratio in
Rangachari's case, i.e., directed the decision to be operative after 5 years from the
date of the judgment; however, before expiry. thereof, Article 16 (4A) has come
into force from June 17, 1995. Therefore, the right to promotion continues as a
constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right''. '' it is also appropriate to see that
''In GENERAL MANAGER, S.RLY. vs. RANGACHARI [AIR 1962 SC 36],
STATE OF PUNJAB vs. HIRALAL [(1970) 3 SCC 567], AKHIL BHARATIYA
SOHIT KARAMCHARI SANGH (RAILWAY) vs. UNION OF INDIA [(1981) 1
SCC 246], it was held that 'reservation of appointments or posts under Article
16(4) included promotions and this was overruled in the Indra Sawheny's case
(supra) and held that reservations cannot be applied in promotions. 77th
Constitution amendment, introducing Articles 16(4 A) and (16 4B) was effected to

5.AIR 1963 SC 649,

6. AIR 1993 SC 477 : 1992 Supp (3)SCC 217

7.AIR 1962 SC 36

8.1970(3) SCC 567

9. (1981) 1 SCC 246

10.AIR 1993 SC 477 ; 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217

11.AIR 1996 SC 448

12.AIR 1996 SC 1189

13.AIR 1999 SC 3471

14.2001 (2) SCC 666

15. 1997 (5) SCC 201

 make this part of the judgement of Indra Sawheny's case as invalid. Thereafter, in
NAGRAJ AND OTHERS vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [AIR 2007 SC
71], the Honourable Apex Court has upheld this Constitutional Amendment.[this
was observed in Dr.E.Sayed Ali vs Union Of India on 24 October, 2008]'' Yet, it
is here also seen that 77th Constitution amendment [Art 16 4 A & 16 4B] was
introduced to make judgment invalid. M. Nagraj & Ors v. Union of India and
Ors16. held the amendments are constitutional. See also R K Sabharwal Vs St of
Punjab17. In Union of India Vs Varpal Singh 18and Ajitsingh Januja & Ors Vs State
of Punjab19 it was held that a roster point promotees getting the benefit of
accelerated promotion would not get consequential seniority and the seniority
between the reserved category candidates and general candidates in promoted
category shall be governed by their panel position. However, this was overruled in
Jagdish Lal's case 20, in this ruling , it was held that the date of continuous
officiation has to be taken into account and if so, the roster- point promotees were
entitled to the benefit of continuous officiation. Later, Ajitsingh Januja & Ors Vs
State of Punjab & Ors21 overruled Jagdish Lal M G Badappanvar Vs St of
Karnataka22 : and it was held that ''Roster promotions were meant only for the
limited purpose of due representation of backward classes at various levels of
service and therefore, such roster promotions did not confer consequential
seniority to the roster point promotee''.

 S. Vinodkumar Vs. Union of India23 in this case, while considering Articles

16(4) and 335 held that for the purpose of promotion lower qualifying marks for
the reserved category candidates were not permissible. Further, it was held that
relaxation of qualifying marks and standard of evaluation in matters of reservation
in promotion were not permissible.; in consequence of this, a proviso, in the
Constitution (82nd) Amendment Act was inserted at the end of Art 335.

 M. Nagraj & Ors v. Union of India and Ors.24 held the amendments constitutional
and that In M. Nagraj anOrs. v. Union of India and Ors. , the Supreme Court held
that it is the duty of the State not only to protect human dignity but facilitate it by
taking positive steps in that direction.

 In I.R. Coelho (Dead) by LRS. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu 25, the Hon'ble Court held
as infra: '' This is our answer to the question referred to us vide Order dated 14 th
September, 1999 in I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu [(1999) 7 SCC 580].(v) If
the validity of any Ninth Schedule law has already been upheld by this Court, it
would not be open to challenge such law again on the principles declared by this
judgment. However, if a law held to be violative of any rights in Part III is
subsequently incorporated in the Ninth Schedule after 24th April, 1973, such a
violation/infraction shall be open to challenge on the ground that it destroys or
damages the basic structure as indicated in Article 21 read with Article 14, Article

16. AIR 2007 SC 71

17.AIR 1995 SC 1371 : (1995) 2 SCC 745

18 AIR 1996 SC 448

19 AIR 1996 SC 1189

20 (1997) 6 SCC 538

21 AIR 1999 SC 3471

22.2001(2) SCC 666; AIR 2001 SC 260

23. 1996 6 SCC 580,

24 .AIR 2007 SC 71

25. 2007 (2) SCC 1 : 2007 AIR(SC) 861

 19 and the principles underlying thereunder.(vi) Action taken and transactions
finalized as a result of the impugned Acts shall not be open to challenge.''

 State of Tamilnadu was advised by the Supreme court of India to follow 50%
limit.; It is also pertinent to note that State of Tamilnadu Reservations were put
under 9th Schedule of the constitution of India.

 In Unni Krishnan, J.P. & Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh &
Ors26. ,Held:Every child/citizen has a right to free education up to the age
of 14 years and thereafter it is subject to limits of economic capacity and
development of the State-State obliged to follow directions contained in
Article 45-Article 21to be construed in the light of Articles 41, 45 and 46. It
was also observed that right to establish educational institutions can neither be
a trade or business nor can it be a profession within the meaning of Article
19(1)(g). This was overruled in T.M.A.Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka 27,
In this ruling, it was observed that the right to establish and administer
educational institutions is guaranteed under the Constitution to all citizens
under Article 19(1)(g) and 26, and to minorities specifically under Article 30.
All citizens have a right to establish and administer educational institutions
under Articles 19(1)(g) and 26, but this right will be subject to the provisions
of Articles 19(6) and 26(a). However, minority institutions will have a right to
admit students belonging to the minority group...''. P.A.Inamdar v. State of
Maharashtra28 Supreme court held that reservations cannot be enforced on
Private Unaided educational institutions.; In view of this, 93rd constitutional
amendment introduced Art 15(5).

Ashoka Kumar Thakur vs. Union of India: (Writ Petition (civil) 265 of
2006;DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/04/2008)

 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

1A. Whether the creamy layer be excluded from the 93rd Amendment
(Reservation Act)?

Yes, it must. The 93rd amendment would be ultra vires and invalid if the
creamy layer is not excluded. See paras 22, 25, 27, 30, 34, 35, 43, 44.

1B. What are the parameters for creamy layer exclusion?

For a valid method of creamy layer exclusion, the Government may use its
post-Sawhney I criteria as a template. (See: Office Memorandum dated 8-9-
1993, para 2(c)/Column 3). I urge the Government to periodically revise the
O.M. So that changing circumstances can be taken into consideration while
keeping our constitutional goal in view. I further urge the Government to
exclude the children of former and present Members of the Parliament and
Members of Legislative Assemblies and the said O.M. be amended
accordingly.See paras 55-57.

1C. Is creamy layer exclusion applicable to SC/ST?

In Indra Sawhney-I, creamy layer exclusion was only in regard to OBC.

Justice Reddy speaking for the majority at para 792 stated that "this discussion
is confined to Other Backward Classes only and has no relevance in the case of
Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes". Similarly, in the instant case, the
entire discussion was confined only to Other Backward Classes. Therefore, I
express no opinion with regard to the applicability of exclusion of creamy
layer to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. See para 34.

26. (1993 (1) SCC 645)

27. (2002) 8 SCC 481

28. 2005 AIR(SC) 3226

2. Can the Fundamental Right under Article 21A be accomplished without
great emphasis on primary education?

No, it cannot. An inversion in priorities between higher and primary/secondary

education would make compliance with Article 21A extremely difficult. It is
not suggested that higher education needs no encouragement or that higher
education should not receive more funds, but there has to be much greater
emphasis on primary education. Our priorities have to be changed. Nothing is
really more important than to ensure total compliance of Article 21A. Total
compliance means good quality education is imparted and all children aged six
to fourteen regularly attend schools. I urge the Government to implement the
following: The current patchwork of laws on compulsory education is
insufficient. Monetary fines do not go far enough to ensure that Article 21A is
implemented. The Central Government should enact legislation that: (a)
provides low-income parents/guardians with financial incentives such that they
may afford to send their children to schools; (b) criminally penalizes those
who receive financial incentives and despite such payment send their children
to work; (c) penalizes employers who preclude children from attending
schools; (d) the penalty should include imprisonment; the aforementioned Bill
would serve as an example. The State is obligated under Article 21A to
implement free and compulsory education in toto. (e) until we have
accomplished for children from six to fourteen years the object of free and
compulsory education, the Government should continue to increase the
education budget and make earnest efforts to ensure that children go to schools
and receive quality education; (f) The Parliament should fix a deadline by
which time free and compulsory education will have reached every child. This
must be done within six months, as the right to free and compulsory education
is perhaps the most important of all the fundamental rights. For without
education, it becomes extremely difficult to exercise other fundamental
rights.See paras 126-131.

3. Does the 93rd Amendment violate the Basic Structure of the Constitution by
imposing reservation on unaided institutions?

Yes, it does. Imposing reservation on unaided institutions violates the Basic

Structure by stripping citizens of their fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g)
to carry on an occupation. T.M.A. Pai and Inamdar affirmed that the
establishment and running of an educational institution falls under the right to
an occupation. The right to select students on the basis of merit is an essential
feature of the right to establish and run an unaided institution. Reservation is
an unreasonable restriction that infringes this right by destroying the autonomy
and essence of an unaided institution. The effect of the 93rd Amendment is
such that Article 19 is abrogated, leaving the Basic Structure altered. To restore
the Basic Structure, I sever the 93rd Amendment's reference to "unaided"
institutions. See paras 132-182.

4. Whether the use of caste to identify SEBCs runs afoul of the

casteless/classless society, in violation of Secularism.

Sawhney I compels me to conclude that use of caste is valid. It is said that if

reservation in education is to stay, it should adhere to a basic tenet of
Secularism: it should not take caste into account. As long as caste is a criterion,
we will never achieve a casteless society. Exclusively economic criteria should
be used. I urge the Government that for a period of ten years caste and other
factors such as occupation/income/property holdings or similar measures of
economic power may be taken into consideration and thereafter only economic
criteria should prevail; otherwise we would not be able to achieve our
constitutional goal of casteless and classless India.See paras 194, 195, 231,
248, 251.

5. Are Articles 15(4)and15(5) mutually contradictory,such that15(5)is

unconstitutional?
 I am able to read them harmoniously.See paras 252-256.

6. Does Article 15(5)'s exemption of minority institutions from the purview of

reservation violate Article 14 of the Constitution?

Given the inherent tension between Articles 29(2) and 30(1), I find that the
overriding constitutional goal of realizing a casteless/classless society should
serve as a tie-breaker. We will take a step in the wrong direction if minority
institutions (even those that are aided) are subject to reservation. See paras
268-269.

7) Are the standards of review laid down by the U.S. Supreme Court
applicable to our review of affirmative action under Art 15(5) and similar
provisions?

The principles enunciated by the American Supreme Court, such as, "Suspect
Legislation" "Narrow Tailoring" "Strict Scrutiny" and "Compelling State
necessity" are not strictly applicable for challenging the impugned legislation.
Cases decided by other countries are not binding but do have great persuasive
value. Let the path to our constitutional goals be enlightened by experience,
learning, knowledge and wisdom from any quarter. In the words of Rigveda,
let noble thoughts come to us from every side.See para 183.

8) With respect to OBC identification, was the Reservation Act's delegation of

power to the Union Government excessive?

It is not an excessive delegation. With respect to this issue, I agree with the
reasoning of the Chief Justice in his judgment.

9) Is the impugned legislation invalid as it fails to set a time-limit for caste-

based reservation?

It is not invalid because it fails to set a time-limit. See para 272.

10) At what point is a student no longer Educationally Backward and thus no

longer eligible for special provisions under 15(5)?

Once a candidate graduates from a university, the said candidate is

educationally forward and is ineligible for special benefits under Article 15(5)
of the Constitution for post graduate and any further studies thereafter. See
para 273.

11. Would it be reasonable to balance OBC reservation with societal interests

by instituting OBC cut-off marks that are slightly lower than that of the general
category?

It is reasonable to balance reservation with other societal interests. To maintain

standards of excellence, cut off marks for OBCs should be set not more than
10 marks out of 100 below that of the general category.See paras 274-278.

 Venkataramana Vs State of Madras,AIR 1951 SC 229, in this case, it was t

held that "reservation of posts in favour of any backward class of citizens
cannot, therefore, be regarded as unconstitutional".

 General Manager, S. Rly v. Rangachari AIR 1962 SC 36 , in this case, the

majority decision of the Supreme Court held that the power of reservation
which is conferred on the State under Article 16(4) can be exercised by the
State in a proper case not only by providing for reservation of appointments,
but also by providing for reservation of selection posts.

 M R Balaji v. State of Mysore AIR 1963 SC 649, in this case, it was held that
the backwardness under Article 15 (4) must be social and educational. In M.R.
 Balaji v. State of Mysore 1963 (Suppl.) 1 SCR 439 at page 454 The Hon'ble
Gajendragadkar. J observed that "economic backwardness might have
contributed to social backwardness...." This observation tends to show that
Gajendragadkar, J was of the view that economic backwardness may
contribute to social backwardness. With respect to the learned Judge, I am
unable to agree with his view.

 Chitralekha Vs State of Mysore,AIR 1964 SC 1823, The order of Govt

making a classification of socially and educationally backward classes based
on economic condition only was held to be justified.

 T. Devadasan v Union AIR 1964 SC 179. (It is to be noted that in Balaji's case
(AIR 1963 SC 649] and Devdasan's case (1964) 4 SCR 680; (AIR 1964 SC
179) 'the carry forward' rule for backward classes far exceeded 50% and was
struck down.)

 Jacob Mathew Vs State of Kerala, AIR 1964 Kerala 39, it was held that the
classification of socially and educationally beackward classes based on the
test of caste,community or religion was inconsistent with the requirements of
Article 15 (4).

 Miss Laila Chacko Vs State of Kerala, AIR 1967 Kerala 124, the Hon'ble
High Court held that while accepting the means cum caste test for
classification of backward classes several factors hav e to be taken into
consideration. Classification on the basis of the test of income was rejected.

 Chamaraja v Mysore AIR 1967 Mys 21 , it was observed that ''the guarantee
given under Article 29(2) of the Constitution is a guarantee given to individual
citizens. That guarantee is not given to any class. Article 15(4) of the
Constitution empowers the State to make special provisions for the
advancement of any Socially and Educationally Backward Class of citizens or
for the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes. That Article does not compel the
State Government to make any special provision for the advancement of the
Classes, Castes, tribes mentioned therein. The State is empowered to make
provisions in that regard. But it is not compelled to do so...''

 P. Rajendran Vs. State of Madras AIR 1968 SC 1012, In this case, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court justified reservation of seats made caste wise.

 P.Sagar Vs State of AP, AIR 1968 AP 165, In this case, it was observed that
Poverty, Caste, Place of habitation, Inferiority of occupation, low standard of
education ,low standard of living are considerations for backwardness.

 Periakaruppan Vs State of Tamil Nadu29, in this case, the Court held that a
classification of the backward classes on the basis of caste is within the
permissible limits of Article 15(4), if it is shown to be socially and
educationallu backward.

 State of A.P. Vs U.S.V. Balram AIR 1972 SC 1372, In this ruling, following
Rajendran and Periakaruppan cases, held that ' if a caste as whole was socially
and educationally backward, the reservation made of such persons will have to
be upheld notwithstanding the fact that a few individuals in that group may be
both socially and educationally above the general average''.

 Kesavanand Bharti v State of Kerala 30: It is a landmark ruling of our Supreme

Court. The Hon'ble Chief Justice Sri Sarv Mittra Sikri held that ''the
fundamental importance of the freedom of the individual has to be preserved
for all times to come and that it could not be amended out of existence. Further
held that ''fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution of India
cannot be abrogated, though a reasonable abridgement of those rights could be

29 AIR 1971 SC 2303

30 AIR 1973 SC 1461
 effected in public interest.'' It was also observed that the expression
"amendment of this Constitution", in Article 368 means any addition or change
in any of the provisions of the Constitution within the broad contours of the
preamble, made in order to carry out the basic objectives of the Constitution.''
(See the ruling to know more)

 K.S.Jayasree Vs. State of Kerala AIR 1976 SC 2381 , The Hon'ble Supreme
Court observed that in ascertaining the social backwardness of the class of
citizens it might not be irrelevant to consider the caste of the group of citizens.

 Minerva Mills Ltd Vs Union (1980) 3 SCC 625 : AIR 1980 SC 1789, In this
case, it was observed as : '' I would therefore declare Section 55 of the
Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 which inserted Sub-
sections (4) and (5) in Article 368 as unconstitutional and void on the ground
that it damages the basic structure of the Constitution and goes beyond the
amending power of Parliament. But so far as Section 4 of the Constitution
(Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 is concerned, I hold that, on the
interpretation placed on the amended Article 31C by me, it does not damage or
destroy the basic structure of the Constitution and is within the amending
power of Parliament and I would therefore declare the amended Article 31C to
be constitutional and valid. ''

 Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh Vs Union (1981) 1 SCC 246 , In

this ruling, it was observed as under:: These forces nurtured the roots of our
constitutional values among which must be found the fighting faith in a
casteless society, not by obliterating the label but by advancement of the
backward..''

 K. C. Vasant Kumar v. Karnataka, AIR 1985 SC 1495, in this ruling, the Court
opines that the test of economic backwardness was the only criterion that can
be realistically devised to determine social and educational backwardness. The
Hon'ble Sri Chief Justice Chandrachud, further added that '' in regard to
Schedule castes and Schedule Tribes (SCs & STs), the existing reservations
should be continued without the application of means test upto 2000AD The
Hon'ble Chinnappa Reddy, J in Vasanth Kumar points out that the social
investigator "...may freely perceive those pursuing certain 'lowly' occupation as
socially and educationally backward classes.

 Indira Sawhney & Ors v. Union of India AIR 1993 SC 477, the question that
who are the other backward classes came up for consideration again in this
case. Four distinct sets of views are discernible from this ruling. The Hon'ble
Sri Justice Jeevan Reddy, held that reservation contemplated under Article
16(4) should not normally exceed 50%. However, certain extraordinary
situations inherent in the great diversity of this country and people warrant the
state to exceed 50%. ( To know more, see this ruling).

 Unni Krishnan v. State of A.P. and Ors. (1993 (1) SCC 645), Held:Every
child/citizen has a tight to free education up to the age of 14 years and
thereafter it is subject to limits of economic capacity and development of the
State-State obliged to follow directions contained in Article 45-Article 21 to be
construed in the light of Articles 41, 45 and 46.

 R K Sabharwal Vs St of Punjab AIR 1995 SC 1371 : (1995) 2 SCC 745, In this

case,the Supreme Court observed: "When the State Government after doing the
necessary exercise makes the reservation and provides the extent of percentage
of posts to be reserved for the said Backward Class then the percentage has to
be followed strictly. The prescribed percentage cannot be varied or changed
simply because some of the members of the Backward Class have already been
appointed/promoted against the general seats. As mentioned above the roster
point which is reserved for a Backward Class has to be filled by way of
appointment/promotion of the member of the said class. No general category
candidate can be appointed against a slot in the roster which is reserved for the
backward Class. The fact that considerable number of members of a Backward
 Class have beenappointed/promoted against general seats in the State Services
may be a relevantfactor for the State Government to review the question of
continuing reservationfor the said class but so long as theinstructions/rules
providing certain percentage of reservations for the Backward Classes
areoperative the same have to be followed. Despite any number of
appointees/promotees belonging to the Backward Classes against the general

 Indira Sawhney Vs. Union of India. AIR 2000 SC 498,'' it was clearly held that
the doctrine of principles of reservations have to be applied having regard to
the vacancy position as existing in the entire area, the only exception being the
cases,which would be falling under Article 16(4)'' .

 NTR University of Health Science Vijaywada v. G Babu Rajendra Prasad

(2003) 5 SCC 350, In this case also, it was observed that ''In Indra Sawhney
(supra) it has been clearly held that the doctrine of principles of reservations
have to be applied having regard to the vacancy position as existing in the
entire area, the only exception being the cases,which would be falling under
Article 16(4)''. ( To know more, see this ruling).

 OTHER RELEVANT CASES:

1. Ajitsingh Januja & Ors Vs State of Punjab AIR 1996 SC 1189

2. Ajay Hasia v Khalid Mujib AIR 1981 SC 487
3. C. A. Rajendran v. Union of India AIR 1965 SC 507.
4. Jagdish Lal and others v. State of Haryana and Others (1997) 6 SCC 538
5. Islamic Academy of Education & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2003) 6
SCC 697
6. Saurabh Chaudri & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2003) 11 SCC 146
7. P.A.Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra 2005 AIR(SC) 3226
8. I.R. Coelho (Dead) by LRS. Vs. State of T.N. 2007 (2) SCC 1 : 2007 AIR(SC)
861
9. M. Nagraj & Ors v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 2007 SC 71
10.Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh Vs.
Faculty Association 1998 AIR(SC) 1767 : 1998 (4) SCC 1
11.Triloki Nath Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir AIR 1969 SC 1
12.State of Punjab vs. Hira Lal 1970(3) SCC 567
13.State of Kerala Vs N. M. Thomas AIR 1976 SC 490 : (1976) 2 SCC 310
14.Barium Chemicals Ltd. Vs Company Law Board AIR 1967 SC 295
15.T.M.A.Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481
16.Comptroller & Auditor-General of India, Gian Prakash Vs K. S.
Jaggannathan31
17.Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs A. P. State Electricity Board (1991) 3SCC 299
18.M G Badappanvar Vs St of Karnataka 2001(2) SCC 666 : AIR 2001 SC 260
19.Chander Pal & Ors Vs State of Haryana (1997) 10 SCC 474
20.To know more, it is also very essential to go through Articles 12, 14, 15, 16,
19, 335 of the Constitution of India.

I hope that this article is useful to judicial officers, lawyers, law students, and other
others who seek information as to reservations.

--X--

31 (1986) 2 SCC 679