http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 62  

PETITIONER: AKHIL BHARATIYA SOSHIT KARAMCHARI SANGH (RAILWAY)REPRESENTED

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT14/11/1980

BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. PATHAK, R.S. REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)

CITATION:  1981 AIR  298            1981 SCR  (2) 185  1981 SCC  (1) 246  CITATOR INFO :  E&R        1985 SC1495  (19,75)  F          1987 SC 537  (22)  RF         1987 SC 990  (16)  RF         1988 SC 959  (12)  RF         1991 SC1902  (36)  R          1991 SC2288  (12)  RF         1992 SC   1  (90,125)

ACT:      Constitution of  India, 1950-Arts. 16, 46 and 335-Scope of-Reservation  of  posts  under  the  State  in  favour  of Scheduled  Castes  and  Scheduled  Tribes-Carry  forward  of unfilled posts for three years-validity of-

HEADNOTE:      In  so   far  as  the  initial  recruitment  and  later promotion to  classes II,  III and  IV  are  concerned,  the Railway Administration  provided for  reservation of certain percentage of  vacancies for  candidates  belonging  to  the Scheduled Castes  and Scheduled  Tribes. Since,  despite the special provision  the intake  of these communities into the Railway  Services   continued  to   be  negligible   further concessions and  relaxations were  offered from time to time to members  belonging to  the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Even  so, in  many cases  the vacancies reserved for them remained  unfilled.  Yet  another  step  taken  by  the Railway Administration  to keep  open the reserved vacancies was to  adopt a  policy of  "carry forward"  of the unfilled reserved vacancies for at least three years.      In obedience  to the policy decision of the Ministry of Home Affairs,  the Railway  Board issued  certain directives designed to  protect and  promote the interest of members of the Scheduled  Castes and  Scheduled Tribes in the matter of their employment  in the  Railway Administration. The policy directive of reserving certain percentage of posts in favour of  these  communities  having  not  proved  effective,  the Railway Board  altered the  rules "with  a view  to securing increased representation  of Scheduled  Castes and Scheduled Tribes in  the Railway  Services" (Annexure  D). The Railway Board authorised  the recruiting  bodies to  slur  over  low places obtained  by Scheduled  Castes and  Scheduled  Tribes

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 62  

candidates except  where  it  was  found  that  the  minimum standard necessary  for the maintenance of efficiency of the administration  had   not  been   reached.  The   appointing authorities were  directed to  give additional  training and coaching to  the recruits  so that they might come up to the standard  of   other  recruits   appointed  alongwith  them. Likewise  where   direct  recruitment,   otherwise  than  by examination, was  provided for,  the Railway  Board directed the selection  of  Scheduled  Castes  and  Scheduled  Tribes candidates fulfilling  a lower  standard of suitability than from other  communities, so  long as  the candidates had the prescribed minimum  educational and technical qualifications and the  appointing  authorities  were  satisfied  that  the lowering  of   standards  would   not  unduly   affect   the maintenance of efficiency of administration.      In the  case  of  selection  posts  the  Railway  Board decided that  promotions from class IV to class III and from class  III  to  class  II  were  of  the  nature  of  direct recruitment and  the prescribed  quota  of  reservation  for Scheduled Castes  and Scheduled Tribes should be provided as in direct recruitment. This reser- 186 vation was  confined to  ’selection  posts’.  In  regard  to filling of  "general posts"  in class III it was stated that they were  in the  nature  of  direct  recruitment  and  the reservation for  Scheduled Castes  and Scheduled  Tribes  as applicable  to   direct  recruitment   should  be   applied. (Annexure F).      In 1969  the Railway Board further revised their policy in regard  to the       reservation and other concessions to the Scheduled  Castes and  Scheduled  Tribes  candidates  in posts filled  by promotion (Annexure H). The circular stated that in  promotion by  selection from class III to class II, if a member of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes was within the  zone of  eligibility the employee would be given one grading  higher than the grading otherwise assignable to him on the basis of his record of service.      In April,  1970  the  percentage  of  vacancies  to  be reserved for  Scheduled  Castes  and  Scheduled  Tribes  was raised from  121/2%   and 5%  to 15%  and 71/2% respectively (Annexure I). By the same order the "carry forward" rule was altered from 2 to 3 years.      In 1973  the Railway  Board issued  a directive stating that the  quota of  15%   and 71/2% for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled  Tribes   may  be   provided    promotion  to  the categories and  posts in classes I, II, III and IV filled on the basis  of  the  seniority-cum-suitability  provided  the element of  direct recruitment  to  those  grades  does  not exceed 50% (Annexure K).      In August, 1974 the Railway Board further directed that if the  requisite number  of Scheduled  Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates were not available for being placed on the panel in  spite of  the various  relaxations the  best among them i.e. those who secure highest marks should be earmarked for being  placed on  the panel  to the extent vacancies had been reserved  in their  favour. The  Scheduled  Castes  and Scheduled Tribes  candidates so  earmarked might be promoted ad hoc  for a  period of  six months  against the  vacancies reserved for  them. During  the period  of  six  months  the administration was  asked to  give them  all facilities  for improving their  knowledge and for coming upto the requisite standard. The  procedure was required to be applied in cases of promotion  to the posts filled on the basis of seniority- cum-suitability (Annexure N).      A further  modification to  the then existing rules was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 62  

made by  Annexure ’O’  which stated  that  "reservations  in posts filled by promotion under the existing scheme would be applicable to  all grades  or services  where the element of direct recruitment,  if any,  does not  exceed  66  2/3%  as against 50% as at present".      It was  contended on  behalf of  the  petitioners  that Scheduled Castes  cannot be  a favoured  class in the public services because  (i) they  are "castes"  and   cannot claim preference qua  castes unless  specially  saved  by  Article 16(4) which  speaks of  "class" and  not "castes", (ii) that Article 16(4)  could not  apply to  promotional  levels  and (iii) efficiency  of administration envisaged by Article 335 had  been   jeopardised  by  the  impugned  circulars  which fomented frustration  among the  civil services and produced inefficiency by  placing men  of lower  efficiency and  less experience in higher posts. 187 A preliminary  objection was  raised that  since  the  first petitioner was  an  unrecognised union, it was not a "person aggrieved" and so its petition was unsustainable.      Dismissing the petitions      [Per majority  Krishna Iyer  and Chinnappa  Reddy,  JJ, Pathak J.  concurring in  the  result  with  reservation  on certain questions]      There is  nothing illegal  or unconstitutional  in  the impugned orders. [Per Krishna Iyer, J]      The argument  that since  the first  petitioner was  an unrecognized association  the petition  is  not  sustainable must be  overruled because  whether the petitioners belonged to a  recognised union or not, the fact remains that a large body of  persons with  a common  grievance exists  and  they approached  this   Court  under   Article  32.  Our  current processual jurisprudence  is broad-based and people oriented and envisions  access to  justice through  "class  actions", "public    interest    litigation"    and    "representative proceedings". The  narrow concept  of cause  of  action  and person  aggrieved  and  individual  litigation  is  becoming obsolescent in some jurisdictions. [224 G-H]      The well  settled position in law is that the State may classify, based  upon  substantial  differentia,  groups  or classes  and   this  process   does  not  necessarily  spell violation of  Articles 14  to 16.  Therefore, in the present case if the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes stand on a substantially  different  footing  they  may  be  classified groupwise and treated separately. [232 B-C]      The fundamental right of equality of opportunity has to be read as justifying the categorisation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes separately for the purpose of "adequate representation" in  the services under the State. The object is constitutionally sanctioned in terms as Article 16(4) and 46 specificate.  The classification  is just and reasonable. [233 G-H]      Apart  from  Article  16(1),  Article  16(2)  expressly forbids discrimination  on the  ground of caste and here the question arises  as to  whether  the  Scheduled  Castes  and Tribes are  castes within  the  meaning  of  Article  16(2). Assuming that  there is discrimination, Article 16(2) cannot be invoked unless it is predicated that the Scheduled Castes are  "castes".  There  are  sufficient  indications  in  the Constitution to  suggest that  the Scheduled  Castes are not mere castes.  They may  be something  less or something more and the  time badge  is not the fact that the members belong to a  caste but  the circumstance  that they  belong  to  an indescribably backward human group. [234 A-C]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 62  

    Articles 14 to 16 form a Code by themselves and contain a  constitutional   fundamental  guarantee.   The  Directive Principles which  are fundamental  in the  governance of the country enjoin  upon  the  State  the  duty  to  apply  that principle in making laws. Article 46 obligates the State the promote with  special  care  the  educational  and  economic interests of  the weaker  sections  of  the  people  and  in particular of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. Article 46  read with  Article 16(4) makes it clear that the exploited lot  of the  harijan groups  in the  past shall be extirpated with special care by the State. [210 F; 211 A-C] 188      At the  same time  reservations under Article 16(4) and promotional strategies  under Article  46 should not be used to  imperil   administrative  efficiency   in  the  name  of concessions to  backward classes.  The  positive  accent  of Article 335  is that  the claims  of  these  communities  to equalisation of  representation in  services under the State shall be  taken into  consideration. The negative element of this Article is that measures taken by the State pursuant to the  mandate   of  Articles  16(4),  46  and  335  shall  be consistent with  and not  subversive of  the maintenance  of efficiency of administration. [211 D-F]      Under Article 341, Scheduled Castes become such only if the President specifies any castes, races or tribes or parts or groups  within castes, races or tribes for the purpose of the Constitution.  It is the socioeconomic backwardness of a social bracket  that is  decisive and  not mere  birth in  a caste. [212 A]      Annexure F relates only to selection posts and has been expressly  upheld  in  Rangachari’s  case.  The  quantum  of reservation is  not excessive;  the field  of eligibility is not too  unreasonable; the  operation of  the reservation is limited  to   selection   posts   and   no   relaxation   of qualifications is  written into  the  circular  except  that candidates of  the Scheduled  Castes  and  Scheduled  Tribes communities  should  be  judged  in  a  sympathetic  manner. Moreover administrative  efficiency is  secure because there is a  direction to  give such  staff additional training and coaching, to bring them upto the standard of others. [239 F- G]      There is  no vice  in giving  one grade  higher than is otherwise assignable  to an employee. based on the record of his service rendering the promotional prospects unreasonable because this concession is confined to only 25% of the total number of  vacancies in a particular grade or post filled in a year and there is no rampant vice of every harijan jumping over the  heads of others. More importantly, this is only an administrative device of showing a concession or furtherance of prospects  of selection. Even as under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) lesser  marks are  prescribed as  sufficient for these communities or  extra  marks  are  added  to  give  them  an advantage, the  regrading is one more method of boosting the chances of  selection of  these communities.  The prescribed minimum qualification  and standard of fitness are continued even  for   Scheduled  Castes  and  Scheduled  Tribes  under Annexure H. [240 B-D]      Annexure I is unexceptionable since all that it does is to readjust the proportion of reservation in conformity with the latest census. [240 E-F]      Similarly "carry  forward" raised  from  two  years  to three years  cannot be  struck down.  There is  no prospect, even if  the vacancies  are carried  forward, of  sufficient number of  Scheduled Castes  and Scheduled Tribes candidates turning out  to fill  them. Moreover,  there is  a provision

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 62  

that  if  a  sufficient  number  of  candidates  from  these communities are  not found,  applicants from  the unreserved communities would  be given appointment provisionally. After three years these vacancies cease to be reserved. [240 G-A]      Even in  Devadasan’s case, this Court has laid down the proposition  that  under  Article  16(4)  reservation  of  a reasonable percentage  of posts  for member of the Scheduled Castes and  Scheduled Tribes is within the competence of the State. What was struck down was that the reservations should not be  so excessive  as to  create a monopoly or to disturb unduly the  legitimate claims  of other communities. By this rule there is no danger of the total vacancies 189 being gobbled  up by  the harijan/girijan  groups  virtually obliterating Article  16(1). The  problem of giving adequate representation to  backward classes under Article 16(4) is a matter for  the Government  to consider, bearing in mind the need for a reasonable balance between the rival claims. [241 B-F]      Subject to  the condition  that the  carry forward rule shall not  result in  any given  year in  the  selection  or appointment  of   Scheduled  Castes   and  Scheduled  Tribes candidates considerably  in excess of 50%, the Annexure I is upheld. [242 E]      There is  nothing unreasonable  or wrong in Annexure J. Once the  parameters of reservation are within the framework of  the   fundamental  rights,   minute  scrutiny  of  every administrative measure is not permissible. [242 F]      Annexure K is beyond reproach. As between selection and non-selection posts  the role  of merit is functionally more relevant in  the former  than in the latter. If in selecting top officers,  posts could  be reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled  Tribes with lesser merit it cannot rationally be argued  that for  the posts  of peons,  or lower division clerks reservation  would  spell  calamity.  The  part  that efficiency plays  is far  more in  the case  of higher posts than in the appointments to the lower posts. [243 D]      Dilution of  efficiency caused by the minimal induction of a  small percentage  of reserved candidates cannot affect the  over-all   administrative   efficiency   significantly. Moreover, care  has been  taken to  give in-service training and coaching to correct the deficiencies. [244 B-C] [Chinnappa Reddy, J concurring]      The preamble to the Constitution of India proclaims the resolution of  the people  to secure  to  all  its  citizens justice, social,  economic and political, equality of status and opportunity  and  to  promote  fraternity  assuring  the dignity of  the individual. The right to equality before the law and  equality of  opportunity in  the matter  of  public employment are  guaranteed as  fundamental rights. The State is enjoined  upon by the Directive Principles to promote the welfare  of   the  people,   to   endeavour   to   eliminate inequalities in  status, facilities  and  opportunities  and special provisions  have been  made, in  particular, for the protection and  advancement  of  the  Scheduled  Castes  and Scheduled Tribes  in recognition  of their  low  social  and economic status and their failure to avail themselves of any opportunity of self-advancement. In short the constitutional goal is  the establishment of a socialist democracy in which justice-economic, social and political is secure and all men are equal  and have equal opportunity. Inequality whether of status, facility  or opportunity  is to end, privilege is to cease and  exploitation is  to go. The under-privileged, the deprived and the exploited are to be protected and nourished so as  to take  their place in an egalitarian society. State

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 62  

action is  to be  towards those  ends. It is in this context that Article  16 has  to be interpreted when State action is questioned as contravening Article 16. [255 A-F]      A Constitution,  such as  ours, must  receive  generous interpretation so  as to  give  an  its  citizens  the  full measure of  justice so  proclaimed. While  interpreting  the Constitution the  expositors must  concern themselves not so much with  words  as  with  the  spirit  and  sense  of  the Constitution which  could  be  found  in  the  Preamble  the Directive Principles and other such provisions. [256 G] 190      At one time it was assumed that because the fundamental rights are  enforce able  in a  court of law while Directive Principles are  not, the former were superior to the latter, that way  of  thinking  has  become  obsolete.  The  current thinking is  that while  Fundamental  Rights  are  primarily aimed at  assuring political freedom to the citizens against excessive State  action, the  Directive Principles are aimed at securing  social and  economic  freedoms  by  appropriate State   action.    The   Directive   Principles   are   made unenforceable in a limited sense because no Court can compel a Legislature to make laws. But that does not mean that they are less  important than Fundamental Rights or that they are not binding on the various organs of the State. They are all the same fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be  the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws.  The  Directive  Principles  should  serve  the Courts as  a Code  of Interpretation.  Every law attacked on the ground  of infringement  of Fundamental  Right should be examined to  see if the impugned law does not advance one or other of  the Directive  Principles or  if it  is not in the discharge of  some of the undoubted obligations of the State towards its  citizens  flowing  out  of  the  Preamble,  the Directive   Principles   and   other   provisions   of   the Constitution. [257 A-G]      Reservation of posts and all other measures designed to promote  the  participation  of  the  Scheduled  Castes  and Scheduled Tribes  in public  services at  all levels  are  a necessary consequence  flowing from  the Fundamental  Rights guaranteed by  Article 16(1).  This very  idea is emphasized further by  Article 16(4)  which is  not in the nature of an exception to  Article 16(1)  but a facet of that Article. In the State  of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas the court has repudiated the theory propounded in earlier cases that Article 16(4) is in the  nature of  an exception  to Article  16(1). It is no longer correct  to say that laws aimed at achieving equality as permissible exceptions. Such laws are necessary incidents of equality. [258 D-F]      Minister of Home Affairs v. Fisher [1979]3 All E.R. 21, State of Kerala & Anr. v. N.M. Thomas & Ors. [1976] 1 S.C.R. 906 @  930-933 and  The General Manager, Southern Railway v. Rangachari [1962]2 S.C.R. 586 referred to.      The figures  quoted from the report of the Commissioner of Scheduled  Castes and Scheduled Tribes for the year 1977- 78 reveal  how slow  and insignificant the progress achieved by the  members  of  these  communities  in  the  matter  of participation in  the Railway  Administration had  been. Far from acquiring  any monopolistic or excessive representation over any  category of  posts these  communities are  nowhere near being  adequately represented.  Neither the reservation rule nor  the "carry  forward"  rule  for  these  years  has resulted in  any such disastrous consequence. Therefore, the complaint of the petitioners that the circulars had resulted in excessive  representation of these communities is without foundation generally  or with  reference to  any  particular

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 62  

year. [246 D-G]      There is  no substance  in the argument that efficiency of  administration  would  suffer  if  the  Railway  Board’s directives were  followed in  the matter of reservations and promotions.  The  Railway  Board  had  stated  that  minimum standards were  insisted upon  for every  appointment and in the case  of candidates  wanting in  requisite standards  of efficiency  those  with  higher  marks  were  given  special intensive  training  to  enable  them  to  come  up  to  the requisite standards.  In the  case of  posts which  involved safety of movement of trains there was no 191 relaxation of standards in favour of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and they were required to pass the same rigid tests as others.[265 A-B]      There  is   no  fixed   ceiling   to   reservation   or preferential treatment in favour of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes though generally reservation may not be far in excess  of 50%  about which  there is  no rigidity. Every case must be decided on its own facts. [265 E]      There is nothing illegal or unconstitutional in any one of the impugned orders and circulars. [265 G] [Pathak J  concurring in  the  result  with  reservation  on certain questions.]      Article 46  of the  Constitution enjoins upon the State to treat  with special  care the  educational  and  economic interest of  the  weaker  sections  of  the  people  and  in particular the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. One of the  modes   in  which   the  economic   interest  of  these communities  can   be  promoted   is   by   reservation   of appointments or  posts in their favour in services under the State where  they are  not adequately represented. By virtue of Article 16(4), when the State intends to make reservation of appointments  or posts  in favour of these communities in services under  it nothing  in Article  16 prevents  it from doing so. Article 335 provides that claims of the members of these communities  shall be  taken into consideration in the making of  appointments to  services and posts in connection with  the  affairs  of  the  Union  or  a  State.  But  such consideration must  be consistent  with the  maintenance  of efficiency of administration which is regarded as paramount. It is  dictated by the common good and not of a mere section of the  people. Therefore,  whatever is  done in considering the claims  of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes must be consistent with  the need  for maintenance  of efficiency of administration. This  Article contains  a single  principle, namely, the  advancement of  Scheduled Castes  and Scheduled Tribes but  through modes and avenues which must not detract from the maintenance of an efficient administration. [250 B- H]      For securing  an efficient administration the governing criterion in  the matter  of appointments to posts under the State is  excellence and  the emphasis is solely on quality. The selection  is made  regardless of religion, race, caste, sex, descent,  place of birth or residence. However, a quota of the posts may be reserved in favour of backward citizens. But the  interests of  efficient administration require that at least  half the  total number  of posts  be kept  open to attract the best of the nation’s talent. If it was otherwise an excess  of the  reserved quota  would convert  the  State service  into   a  collective  membership  predominantly  of backward  classes.   The  maintenance   of   efficiency   of administration is  bound to be adversely affected if general candidates of  high merit  are correspondingly excluded from recruitment. Viewed  in that  light the  maximum of  50% for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 62  

reserved  quota   appears  fair  and  reasonable,  just  and equitable violation  of which  would contravene Article 335. [251 B-D]      M. R  Balaji v.  State of  Mysore [1963] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 439, 470,  T. Devadasan v. Union of India [1964]4 S.C.R. 680 and State  of Kerala  v. N.  M. Thomas  [1976]1  S.C.R.  906 referred to. 192

JUDGMENT:      ORIGINAL JURISDICTION:  Writ Petition Nos. 1041-1044 of 1980.            (Under Article 32 of the Constitution)      Shanti Bhushan, K. K. Venugopal, A. T. M. Sampath, P. N Ramalingam and R. Satish for the Petitioner.      Lal  Narain   Sinha,  Att.  General  of  India,  M.  K. Banerjee, Addl.  Sol.  Genl.  and  Miss  A.  Subhashini  for Respondents Nos. 1-5.      P. R.  Mridul, P.  H. Parekh, C. B. Singh, B. L. Verma, Rajan     Karanjawal  and  Miss  Vineeta  Caprihan  for  the Intervener.      K. B. Rohtagi and Praveen Jain for the Intervener.      R. K. Garg and P. K. Jain for the Intervener.      S. K. Bagga for the Intervener.      Altaf Ahmed for the Intervener.      S. Balakrishnan for the Intervener.      P. H. Parekh for Respondent No. 6 in W.P. No. 1042/79.      The following judgments were delivered: KRISHNA IYER. J. The Root Thought      The abolition  of slavery  has gone on for a long time. Rome abolished  slavery, America  abolished it,  and we did, but only the words were abolished  not the thing.      This agonising  gap between  hortative hopes  and human dupes vis  a vis  that serf-like  sector of  Indian society, strangely described as Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SCs and  STs, for  short), and the administrative exercises to bridge this big hiatus by processes like reservations and other concessions  in the  field of public employment is the broad issue  that demands  constitutional examination in the Indian setting  of competitive  equality before  the law and tearful inequality  in life.  A fasciculus  of directions of the Railway  Board has  been attacked as ultra vires and the court has  to  pronounce  on  it,  not  philosophically  but pragmatically. "The  philosophers have  only interpreted the world in  various ways; the point is to change it" -this was the  founding   fathers’  fighting   faith  and   serves  as perspective-setter for the judicial censor. 193 The Backdrop      The social  backdrop to  the forensic problem raised in this litigation  is best projected by lines of poetry quoted in Nehru’s Autobiography:      Bowed by the weight of centuries he leans      Upon his hoe and gazes on the ground,      The emptiness of ages on his face,      And on his back the burden of the world. The Problem      The dynamics and dialectics of social justice vis a vis the special  provisions of  the Constitution  calculated  to accelerate the  prospects of  employment of the harijans and the girijans  in the civil services with particular emphasis on promotions  of these  categories in  the Indian  Railways

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 62  

that, in  all these  cases,  is  the  cynosure  of  judicial scrutiny, from the angle of constitutionality in the context of the guarantee of caste-free equality to every person. Petitioners’ Challenge      The gravamen  of the constitutional accusation levelled in this  bunch of  quasi-class actions  under Art. 32 of the Constitution and  argued by a battery of counsel led by Shri Shanti Bhushan,  with heat and light, passion and reason, is the heartless  discrimination shown  against vast numbers of members employed  by the  Railway Administration through its policy directives, by bestowal of unconscionably ’pampering’ concessions, at  promotion levels,  on these social brackets belonging to the historically suppressed SCs & STs, heedless of over-all administrative efficiency in the Indian Railways and frustrating  the promotional  hopes of  the larger human segments of  economically downtrodden  senior  members.  The fall-out of  this ’benign discrimination’ of helping out the weakest sections  has been to blow up, out of all proportion to the  social realities,  the ’backwardness’ syndrome so as embrace  many   politically  powerful  castes  disguised  as Backward Classes. This constitutional amulet, rooted largely in caste,  the petitioners  lament,  has  been  misused  and applied  in   educational  and   employment  fields   on  an escalating scale. The perverted result is that a caste-riven nation is  a spectre  that haunts the land, pushing back the patriotic  prospect  of  a  homogenised  Indian  Society  of casteless  equality  and  projecting  instead  the  divisive alternative of  a heterogeneous  caste map  of  Bharat.  The fundamental failure  of this  sterile scheme of reservation- wise circumvention  of the  fundamental right  to  equality, ideologically and  pragmatically speaking,  has deepened the pathological condition  of communalism  besetting the Indian polity 194 and split  the have-nots  into snarling camps-a consummation disastrously  contrary   to  the  constitutional  design  of abolition  of   socioeconomic  inequality  through  activist stratagem of  equalisation geared  to actual  attainment  of integrated equality.      Logically, the  argument leads  to the formulation that each caste  and  community  is  bargaining  politically  for bigger bites  of the educational-and-employment cake so much so merit  becomes  irrelevant  or  takes  a  back  seat  and ’backward’  birth   brings  a   boon.   The   constitutional stultification of  an integrated  India  through  misuse  of ’reservation’ power  provided for  in Arts.  15 and 16 meant for the  direct ’dalits’  the pollution,  by  the  political Executive, of  our founding creed of an egalitarian order by playing casteification  politics and  the morbid dilution of ’backwardness’ marring  the dream  of a  secular republic by the nightmare  of a feudal vivisection of the people-if this picture drawn  by some  counsel be  true, even  in part, the basic task of transforming the economic order through social justice  will   be  baulked   through  destructive  communal disputes among the masses. Maybe, this may weaken the social revolution, leave  an indelible stain and incurable wound on the body  politic and  justify the censure by history of the engineers of  our political  power and  electoral processes. Hearing the  arguments of  the petitioners  one wonders, "Is caste  the   largest  political   party  ?"  Has  protective discrimination, so  necessary  in  an  insufferably  unequal society, created a Frankenstein’s monster ?      Have we  no dynamic  measures to drown social, economic and educational  backwardness of  whole  masses  except  the traditional self-perpetuating  quasi-apartheidisation called

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 62  

’reservation’ ?  Surely, our  democratic, secular  socialist republic is  no wane  moon but  a creative  power rooted  in equal  manhood,  an  egalitarian  reservoir  of  vast  human potential, a  demographic distribution of talent benumbed by brahman centuries  of social injustice but now seeking human expression under  a new  dispensation where  ’chill  penury’ shall no longer ’repress their noble rage’.      Caste,  undoubtedly,  in  a  deep-seated  pathology  to eradicate  which   the  Constitution  took  care  to  forbid discrimination based  on caste,  especially in  the field of education and  services under the State. The rulings of this court, interpreting  the relevant  Articles,  have  hammered home the  point  that  it  is  not  constitutional  to  base identification of backward classes on caste alone qua caste. If a  large number  of castes masquerade as backward classes and perpetuate  that division  in educational  campuses  and public offices,  the whole  process of  a caste-free society will  be  reversed.  We  are  not  directly  concerned  with backward  classes   as  such,   but  with   the   provisions ameliorative of the 195 Scheduled Castes  and the Scheduled Tribes. Nevertheless, we have to  consider seriously  the social  consequences of our interpretation of  Art. 16 in the light of the submission of counsel that  a vested interest in the caste system is being created and  perpetuated by over-indulgent concessions, even at promotional  levels, to  the  Scheduled  Castes  and  the Scheduled Tribes,  which are only a species of castes. "Each according to  his ability"  is being  substituted  by  "each according to  his caste",  argue the  writ  petitioners  and underscore the  unrighteous march of the officials belonging to the  SCs &  STs over the humiliated heads of their senior and more  meritorious brothers in service. The after-math of the caste-based  operation  of  promotional  preferences  is stated to  be deterioration  in the  over-all efficiency and frustration in  the ranks of members not fortunate enough to be born  SCs &  STs. Indeed, the ’inefficiency’ bogie was so luridly presented  that even the railway accidents and other operational  calamities   and   managerial   failures   were attributed to the only villain of the piece viz., the policy of reservation in promotions. A constitutionally progressive policy of advantage in educational and official career based upon economic  rather than social backwardness was commended before us by counsel as more in keeping with the anti-caste, pro-egalitarian tryst  with our constitutional destiny. And, Shri Shanti  Bhushan, at one stage, helped the court realise the consequences  of its  verdict if it upheld the pampering package of  promotional preferences by warning us of running battles in  the streets,  a sort of caste-war, against birth based ’privileges’ for the harijan-girijan millions. Our Approach      Of course, judicial independence has one dimension, not fully realised  by some  friends of  freedom. Threats of mob hysteria  shall   not  deflect   the  court  from  its  true accountability to  the Constitution,  its  spirit  and  text belighted  by   all  the   sanctioned  materials  The  other invisible sacrifice  of judicial  independence  relevant  to this case  is the  unwitting surrender to "the spirit of the group in  which the  accidents  of  birth  or  education  or occupation or  fellowship have given us (judges) a place. No effort or  revolution of the mind will overthrow utterly and at all times the empire of these subconscious loyalties." We quote  what  the  great  Justice  Cardozo  has  courageously confessed :           I have  spoken  of  the  forces  of  which  judges

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 62  

    avowedly avail  to shape  the form and content of their      judgments.  Even  these  forces  are  seldom  fully  in      consciousness. They  lie so  near the surface, however,      that their existence and 196      influence are  not likely  to be  disclaimed.  But  the      subject is  not exhausted with the recognition of their      power. Deep  below consciousness  are other forces, the      likes and  the  dislikes,  the  predilections  and  the      prejudices, the  complex of  instincts and emotions and      habits and  convictions, which  make the man whether he      be litigant or judge...... The great tides and currents      which engulf the rest of men do not turn aside in their      course and pass the judges by........... We shall never      be able to flatter ourselves, in any system of judicial      interpretation, that  we have eliminated altogether the      personal measures  of the  interpreter.  In  the  moral      sciences,  there   is  no  method  or  procedure  which      entirely  supplants  that  subjective  reason.  We  may      figure the task of the judge, if we please, as the task      of a translator, the reading of signs and symbols given      from without.  None the  less, we  will not  set men to      such a  task, unless they have absorbed the spirit, and      have filled  themselves with  a love,  of the  language      they must read. The British echo of this judicial weakness is heard in Prof. Griffith’s words:           These judges  have by their education and training      and the  pursuit of  their  profession  as  barristers,      acquired  a   strikingly  homogeneous   collection   of      attitudes,  beliefs   and  principles,  which  to  them      represents the public interest.      The emphasis  on the  subtle invasions from within upon functional autonomy  and forensic  objectivity mentioned  by Cardozo will be evident when we turn to the pathetic saga of the depressed  classes, even  today, painted  by  the  other side. The  learned Attorney  General, less  militant but not less firm  in his  submissions, called all this a caricature of the  poignant facts  of life and called upon us to assess the facts  with cold  objectivity and  warm humanity casting aside possible  sympathies suggested  by Justice Cardozo and Prof. Griffith.      We, as  judges dealing with a socially charged issue of constitutional  law,  must  never  forget  that  the  Indian Constitution is  a National  Charter  pregnant  with  social revolution, not  a Legal Parchment barren of militant values to usher  in a  democratic, secular, socialist society which belongs equally  to the masses including the harijan-girijan millions hungering  for a  humane deal after feudal colonial history’s long night.      Granville Austin  quotes profusely from the Constituent Assembly  proceedings  to  prove  the  goal  of  the  Indian Constitution to be 197 social revolution.  Radhakrishnan,  representing  the  broad consensus, said that           India  must   have  a  ’socioeconomic  revolution’      designed not  only to bring about the real satisfaction      of the  fundamental needs  of the common man, but to go      much deeper  and bring  about ’a  fundamental change in      the structure of Indian society’. The Cultural Core of the Constitutional Protection:      Let us  get some  glimpses of  history to get a hang of the problem.  ’In thy  book record  their groans’ may be the right quote  to begin  with. We cannot blink at the agony of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 62  

the depressed  classes over  the centuries  condemned by all social reformers  as rank  irreligion and  social injustice. Swami Vivekananda,  for instance,  stung by  glaring  social injustice, argued(2):           The same  power  is  in  every  man,  to  the  one      manifesting more, the other less. Where is the claim to      privilege. All  knowledge is in every soul, even in the      most ignorant,  he has  not manifested it, but, perhaps      he has  not had  the opportunity  the environments were      not,  perhaps,  suitable  to  him.  When  he  gets  the      opportunity he  will manifest it. The idea that one man      is born  superior to another has no meaning in Vedanta;      that between  two nations one is superior and the other      inferior has no meaning whatsoever........           Men will  be born  differentiated; some  will have      more power  than others.  We cannot  stop that....  but      that on  account of  this power  to acquire wealth they      should tyrannies  and ride  roughshod over  those,  who      cannot acquire  so much  wealth, is  not a  part of the      law, and the fight has been against that. The enjoyment      of advantage  over another is privilege, and throughout      ages   the    aim   of    morality   has    been    its      destruction.............           Our aristocratic  ancestors went  on treading  the      common masses  of our  country  under  foot  till  they      became helpless,  till under  this  torment  the  poor,      poor, people nearly forgot that they were human beings.      They have  been compelled  to be  merely hewers of wood      and drawers  of water  for centuries,  so much so, that      they are made to believe that they are born 198      as slaves, born as hewers of wood and drawers of water.      With all  our boasted  education of  modern  times,  if      anybody says a kind word for them, I often find our men      shrink at  once from the duty of lifting them up, these      poor downtrodden  people. Not  only so, but I also find      that all sorts of most demoniacal and brutal arguments,      culled from the crude ideas of hereditary transmission,      and other  such gibberish  from the  western world  are      brought forward  in order  to brutalise  and  tyrannies      over the poor, all the more......           Aye, Brahmins,  if the  Brahmin has  more aptitude      for learning on the ground of heredity than the Pariah,      spend no  more money  on the  Brahmin’s education,  but      spend all  on the  Pariah. Give  to the weak, for there      all the  gift is  needed. Our  poor people, these down-      trodden masses of India, therefore, require to hear and      to know  what they  really are.  Aye, let every man and      woman and  child, without  respect of  caste or  birth,      weakness and  strength, hear  and learn that behind the      strong and  the weak,  behind the  high  and  the  low,      behind everyone,  there is that Infinite Soul, assuring      that infinite  possibility and the infinite capacity of      all to  become great and good. Let us proclaim to every      soul-’Arise, awake  and  stop  not  till  the  goal  is      reached. Arise,  awake !  Awake from  the hyprotism  of      weakness. None  is really  weak; the  soul is infinite,      omnipotent and  omniscient. Stand  up, assert yourself,      proclaim the God within you, do not deny Him ! Too much      of inactivity,  too  much  of  weakness,  too  much  of      hypnotism has  been and  is upon our race........ Power      will come,  glory will come, goodness will come, purity      will come,  and everything that is excellent will come,      when this  sleeping soul  is roused  to  self-conscious      activity..........

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 62  

         Our proletariat  are doing  their duty........  is      there no  heroism in  it ?  Many turn out to be heroes,      when they  have some  great task  to  perform.  Even  a      coward easily  gives up  his life, and the most selfish      man behaves  disinterestedly when there is a multitude,      to cheer them on but blessed indeed is he who manifests      the same  unselfishness and  devotion to  duty  in  the      smallest of  acts. unnoticed  by all-and  it is you who      are actually  doing this,  ye  ever-trampled  labouring      classes of India ! I bow to you. There was the Everest presence of Mahatma Gandhi, the Father of the  Nation, who  staked his  life for the harijan cause. There was Baba 199 Saheb Ambedkar-a  mahar by  birth and  fighter to  his  last breath against the himalayan injustice to the harijan fellow millions stigmatised  by their  genetic handicap-who was the Chairman  of  the  drafting  committee  of  the  Constituent Assembly. There was Nehru, one of the foremost architects of Free India,  who stood four square between caste suppression by  the   upper  castes  and  the  socialist  egalitarianism implicit in secular democracy.      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,  particularly  that  pathetic segment  described  colourlessly  as  Scheduled  Castes  and Scheduled Tribes.  To recognise  these poignant realities of social history  and so  to interpret  the Constitution as to fulfil itself,  not eruditely  to  undermine  its  substance through the  tyranny of  literality, is the task of judicial patriotism so  relevant in  Third World  conditions to  make liberation a living fact.      The learned  Attorney General drew our attention to the yawning gap  between  the  legitimate  expectations  of  the socially  depressed   SC  &   ST  and   their  utter   under representation in  the Public  Services except  in such mean jobs as  of scavengers and sweepers where no other caste was forthcoming. Equality of opportunity would be absent so long as equalisation  strategy was  not put  into action, and the State, stage  by stage  and with great care and experimental eye, took steps to secure the ends of Arts. 16(1) and 16(4), read in  the light  of the  Preambular promise  of equality, fraternity and  dignity, the  Part IV directive of promotion of educational and economic interests of the SC & ST and the Special Chapter,  especially Art.  336,  devoted  to  better representation of  the SC  & ST in the services and posts in connection with  the affairs  of the  Union and  States.  We could not  apprehend  the  social  dimension  of  the  stark squalour of  SC&ST by  viewing Art.  16 (4) through a narrow legal aperture  but only by an apercu of the broader demands of social  democracy, without which the Republic would cease to be a reality to one-fifth of Indian humanity.      The final  address to  the Constituent  Assembly by Dr. Ambedkar drives  home this  point, not  to interpret  but to illumine the  scheme of  the equality code and the casteless society plea :           The third  thing we  must do  is not to be content      with  mere   political  democracy.  We  must  make  our      political  democracy   a  social   democracy  as  well.      Political democracy can- 200      not last  unless there  lies at  the base  of it social      democracy. What does social democracy mean ? It means a      way of  life which  recognises  liberty,  equality  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 62  

    fraternity as  the principles of life. These principles      of liberty,  equality and  fraternity  are  not  to  be      treated as  separate items  in a  trinity. They  form a      union of  trinity in the sense that to divorce one from      the other  is to  defeat the very purpose of democracy.      Liberty cannot  be  divorced  from  equality,  equality      cannot be  divorced from  liberty. Nor  can liberty and      equality   be   divorced   from   fraternity.   Without      fraternity, liberty  and equality  could not  become  a      natural course  of things. It would require a constable      to enforce  them. We  must begin  by acknowledging  the      fact that  there is  complete absence  of two things in      Indian society. One of these is equality. On the social      plane,  we  have  in  India  a  society  based  on  the      principles of  graded inequality  which means elevation      of some  and degradation  for others.  On the  economic      plane, we  have a  society in  which there are some who      have immense  wealth as against many who live in abject      poverty. On  the 26th  January 1950,  we are  going  to      enter into  a life  of contradictions.  In politics  we      will have  equality and  in social and economic life we      will  have   inequality.  In   politics  we   will   be      recognizing the  principle of  one man one vote and one      vote one  value. In  our social and economic structure,      continue to  deny the  principle of  one man one value.      How long  shall  we  continue  to  live  this  life  of      contradictions ?  How long  shall be  continue to  deny      equality in  our social  and  economic  life  ?  If  we      continue to  deny it  for long,  we will  do so only by      putting our  political  democracy  in  peril.  We  must      remove this  contradiction  at  the  earliest  possible      moment or  else those  who suffer  from inequality will      blow up the structure or political democracy which this      Assembly has  so laboriously built up (emphasis added).      Indeed from  another angle of vision, Art. 16(4) serves      to correct  a gross  social distortion  and  denial  of      human rights  to  whole  groups  ostracised  by  feudal      history. A  holistic concept  of human  rights includes      among its  components socioeconomic rights for, without      basic conditions of social justice, survival with human      dignity   is    an   impossibility.   Thus,   a   great      socioeconomic plan to uplift the harijan-girijan groups      is a  must for  living equality, proclaimed by Arts. 14      to 16,  to become  an active reality. It must be stated      that the petitioners did not contest the need for State      action to  raise the  lot of these backward most social      sectors but objected, its widespread 201      erosion of the right to basic equality which belongs to      the have-nots in the country. Where do we draw the line      ?      These are  the disturbing  issues going  to the root of progressive nationalism  raised by  the writ petitioners and turned against them by the State, but we are not inclined or entitled  to   venture  into   the   political   wisdom   of governmental  policies   vis  a  vis  ’backward’  community, calculus save  where constitutionality,  falling within  the judicial  jurisdiction,  confronts  us.  We  must  therefore confine the forensic focus to the specific issue of profound import projected  by the  aggrieved petitioners  whose chief attack is  against being passed over, seniority and superior merit notwithstanding,  in favour  of alleged  neophytes  or nitwits merely  because, by  birth, the latter belong to the SC&ST species,  trampling underfoot,  in  the  process,  the fundamental rights  of equal opportunity entrenched in Arts.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 62  

14 and 16(1) of the Constitution.      The  dimensions  of  the  problem,  the  human  numbers involved and  the agitational potential said to be simmering in the  civil services  were vividly drawn at the bar by one side. The tragic tale of die-hard decades of inequality even after Freedom,  the  socioeconomic  miles  to  go’  and  the constitutional ’promises  to keep’  (over which  judges will not legally sleep) before the dalit brethren may break their chains and  become at  least distant  neighbours to the less socially handicapped sector, were highlighted pragmatically, statistically,  hierarchically,  even  desperately,  by  the proponents of  the impugned  circulars  (Annexures  F  to  O covered by  Prayers I  to X).  These  submissions  serve  as poignant background  but the  decision on  the vires  of the Railway Board’s  directives will  depend  on  constitutional interpretation  applied   to  Indian   actualities,  not  to idealised abstractions  or theoretical  possibilities. True, the  politicisation   of  casteism   its  infiltration  into unsuspected human  territories and  the injection  of caste- consciousness in  schools and  colleges via  backward  class reservation are  a canker  in the  rose of  secularism. More positive measures of levelling up by constructive strategies may be  the developmental  needs. But  the judicial  process while  considering   constitutional  questions,   must  keep politics and  administrative alternatives  as out  of bounds except  to   the  extent   economics,  sociology  and  other disciplines  bear   scientifically  upon   the   proposition demanding court  pronouncement. Here  the sole issue, spread out into  the validity  of  the  supposed  sinful  circulars (Annexures F to O covered by Prayers I to X) is whether Art. 16, in  its sweep  and savings,  does permit State action in favour  of   socially  and  economically  backward  classes, especially the constitutionally favoured category called the SC & ST, to the point of liberal concessions slurring over 202 ’age’, ’merit’  and the  like, not  merely  at  the  initial entrance gate but even at the higher promotional docks.      Whether alternative policies should have been chosen by Government  or  would  have  served  better  to  remove  the handicaps of  the SC & STs, whether the advantages conferred on these  classes are  too generous and overly compassionate and whether  the considerable  numbers of  the  economically destitute receive  the same  sympathy  as  social  have-nots categorised as  SC &  ST these and other speculative maybes, are beyond  the courts  orbit save  where Art.  16 is hit by these omissions  and commissions.  Nor  is  it  the  court’s province to  question the  conscionableness or  propriety of constitutional provisions  which display  ultra concern  for members of  the SC  & ST.  The  court  functions  under  the Constitution, not  over it, interprets the Constitution, not amends it, implements its provisions, not dilutes it through personal    philosophy     projected    as    constitutional construction. Objective  tuned to constitutional wavelengths is our  function and  if-only  if-constitutional  guarantees have clearly been violated will the court declare as non est such governmental projects as go beyond the mandates of Part III read  in harmony  with Part  IV.  If,  on  a  reasonable construction, the  Administration’s special provisions under Art. 16(4)  exceed constitutional  limits, it is the duty of the court  to strike  dead  such  project.  Even  so,  while viewing  the  legal  issues  we  must  not  forget  what  is elementary that  law cannot go it alone but must function as a member of the sociological ensemble of disciplines.      If one out of a few reasonably tenable constructions of the  constitutional   provisions  vis  a  vis  the  impugned

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 62  

executive directives  may  sustain  the  latter,  the  court should and would refrain from using the judicial guillotine. There   is    a   comity    of   coordinate   constitutional instrumentalities  geared  to  shared  constitutional  goals which persuades  the judicature to sustain rather than slay, save where  the breach is brazen, the transgression is plain or the  effective co-existence  of the fundamental right and the administrative  scheme is  illusory. This  Court has, on former occasions,  upheld executive  and legislative  action hovering   "perilously   near"   but   not   plunging   into unconstitutionality (see  In re: Kerala Education Bill (1959 SCR 995  at 1064).  It is a constant guideline which we must vigilantly remember,  as we  have stated  earlier, that  our Constitution is  a dynamic  document with destination social revolution. It  is not  anaemic nor  neutral but  vigorously purposeful  and   value-laden  as   they  very   descriptive adjectives of  our Republic  proclaim. Where  ancient social injustice freezes the ’genial current of the soul’ for whole human segments our Constitution is not non-aligned. Activist equalisation, as a realistic strategy of 203 producing human equality, is not legal anathema for Arts. 14 and 16. To hold otherwise is constitutional obscurantism and legal literalism,  allergic  to  sociologically  intelligent interpretation.      The  Preamble   which  promises  justice,  liberty  and equality of  status and  opportunity within the framework of Secular, Socialist Republic projects a holistic perspective. Art. 16  which guarantees equal opportunity for all citizens in matters  of State Service inherently implies equalisation as a  process towards equality but also hastens to harmonize the  realistic  need  to  jack  up  ’depressed’  classes  to overcome  initial  handicaps  and  join  the  national  race towards progress  on an equal footing and devotes Art. 16(4) for this  specific purpose.  In a  given situation  of large social categories being submerged for long, the guarantee of equality with  the rest  is myth,  not reality, unless it is combined with  affirmative  State  action  for  equalisation geared to  promotion of  eventual equality. Article 16(4) is not a jarring note but auxiliary to fair fulfillment of Art. 16(1). The  prescription of  Art. 16(1) needs, in the living conditions of  India, the concrete sanction of Art. 16(4) so that those  wallowing in  the social quagmire are enabled to rise to  levels of equality with the rest and march together with  their   brethren  whom  history  had  not  so  harshly hamstrung. To bury this truth is to sloganise Art. 16(1) and sacrifice the facts of life.      This is  not mere  harmonious statutory construction of Art.  16(1)   and  (4)  but  insightful  perception  of  our constitutional culture,  reflecting the current of resurgent India bent  on making,  out of a sick and stratified society of inequality  and poverty,  a brave new Bharat. If freedom, justice  and   equal  opportunity   to  unfold   one’s   own personality, belong  alike to bhangi and brahmin, prince and pauper, if  the panchama  proletariat is  to feel the social transformation Art.  16(4) promises,  the State  must  apply equalising techniques which will enlarge their opportunities and thereby  progressively diminish  the need for props. The success of  State action  under Art.  16(4) consists  in the speed with  which result-oriented  reservation withers  away as,  no   longer  a   need,  not  in  the  everwidening  and everlasting operation  of an exception [Art. 16(4)] as if it were a  super-fundamental right to continue backward all the time. To  lend immortality  to the  reservation policy is to defeat its  raison de’etre; to politicise this provision for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 62  

communal support  and Party  ends is  to subvert  the solemn undertaking of  Art. 16(1),  to costeify  ’reservation’ even beyond  the   dismal   groups   of   backward-most   people, euphemistically described  as SC  & ST,  is to  run a  grave constitutional risk.  Caste, ipso  facto, is  not class in a secular State. 204      The authentic  voice of  our culture, voiced by all the great builders  of modern  India, stood for abolition of the hardships of  the pariah, the mlecha, the bonded labour, the hungry,  hard-working   half-slave,  whose   liberation  was integral to  our Independence. To interpret the Constitution rightly we  must understand  the people for whom it is made- the finer  ethos, the  frustrations,  the  aspirations,  the parameters  set  by  the  Constitution  for  the  principled solution of  social disabilities. This synthesis of ends and means, of  life’s maladies  and law’s  remedies is a part of the know-how  of constitutional interpretation if alienation from the people were not to afflict the justicing process.           A statute rarely stands alone. Back of Minerva was      the brain  of Jove,  and behind  Venus was the spume of      the ocean.      These broader  observations are  necessary to  set  our sights right,  to appreciate  that our Constitution lays the gravestone on  the old  unjust order  and the cornerstone of the new  humane order.  This constitutional consciousness is basic to  interpretative wisdom.  We may  now start with the facts of  the case  and spell  out the  particular  problems demanding our consideration. Constitutional questions cannot be viewed in vacuo but must be answered in the social milieu which gives it living meaning. After all, the world of facts enlivens the  world of words. And logomachy is not law but a fatal, though  fascinating, futility  if alienated  from the facts of life. So, before pronouncing on the legality of the impugned ten  orders we  must sketch  the social  setting in which they  were issued  and the  socioeconomic facts  which clothe Art. 16(4) with flesh and blood.           ’The wisest  in council,  the ablest in debate and      the most  agreeable companion  in the commerce of human      life,  is   that  man   who  has   assimilated  to  his      understanding the greatest number of facts.’ The facts      The Indian  Railways,  with  an  impressive  record  of expansion, employs  colossal numbers  of servants in various typically hierarchical  classes and grades. While the Indian Railways Act,  1890, substantially  regulates  many  of  the functions  of  the  railway  administration  in  India,  the Railway Board  is constituted under the Indian Railway Board Act, 1905,  with a  view more  effectively  to  control  the administration  of   railways.  The  Central  Government  is statutorily empowered 205 to invest  the Railway  Board with  all or any of the powers and functions  of the  Central Government  under the  Indian Railways Act,  1890. Power  is also given by s. 2 to vest in the Railway  Board the  capacity to  make general  rules for railways administered  by the  Government.  Of  course,  the investment of  powers upon  the Railway  Board  is,  broadly speaking,  subject   to  the   condition  that  the  Central Government retains  the ultimate  authority in  all  matters connected with  the Railway  Administration. The Ministry of Home Affairs, in the Government of India, deals usually with all matters  of personnel,  conditions  of  service  of  the Central Government  staff and  the  like.  Policy  decisions regarding matters covered by Art. 16(4) apparently originate

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 62  

from the Ministry of Home Affairs and emanate to the various institutions  like  the  Railway  Board  which  responsively implement them.  In the  present case,  ten directives  were issued by  the Railway  Board on  different occasions, which disclosed ’benign  discrimination’ in  favour  of  Scheduled Castes and  Scheduled  Tribes  and  are  challenged  by  the petitioners as  ’reverse discrimination’, if we may use that expression   popularised   in   American   legalese.   These directives  were   designed  to   protect  and  promote  the interests of  members of  the SC & ST in the matter of their employment under  the Indian Railway Administration and they specially related  to the softer criteria for promotion. The Railway Board  acted, as  is discernible  from the  relevant orders, in obedience to the policy decisions of the Ministry of Home Affairs. Some argument was addressed on the validity of the  Railway  Board’s  orders  on  procedural  and  other technical grounds.  We see  no substance  in them. The Board was bound  to carry  out the Central Government’s directives under Art.  16(4) and  did it.  The broader issue of ’benign discrimination’ deserves close study.      The meat  of the  matter, to  put it  that way,  is the gross discrimination  alleged to  be implicit in the several Circulars of  the Railway Board and the non-applicability of Art. 16(4)  to save  these  circulars.  The  focus  of  this litigation must  primarily turn  on that issue and the court must navigate  towards egalitarian  justice at  the level of promotion posts  in the  public services,  keeping the land- mark  rulings  of  this  Court  as  mariner’s  compass.  The disturbing perpetuation  of socioeconomic  suppression of  a whole fifth  of Indian  manhood-the dalits-and the righteous resistance to  prolonged  ’reverse  casteism’  resulting  in deepening demoralization  of the  economically oppressed-the soshits-have been  projected  by  counsel  on  the  forensic screen as  a conflict between equalisation and equality. Our founding  fathers,   familiar  with  social  dialectics  and socialist enlightenment, surely would have intended to bring both these have-not categories together as a 206 broad brotherhood  against the  die-hard  Establishment  and would never  have contemplated  a fratricidal strategy which would blind  and divide  brothers in distress-the dalits and the soshits-and  harm the  integration of the nation and its developmental  march.   Unless   by   dialectical   approach sociologists lay  bare this  false dilema  of dalits  versus soshits, the  growing distrust in democracy will deepen, the jurisprudence of  constitutional revolution  and egalitarian justice will  fade in  the books  and the  founding hopes of January 26,  1950, will  sour  into  cynical  dupes  of  the masses, decades  after! Wider  perspectives must, therefore, inform our  study of  the equality  code (Arts. 14 to 16) to rid it  of social  contradictions and  read into it the need for a  dalit soshit partnership in demanding social justice. Felix Frankfurter  set the  judicial function  when he  said :(1)           A Judge should be compounded of the faculties that      are demanded  of the  historian and the philosopher and      the prophet.  The last  demand upon  him-to  make  some      forecast of  the consequences  of his action-is perhaps      the heaviest.  To pierce  the curtain of the future, to      give shape and visage to mysteries still in the womb of      time, is  the gift  of  the  imagination.  It  requires      poetic  sensibilities  with  which  judges  are  rarely      endowed and  which their  education does  not  normally      develop.  These  judges  must  have  something  of  the      creative  artist  in  them;  they  must  have  antennae

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 62  

    registering feeling  and judgment  beyond logical,  let      alone quantitative, proof.      Be  that   as  it   may,  the  court  must  go  to  the constitutional basics  for  guidance,  decode  the  articles indifferent  to   agitational   portents   and   ideological speculations, but responsive to the urgent implementation of Art. 38 into the reality of Indian life. Article 38 reads:           38(1). The  State  shall  strive  to  promote  the      welfare of  the people  by securing  and protecting  as      effectively as  it may a social order in which justice,      social, economic  and political  shall inform  all  the      institutions of the national life.           (2) The  State  shall  in  particular,  strive  to      minimise the  inequalities in  income, and endeavour to      eliminate  inequalities   in  status,   facilities  and      opportunities, not  only amongst  individuals but  also      amongst groups of people residing in different areas or      engaged in different vocations.                                             (emphasis added) 207      The learned  Attorney General,  while  emphasising  the egalitarian commitment  of the  Constitution over  the whole range of  public services  throughout their career, defended the  impugned  orders  by  law  and  logic,  pragmatics  and statistics,  and   countered  the   hypotheticals   of   the petitioners by  the actual  furnished by  official facts and figures. He  also relied on a few precedents, in particular, Rangachari’s case(1) and Thomas’s case(2) both of which bind this Bench.  He also  sought to  explain away  the effect of Balaji’s case(3)  and Devadason’s case(4) on which the other side had heavily relied to nullify some of the circulars.      The Union  of India  placed before  us  its  case  that notwithstanding measures  for bringing the gap in the matter of gross  under-representation  in  the  Administration,  no adequate improvement  had been  registered and, and so, more dynamic State  action, to  fulfil its  constitutional  tryst with the  frustrated fifth  of the  people described as SC & ST, became  necessitous. The  raw reality  of meagre harijan and girijan  presence in  the public  services conscientised the Administration into taking a series of cautions steps to catalyse the prospects of these categories entering the many Departments of  Government not  merely at  the initial stage but also  at  promotional  points  and  in  appointments  to supervisory posts  so as  to become  members of  the  higher echelons. The  learned Attorney  General contended that such affirmative actions,  slurring over  fanatical and financial insistence  on   so-called  merit   and  seniority,  was  in conformity with  Art. 16(1)  itself and,  in any  case,  was protected by Art.16(4). Maybe, the human numbers outside the SC  &  ST  honestly  suffer  some  meyhem  in  their  career especially at  the higher  notches of  promotion after  long stagnation and are bitter that the shudra or panchama steals a march over him now, although the poignant pages of earlier history have been a negation of personhood then for millions of the dregs of society, desperately driving Dr. Ambedkar to vow "I shall not die a Hindu". But the synthesis of Art. 16, not the  antithesis between Art. 16(1) and Art. 16(4), gives the clue to creative constitutional construction.      The learned  Attorney General’s  plea  was  that  in  a society of  chronic inequality  and scarcity  of employment, actual equality could never be midwifed without birth pangs, and discriminatory  unconstitutionality  could  not  vitiate programmes meant to achieve real-life 208 equality, unless  we took a pragmatic view. This approach is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 20 of 62  

permissible if we follow Chief Justice Warren:           Our  judges  are  not  monks  or  scientists,  but      participants in the living stream of our national life,      steering the law between the dangers of rigidity on the      one hand  and of  formlessness on the other. Our system      faces no  theoretical dilemma  but a  single continuous      problem: how  to apply  to ever-changing conditions the      never-changing principles of freedom.      Let us  draw the  precise battle  lines to  contain the constitutional conflict  within the  actual limits. Equality of  opportunity   in  matters   of  State  employment  is  a constitutional guarantee and no citizen can be discriminated against on  the score  only of sex, caste, descent, place of birth or  residence. So, one point pressed before us is that Scheduled Castes  cannot be  a favoured  class in the public services  because   they  are   ’castes’  and  cannot  claim preference qua  castes unless specially saved by Art. 16(4). And Art.  16(4) speaks  of class,  not caste and the two are different, however, politically convenient the confusion may be. Another  vital contention put forward by counsel for the petitioners  was   that  Art.   16(4)  could  not  apply  to promotional levels.  A third  basic plea was that efficiency of administration  was a  constitutional consideration under Art. 335  and could  not be a sacrificial goat to propitiate the backward  class Kali.  The impugned  circulars  offended against efficiency,  both by fomenting frustration among the Civil Services  indirectly  producing  inefficiency  and  by manning higher  posts which demand higher skills with men of lower competitive  calibre and  less experience  in  service thus  posting  ’efficiency  risks’  in  strategic  positions violating Art. 335.      The contentious  issue is  now clear.  Are SC & ST mere castes within  the sense  of Art.  16(2) ?  If so,  can Art. 16(4)  help   these  castes   through  rule  of  promotional partiality ?  And, in  any case, can Art. 16(4) rescue rules of benign discrimination if the impact thereof is generation of gross  inefficiency in  administration ?  Is not economic ’have notism’  a better yardstick of backwardness in secular India?      A brief resume of the structure of the Railway Services may help  understand the  rival arguments  in their  precise setting. The  pyramid begins,  at the  base, with  Class  IV posts and  rises to  the apex, by stages, through Class III, Class II  and Class  I. True  to our  hierarchical  culture, pervasive  in   Indian  Services,  there  are  further  sub- divisions, consisting  of many  categories in each class and many grades  in each  category. The agencies for recruitment are the Union Public Service 209 Commission, the  Railway  Service  Commission  and  the  top officers authorised  by the  Railway Board  in this  behalf. Ordinarily the  first entry  into each category is filled by direct  recruitment,   if  we   may  use  language  loosely. Thereafter, appointments  to  higher  grades/categories  are usually  by   promotion.  The   promotional  processes   are traditionally two-fold,  viz., (a) by departmental selection based on  merit-cum-seniority, and (b) by escalation, in the order  of   seniority,  from   the  lower   to  the   higher grade/category, subject,  of course  to being  weeded out if found unfit.  Candidates belonging  to SC&ST receive certain pronounced  advantages   both  at   the  stage   of  initial recruitment and  later at  the promotion  stage. The  Indian Railway Establishment  Manual a  compendious  collection  of rules and directions bearing on the conditions of employment of railway personnel, sets out all the information. Speaking

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 21 of 62  

population-wise and  in  approximate  terms,  the  Scheduled Castes constitute about 15% and the Scheduled Tribes 7 1/2%. Broadly based  on the  ratio of the strength of SC&ST to the whole population,  the Railway  Administration provided  for reservation for  candidates belonging  to  the  SC&ST.  This percentage of  reservation applied  to Class  IV, Class III, Class II  and, in  a limited  way, to  Class  I  posts.  The reservation is  worked out  by the  method known as 40-point roster. These  special provisions notwithstanding the intake of these communities, stagnating at the bottom of the Indian policy, continued  to be  chronically niggardly. To increase the rate  of absorption  of SC&ST into the services, further facilities, concessions  and relaxations  were offered  from time to  time. Despite these seemingly attractive employment opportunities the  dismal  backwardness  in  the  matter  of representation in  administration from  among the  SC&ST was such that  the vacancies reserved for them remained, in many cases, unfilled  by SC  & ST  candidates. Lest  the  overall representation of  the members  of the SC&ST should continue deplorably negligible  Government adopted a policy of "carry forward", for  upto three  recruitment  years,  of  reserved vacancies if  enough number  of  candidates  from  the  said groups did  not get  selected. The  "carry forward" rule was calculated to  keep open  reserved vacancies  for  at  least three years  so that  the under representation could be made up at  least in  part. Homogenisation of the dalits into the national mainstream  was regarded  as vital to our democracy by the  State  and  these  positive  strategies  of  special opportunities vis  a vis  SC&ST had,  as its  raison d’etre, only the imperative need to exercise the haunting spectre of the socially  and economically  suppressed  species  and  to abolish the utter squalour of SC&ST so that the community at large could  march ahead  without  haggard  groups  dragging their feet.  Social conscience considers balanced democratic development  as   the  humane  justification  for  selective discrimination. 210      With this  backdrop, we may epitomise the ten ’tainted’ directives and scan them for their unconstitutionality.      Special provisions for depressed classes and even other castes  have   a   pre-constitution   history.   After   the Constitution was  enacted the legality of old rules based on caste became  moot and  the Central  Government revised  its policy. The post-Constitution re-incarnation of the communal G.O.  concentrated   not  on   caste  orientation   but   on elimination of  socioeconomic suppression  and  the  diverse ways to achieve this objective.      We must  remember, in this context, not merely the four classes of  Service but also the broad division of the staff into selection  and non-selection  posts. The  first  policy statement of  the Union  of India  on the  issue  of  better representation of  SC&ST in  Government Service  begins with Resolution No.  42/21/49-NG 8  of  September  13,  1950.  To understand the  functional compulsions, purpose, orientation and constitutional  parameters relevant  to  such  a  policy formulation we  have to  refer to  a  few  articles  of  the Constitution.      Articles 14  to 16 form a code by themselves and embody the distilled  essence of  the Constitution’s  casteless and classless egalitarianism. Nevertheless, our founding fathers were realists,  and so  did not  declare the  proposition of equality in  its  bald  universality  but  subjected  it  to certain special  provisions, not  contradicting the  soul of equality, but  adapting that never changing principle to the ever-changing social  milieu. That  is how  Arts. 15(4)  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 22 of 62  

16(4) have  to be  read together with Arts. 15(1) and 16(1). The first sub-article speaks of equality and the second sub- article amplifies  its  content  by  expressly  interdicting caste as  a ground  of discrimination. Article 16(4) imparts to the  seemingly static  equality embedded  in Art. 16(1) a dynamic quality  by importing equalisation strategies geared to the eventual achievement of equality as permissible State action, viewed  as an  amplification of  Art. 16(1) or as an exception to it. The same observation will hold good for the sub-articles of  Art. 15.  Thus  we  have  a  constitutional fundamental guarantee  in Arts.  14  to  16;  but  it  is  a notorious fact  of our  cultural heritage that the Scheduled Castes and  the Scheduled  Tribes have been in unfree Indian nearly dehumanised,  and a facet of the struggle for Freedom has been the restoration of full personhood to them together with  the   right  to  share  in  the  social  and  economic development of  the  country.  Article  46  is  a  Directive Principle contained in Part IV. Every Directive Principle is fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of 211 the State to apply that principle in making law. Article 46, in emphatic terms, obligates the State.           "to promote  with special care the educational and      economic  interests  of  the  weaker  sections  of  the      people, and, in particular, of the Scheduled Castes and      Scheduled Tribes,  and shall  protect them  from social      injustice and all forms of exploitation. Reading Art.  46 together with Art. 16(4) the luscent intent of the  Constitution-framers emerges  that the exploited lot of  the   harijan  girijan  groups  in  the  past  shall  be extirpated with  special care by the State. The inference is obvious that  administrative participation by SC&ST shall be promoted  with   special  care   by  the  State.  Of  course reservations under  Art. 16(4)  and  promotional  strategies envisaged by  Art. 46  may be  important but  shall not  run berserk and imperil administrative efficiency in the name of concessions to backward classes. Article 335 enters a caveat in this behalf:           335. The  claims of  the members  of the scheduled      Castes and  the Scheduled  Tribes shall  be taken  into      consideration  consistently  with  the  maintenance  of      efficiency  of   administration,  in   the  making   of      appointments to  services and  posts in connection with      the affairs of the Union or of a State. The positive  accent of  this Article  is that the claims of SC&ST to  equalisation of  representation in  services under the State,  having regard  to their sunken social status and impotence  in   the  power   system,  shall  be  taken  into consideration. The  negative element,  which is  part of the Article, is  that measures  taken by  the State, pursuant to the mandate  of Arts. 16(4), 46 and 335, shall be consistent with and not subversive of "the maintenance of efficiency of administration".      Within this  broad constitutional framework the Central Government worked out its policy, way back in 1950, and made subsequent alterations  in keeping  with the  needs  of  the situation,  the   poor  progress  registered,  the  militant impatience of the affected SC&ST and the improved tactics to hasten abolition  of the depressed status of these groups by effective equalisation with the rest.      Even here,  it may be noticed that the Constitution has given a  special position  for the  Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.      Article 341  makes it  clear that  a ’Scheduled  Caste’

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 23 of 62  

need not  be  a  ’caste’  in  the  conventional  sense  and, therefore, may  not be  a caste  within the meaning of Arts. 15(2) or  16(2). Scheduled  Castes become  such only  if the President specifies any castes, races or tribes or 212 parts or  groups within  castes, races  or  tribes  for  the purpose of  the Constitution.  So, a group or a section of a group, which  need  not  be  a  caste  and  may  even  be  a hotchpotch of many castes or tribes or even races, may still be a  Scheduled Caste  under Art.  341. Likewise,  races  or tribal communities  or parts  thereof or  part or  parts  of groups within  them may still be Scheduled Tribes (Art. 342) for the  purpose of the Constitution. Under this definition, one group  in a  caste may  be a Scheduled Caste and another from the  same caste  may not  be. It  is the  socioeconomic backwardness of a social bracket, not mere birth in a caste, that  is   decisive.  Conceptual   errors  creep   in   when traditional obsessions obfuscate the vision.      This aspect has been referred to in the State of Kerala v. N. M. Thomas by me, and dealt with at more length by Ray, C.J.:           Scheduled Castes  and Scheduled  Tribes are  not a      caste  within   the  ordinary   meaning  of  caste.  In      Bhaiyalal v.  Hari kishan  Singh and Ors.(2) this Court      held  that  an  enquiry  whether  the  appellant  there      belonged to the Dohar caste which was not recognised as      a Scheduled  Caste and his declaration that he belonged      to the  Chamar caste  which was a Scheduled Caste could      not be permitted because of the provisions contained in      Article 341.  No Court  can come  to a finding that any      Caste or  any tribe  is a  Scheduled Caste or Scheduled      Tribe. Scheduled  Caste is  a caste  as notified  under      Article  366(25).  A  notification  is  issued  by  the      President under Article 361 as a result of an elaborate      enquiry. The  object  of  Article  341  is  to  provide      protection to  the members  of Scheduled  Castes having      regard to  the economic  and  educational  backwardness      from which they suffer.      The  President   notifies  Scheduled  Castes  not  with reference to  any caste  characteristics but  their  abysmal backwardness, as  is evident from the scheme of Part XVI. He appoints, under Art. 338, a Special Officer whose duty is to investigate into  all matters relating to safeguards for the SC&ST. The  Constitution provides  not merely  for  adequate representation of  SC&ST to  services and  posts  under  the Union and States, but also provides for reservation of seats for SC&ST  in the  Legislatures. The  cursory study  of  the Articles relating to the status and safeguards of SC&ST puts it beyond  doubt that  the founding fathers have assigned to them a  special place and shown towards them special concern and charged the State with special mandates to redeem 213 these handicapped  human sectors from their grossly retarded situation. Indeed, they are not merely backward, but are the backwardmost and cannot be equated with just any other caste in the  Hindu fold.  It is,  therefore, problematic  whether Art. 16(2)  when it  refers to  equality among  castes deals with the Scheduled Castes which, as shown above, may even be made of  a plurality  of castes  or groups  or races and may vary from  State to  State. Also,  a  caste,  subjected  qua caste, to  the most  humiliating handicaps may be a backward class although  the Court will hesitate to equate caste with class except where the degree of dismalness is dreadful. The relevance of  this point will be clear when we deal with the legal submissions of counsel.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 24 of 62  

    We will  now state, in an abbreviated form, the various measures of  the Railway  Board (in response to decisions of the Ministry of Home Affairs) for reservation in services of SC&ST.      After noting  the policy  of communal representation in the Services  before the Constitution and the constitutional ban on discrimination by way of reservation on the ground of caste save  in the  case of  SC&ST (and in some cases Anglo- Indians with whom we are unconcerned here) the Home Ministry proceeded to spell out the new stance:           Pending  the   determination  of  the  figures  of      population at  the Census  of 1951  the  Government  of      India have  decided to  make the following reservations      in recruitment to posts and services under them:           (a) Scheduled  Castes:-The existing reservation of      12 1/2  % of  vacancies filled by direct recruitment in      favour of  the Scheduled  Castes will  continue in  the      case of  recruitment of  posts and services made, on an      all-India basis  by open  competition, i.e. through the      Union Public  Service Commission  or by  means of  open      competitive test  held by  any other  authority.  Where      recruitment is  made otherwise than by open competition      the reservation  for Scheduled Castes will be 16-2/3 as      at present.           (b) Scheduled  Tribes:-Both in recruitment by open      competition and  in recruitment  made otherwise than by      open competition  there will be a reservation in favour      of members  of Scheduled  Tribes of 5% of the vacancies      filled by direct recruitment.           ......Under the Constitution all citizens of India      are eligible for consideration for appointment to posts      and services  under the Central Government irrespective      of their 214      domicile  or  place  of  birth  and  there  can  be  no      recruitment to any Central Service which is confined by      rule to  the inhabitants  of  any  specified  area.  In      practice however recruitment to class I and II services      and posts is likely to attract candidates from all over      India and will be on a truly all-India basis, while for      the majority  of Class  III services  & posts which are      filled otherwise  than through the Union Public Service      Commission only  those residing in the area or locality      in which  the Office is located are likely to apply. In      the  latter   class  of   cases  the   percentages   of      reservations for  Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes      will be  fixed by  Government taking  into account  the      population of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes      in that area. Reservations  were   excluded  for  promotions  and  minimum qualifications were  a ’must’. But age relaxation by 3 years (from the maximum fixed for others) was allowed. This policy is not challenged as unconstitutional and rightly so.      However, this  special provision  showed  only  minimal concessions   to    SC&ST,   being   the   first   cautious, conservative, post-constitutional  measure under Art. 16(4). But law is what law does. Did this reluctant relaxation only on a few grounds work? Constant monitoring of law-in-action, with an  eye on  the end  result, is social engineering. The goal here  was to  awaken the  sleeping soul and harness the harijan     resource     by     mainstreaming     techniques constitutionally sanctioned.  The policy  proved  non-viable and a  change of  strategy was  called for and by Annexure D the Railway Board altered the rules "with a view to securing increased representation  of Scheduled  Castes and Scheduled

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 25 of 62  

Tribes in the Railway Services". At the instance of the Home Ministry the  Railway Board  decided on  5-10-1955 that more realistic relaxations  were needed and authorised recruiting bodies to  slur  over  low  places  obtained  by  the  SC&ST candidates:           .....except where  such authority  considers  that      the minimum  standard necessary  for the maintenance of      efficiency of  the administration has not been reached.      Whenever candidates  are selected  in this  manner, the      appointing authorities will make necessary arrangements      to  give   additional  training  and  coaching  to  the      recruits so  that they might come up to the standard of      other recruits appointed along with them. The anxiety  to level  up the  lowly human layers by special training so  as to  maintain  administrative  efficiency  is evident in this directive. 215 Likewise,  where   direct  recruitment,  otherwise  than  by examination was provided for, taking of SC&ST candidates           ’..... fulfilling  a lower standard of suitability      than from  other communities,  was permitted so long as      the candidates  have the  prescribed minimum  education      and  technical   qualifications  and   the   appointing      authorities  are   satisfied  that   the  lowering   of      standards will not unduly affect the maintenance of the      efficiency of administration.’ Here again,  obsession with  ’efficiency’ is  manifest. Then comes what is called the ’carry forward’ rule:           (3)(a)  if   a  sufficient  number  of  candidates      considered suitable  by the recruiting authorities, are      not available for the communities for whom reservations      are made  in a  particular year, the unfilled vacancies      should be  treated as unreserved and filled by the best      available candidates.  The number of reserved vacancies      thus  treated   as  unreserved  will  be  added  as  an      additional quota  to the  number that would be reserved      in the  following year in the normal course, and to the      extent to  which approved  candidates are not available      in  that   year  against   this  additional   quota,  a      corresponding addition  should be made to the number of      reserved vacancies in the second following year.           *         *         *         *           (b) In  the  event  of  suitable  Scheduled  Caste      candidate  not   being  available,  a  Scheduled  Tribe      candidate can  be appointed  in the subsequent reserved      vacancy and  vice versa  subject to  adjustment in  the      subsequent points of the roster.      The quota  for two years, if carried forward, would not materially affect  the stream  of ’merit-worthy’ candidates, nor  substantially   diminish  the  prospects  of  non-SC&ST candidates in  a given year. So the Railway Board introduced the principle consistently with Art. 335.      Government moved  further because  real power  could be shared by  the weakest  sections only  if the  doors of  the higher decks were pened to them. The higher echelons are the real controllerates,  not the  menial levels, hierarchically structured as  our society is. Obviously, Art. 16(4) was not designed to  get more harijans into Government as scavengers and  sweepers  but  as  ’officers’  and  ’bosses’,  so  that administrative power  may become  the common property of the high and low, homogenised and integrated into one community. Social stratification, 216 the bane  of the  caste system, could be undone and vertical mobility won not by hortative exercises but by experience of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 26 of 62  

shared power.      Viewed thus,  the ’open sesame’ strategy for entry into superior cadres  could only  be by  extending concessions at higher levels  of ’promotions’.  Annexure  D  did  not  make reservations for SC&ST for promotion posts, but merely asked for sympathy on the part of promoting authorities. Lachrymal exercises, even  in government  directives, are in practice, little more  than skin-deep;  and elitist  alibis, when  the ancient anguish  of the  lowliest &  the lost  besieges  the citadels of  the status  quo, readily checkmate ameliorative moves. The  harijan lot,  in administrative  services at the promotional  levels,   remained  a  paper  hope,  a  teasing illusion and  a promise of unreality. Article 46, whether we like it  or not,  ordains that the State shall ’with special care’ promote the interests of the SC&ST. And so long as the harijan-girijan remained  an alien  to the Civil Service and the janitors  for the higher chambers of Administration were themselves non-harijan-girijan  gentlemen,  he  would  be  a naive sociologist  who  thought  that  mere  plea  for  more sympathy  made   in  official   orders  would   work  magic. Government, on  a performance  audit of  its policy  of  ’no reservation’  for   promotion  posts,  discovered  that  the harijan could  hardly reach higher positions. More effective methods were needed.      A radical  change in policy was effected by the Railway Board  through  Annexure  F  of  April  27,  1959.  ’Merit’, sanctified by  tradition, lost  the battle.  ’Tradition is a great retarding force, the vis inertiae of history;’ and so, heroic measures  of progressive  thrust, the  Railway  Board realised, alone could effect the break-through and bring the harijan-girijan  groups   into  the   higher   brackets   of Administration  Annexure   was  promulgated   providing  for reservation in  promotions. This  has been challenged before us.      The tepid  provision opening  up  promotion  posts  for ’reserved’ categories  was first  confined to  Class III and Class II,  Class I  being too  sacrosanct to  be  soiled  by meritless members. Annexure F reads:           Sub: Reservation for  members of  Scheduled Castes                and  Scheduled  Tribes  in  posts  filled  by                promotion in Railways.           Reference  is   invited  to   Board’s  letter  No.      E55CMI/3 dated  5-10-55. The  Railway  Board  have,  in      partial modification  of para  IV of  the above letter,      decided as follows:-           (a)  Promotion from Class IV to Class III and from                Class III to Class II. 217           The Railway  Board have  decided  that  promotions      from Class  IV to Class III and from Class III to Class      II service  are of the nature of direct recruitment and      the  prescribed  quota  of  reservation  for  Scheduled      Castes and  Scheduled Tribes  should be  provided as in      direct recruitment.  The field  of eligibility  in  the      case  of   Scheduled  Castes   and   Scheduled   Tribes      candidates should  be four  times the  number of  posts      reserved without  any condition of qualifying period of      service in  their case,  subject to  the condition that      such consideration  should not normally extend to staff      beyond two grades immediately below the grade for which      the selection is held. This reservation  was confined  to ’selection posts’ and the circular was  explicit that  "there will  be  no  quota  for Scheduled Castes  and Scheduled Tribes candidates in respect of promotion  to "non-selection"  posts. For "general posts"

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 27 of 62  

of certain types in Class III, it was laid down:           (c) "General Posts" in Class III.           There are certain other types of posts on Railways      such as  Passenger Guides,  Welfare Inspectors,  Safety      Inspectors Platform  Inspectors, Publicity  Inspectors,      Vigilance Inspectors,  etc., which  are ex-cadre  posts      filled by  drawing staff  from more  than  one  branch.      Filling of  these posts  is in  the  nature  of  direct      recruitment and  the reservation  for Scheduled  Castes      and  Scheduled   Tribes   as   applicable   to   direct      recruitment should be applied."      More chances  to pass  tests, additional  training  and coaching to raise the standard of the sub-standard were also provided for  in the  Board’s order. Homage was thus paid to the ’administrative efficiency’ component of Art. 335.      This departure  regarding reservation  at the promotion tier for  selection posts  was challenged  before this Court but upheld  in Rangachari’s  case. We  will  dwell  at  some length on  that ruling  later but we may merely mention than an appeal was made to us by counsel for the petitioners that we should  reconsider, by  reference to  a larger bench, the ratio of  Rangachari which  has been approvingly referred to for  nearly  two  decades  by  this  Court,  acted  upon  by Government throughout  and enjoys,  if we  may say  so  with great  respect,   our   full   concurrence.   Constitutional propositions on which a whole nation directs its destiny are not like Olympic records to be 218 periodically challenge  and broken  by  fresh  exercises  in excellence but  solemn sanctions,  with  judicial  seal  set thereon, for  the country  to navigate  towards the haven of human development  for everyone.  To play  cross-word puzzle with constitutional  construction is  to profane it, unless, of course,  a serious  set-back to  the  progress  of  human rights or  surprise reversal  of constitutional fundamentals has happened.  We find  the question  discussed, decided and consistently followed  since Rangachari and see no reason to open the  Pandora’s box. So it was that we rejected the plea for reconsideration.      Even so,  the alternative  method  of  containing  Art, 16(4) within  the contours of Rangachari was open to counsel and that  has been  done in argument as will be evident from the discussion  on the vires of the subsequent orders of the Board. All  the fire  was turned  by petitioners’ counsel on promotion  ’excesses’   through  Railway   Board  circulars. Annexure H of August 27, 1979 is one such: Annexure H           The Railway Board have now revised their policy in      regard  to   reservation  and   other  concessions   to      Scheduled Castes  and Scheduled  Tribes in posts filled      by promotion....           The particular concessions are concretised thus:           (B)   Promotion by  selection method  (i) Class II                appointments:           In promotion  by selection from Class III to Class      II,  as   a  measure  of  improving  representation  of      Scheduled Castes/  Scheduled Tribes,  it has  now  been      decided  that,   if  they   are  within   the  zone  of      eligibility the  Scheduled Caste  and  Scheduled  Tribe      employees will  be given, by the Selection/Departmental      promotion  Committee,   one  grading  higher  than  the      grading otherwise  assignable to  them on  the basis of      their record  of service i.e. if any Scheduled Caste or      Scheduled Tribe  employee has  been categorised  by the      Committee, on  the basis  of his  record of  service as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 28 of 62  

    "Good", he  should be recategorised by the Committee as      "Very  Good".  Likewise,  if  any  Scheduled  Caste  or      Scheduled Tribe  employee is  grades as  "Very Good" on      the  basis  of  his  record  of  service,  he  will  be      recategorised by  the Committee  as  "Outstanding".  Of      course, if  any  Scheduled  Caste  or  Scheduled  Tribe      employee has  already been categorised by the Committee      as "Outstanding" on the basis of his record of service,      no recategorisation  will be  needed in  his case. This      recategorisation will then 219      form the  basis of  allotment of  marks in  respect  of      ’Record of service’.           The above  concession would be confined to only 25      per  cent  of  the  total  number  of  vacancies  in  a      particular grade or post filled in a year. In the  matter of  selection to Class III and Class IV posts the concession runs thus:           There will be reservation of 12 per cent and 5 per      cent  of   the  vacancies   for  Scheduled  Castes  and      Scheduled Tribes  respectively in  promotions  made  by      selection in  or to  Class III  and Class  IV posts, in      grades or  services in  which  the  element  of  direct      recruitment, if  any, does  not  exceed  50  per  cent.      Promotion against  reserved vacancies  will continue to      be subject  to the candidates satisfying the prescribed      minimum qualifications and standards of fitness.           II. It  has also  been decided  that in respect of      promotions to selection posts in Class III where safety      aspect is  not involved,  the  qualifying  marks  under      "Professional ability"  in respect  of Scheduled  Caste      and Scheduled  Tribe candidates  should be 25 out of 50      instead of 30 out of 50 as applicable to the candidates      belonging  to   the   unreserved   groups.   Similarly,      qualifying marks  in aggregate  in respect of Scheduled      Castes and  Scheduled Tribes  should be  50 out  of 100      instead of 60 out of 100 for others. It must  be noticed that while grading has been modified and qualifying marks reduced as indicated above, for SC&ST, care has also been taken to exclude from these concessions, posts which involve  "safety aspects"  and not to relax prescribed minima of  qualifications and  standards of fitness. Article 335 has  been honoured,  making a margin on merit inevitable when choosing the second best.      The next  Order assailed  by counsel  is that  of  20th April 1970  (Annexure I)  and its highlights are revealed by relevant excerpts: ANNEXURE I           The policy of the Government of India in regard to      reservations for  Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes      in posts and services under the Government of India was      laid down  in the  Ministry of  Home Affairs Resolution      No. 42/21/49/NGS  dated 13th September, 1950 circulated      with Railway  Board’s letter No. E47CMI/49/3 dated 23rd      December,  1950.   The   question   of   revising   the      percentages 220      of  reservation  for  Scheduled  Castes  and  Scheduled      Tribes in  post and  services under  the Government  of      India  in   the  light   of  the  population  of  these      communities as  shown in the 1961 census has been under      consideration of  the Government  for some time. It has      now been  decided  in  modification  of  the  decisions      contained in  paras 2  and 4(1) of the Ministry of Home      Affairs’ Resolution dated 13th September 1950, that the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 29 of 62  

    following reservations  will hereafter  be made for the      Scheduled Castes  and Scheduled  Tribes  in  posts  and      services which are filled by direct recruitment; What are  they?  12%  and  5%  are  raised  to  15%  and  7% respectively for  SCs and  STs,  consequent  on  the  census picture and population ratio. Likewise, in local or regional recruitments  (presumably,  they  are  inferior  posts)  the population ratio prevalent in the concerned States was to be the basis for reservation quota for SC&ST.      By the same order, the "carry forward" rule was carried a little further forward by increasing it, in the absence of suitable candidates  from SC&ST,  from 2  to 3 years. It was also provided  that the  reserved vacancies,  if  candidates were available  (and vice  versa) could  well be  filled  by them, instead of being thrown open to the general community.      The Board’s  letter dated April 29, 1970 made a further change by  revising the  roster. Positions Nos. 1, 4, 8, 14, 17, 22,  28, 36  were to  go to  SC/ST candidates.  The Note takes care  to avoid  total deprivation  of  changes  for  a particular year  for general  candidates when  the vacancies are few:           NOTE: If there are only two vacancies to be filled      in a  particular year, not more than one may be treated      as reserved and if there be only one vacancy, it should      be  treated  as  unreserved.  If  on  this  account,  a      reserved point is treated as unreserved the reservation      may  be   carried  forward   to  the  subsequent  three      recruitment years. Similar provisions,  though somewhat  different  in  detail, were made  for posts  filled by direct recruitment otherwise than by open competition.      A big  break with the past was next made by the Board’s proceedings of  11-1-1973 (Annexure  K) which hurt the lower classes  of  employees  whose  promotion  was  regulated  by seniority-cum-suitability   (i.e.,    non-selection   posts, according to official jargon). That directive states: 221 ANNEXURE K           After careful  consideration the  Board  have  now      decided that  a quota  of 15%  and 7 1/2% for Scheduled      Castes and  Scheduled Tribes  respectively may  also be      provided in  promotion to  the categories  and posts in      Class I,  II,  III  and  IV  filled  on  the  basis  of      seniority-cum-suitability  provided   the  element   of      direct recruitment  to those  grades, if  any, does not      exceed 50%.           The number  of reserved vacancies in a recruitment      year (viz.,  financial year  on the Railways) should be      determined under  Board’s letter  No. E(SCT)  70CM15/10      dated 20-4-70...........           In the case of reserved community candidates equal      to the  number of  reserved  vacancies  are  not  found      suitable for  promotion even with relaxed standard, the      reserved vacancies  may be  dereserved after  following      the procedure  prescribed for  dereservation as  in the      case of  selection categories.  The quota so dereserved      will be carried forward to three subsequent recruitment      years; the  year in  which no panel is formed is not to      be taken into account for this purpose. This order  has been  fiercely attached as unconstitutional. The order  attached in  Rangachari’s case (supra) related to selection posts at the promotion level but Annexure K (11-1- 1973) covers  promotion to  non-selection posts.  The  whole gamut of  promotions in  Classes II,  III and  IV areas thus comes under the reservation formula.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 30 of 62  

    Annexure I  extended the  principle of  reservation  to lower ranks of Class I services (i.e. Junior Class I scale). The ’carry  forward’ project,  calculated to ensure adequate representation by  broadening the  time zone to three years, was applicable  to all  cases of  reservations in  promotion posts.      One of the major broadside attacks made on the validity of the  Railway Board’s  circulars was  the serious peril to administrative efficiency, a non-negotiable value under Art. 335. The  hazards to  railway travel, it was urged, would so increase because  of the  harijan  component  and  its  sub- standard performance that rail-road accidents would escalate and threaten human life! We must, by way of antidote to this caricature, notice,  however, that  provisions  for  special training and  coaching where  the recruit  was somewhat sub- standard, was  specially insisted  on  and  this,  at  least partially, overcame the 222 ’awesome’ deficiency.  No factual  material to blame all the ills of  the Indian  Railways on  the reservation policy was placed before  us except  a hunch in a Report to be referred to later.  If harijans were excluded would railway accidents have a long holiday ? Courts are not credulity in robes !      A comprehensive  programme of  balancing administrative competency  with   adequacy  of   SC&ST  representation  was attempted by  the Railway Board in Annexure M which provided for  in-service  training  for  candidates  who  were  below standard. This  letter of  the Board  dated 31st August 1974 recalled the earlier letter of 27-4-1959 which provided:           While filling  the posts  on  promotion,  however,      candidates of  three communities  should be judged in a      sympathetic  manner   and   arrangements   made   where      necessary to give to such staff additional training and      coaching, to bring them upto the standard of others. In the  light  of  actual  experience  and  the  complex  of considerations implied  in Arts. 16(4), 46 and 335 the Board directed,  with   disturbing  concern   for  the   continued exclusion of SC&ST candidates, as follows:           The matter  has been  further  considered  by  the      Board and  it has  been decided  that  if,  during  the      selection proceedings  it is  found, that the requisite      number  of   Scheduled  Caste   and   Scheduled   Tribe      candidates are  not available  for being  placed on the      panel in  spite of  the  various  relaxations,  already      granted, the  best among  them i.e.  who secure highest      marks, should  be earmarked  for being  placed  on  the      panel to  the extent  vacancies have  been reserved  in      their favour.  The panel  excluding the  names of  such      persons may  also be declared provisionally. Thereafter      the Scheduled  Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates who      have been  so earmarked  may be  promoted ad  hoc for a      period of six months against the vacancies reserved for      them.  During   the  said   six  months   period,   the      Administration should  give  them  all  facilities  for      improving their knowledge and coming upto the requisite      standard, if  necessary by  organising special coaching      classes. At the end of the six months period, a special      report should  be obtained  on  the  working  of  these      candidates and  the  case  put  up  by  the  Department      concerned to  the General Manager through SPO(RP) for a      review. The  continuance of  the  Scheduled  Caste  and      Scheduled Tribe candidates in the 223      higher grades  would depend  upon this  review. If  the      candidates are  found to  have come  upto the requisite

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 31 of 62  

    standard, their  names would  be included  in the panel      and the  vacancies dereserved  and filled  in the usual      manner by candidates from other communities.           The procedure  indicated  in  the  preceding  para      would also  apply to  promotion to  the posts filled on      the basis  of seniority-cum-suitability,  with the only      difference that the Review at the end of the six months      period would  be carried out by the authority competent      to approve the Select List. This  directive   takes   good   care   of   harijan-girijan obtuseness, if any.      We move  on to  Annexure N  of February  21, 1976 which relates to  carrying forward of reserved vacancies remaining unfilled. We  need not  go into  its details except to state that further  facilities are  offered to SC&ST promotees, on account of unsatisfactory intake as a fact.      Although on  paper what  might appear  to be  pampering concessions were  offered to  SC&ST candidates,  the painful reality, according  to the  Union  of  India,  was  alarming under-representation and utter inadequacy of SC&ST personnel in the  Railway  Services.  Arithmetical  manipulations  and national concessions  incorporated in government proceedings did not  impact on  the raw life of depressed classes unless activist tactics  of upgrading  the competence and awareness of those  human sectors  were fruitfully  carried out  in  a result-oriented manner.  The Union  of India and the Railway Board  apparently  pinned  their  faith  on  increasing  the percentage  hoping  that  thereby  more  harijans  would  be attracted. The  twin reservations  of 15% and 7 1/2% for the SCs and  STs to  be filled  by promotion in Class I, II, III and  IV   services,  whereby   seniority-cum-suitability  or selection on  the strength  of competitive examinations, had all along  been limited in such manner as not to exceed 50%, even on  the application  of the  ’carry forward’  formulae. Since this  did not ensure fair representation, a change was contemplated by Annexure O:           The  question   of  enlarging  the  scope  of  the      existing scheme of reservation for Scheduled Castes and      Scheduled Tribes  in the aforesaid cases has been under      the consideration  of the  Government of India for some      time  past   and  in   partial  modification   of   the      instructions contained  in the above letters it has now      been decided  that henceforth the reservations in posts      filled  by  promotion  under  the  existing  scheme  as      indicated above  would be  applicable to  all grades or      services where 224      the element  of direct  recruitment, if  any, does  not      exceed 66-2/3% as against 50 per cent as at present. What was  done was  to raise the maximum from 50% to 66-2/3% its vice,  writ on its face-according to counsel’s argument- being promotion  of inefficiency  along  with  promotion  of SC&ST appointees.  The furious  charges of  inefficiency  in Administration, injected  by incompetence  imported  through SC&ST candidates  and by  frustration and  demoralisation of the non-SC&ST  members who  were passed  over by  their less competent juniors, was sought to be supported by reliance on the Report  of the Railway Accidents Enquiry Committee 1968. There was  reference in  it to  discontent among supervisors inter alia  on account  of the  procedure of  reservation of posts for  SC&ST. It  is true  that the  Report has  a slant against  the  SC&ST  promotion  policy  notwithstanding  the assurance given  by the  Railway Board to the Committee that instructions had  been issued  not  to  relax  standards  in favour of  SC&ST members  where safety was involved. We need

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 32 of 62  

hardly say  that it  is straining  judicial  gullibility  to breaking point  to go  that far.  This is  an argumentum  an absurdum though urged by petitioners with hopeful ingenuity. Nor are  we  concerned  with  certain  newspaper  items  and representations about  frustration and  stagnation.  On  the other hand,  the plea,  forcefully put forward that economic backwardness should  be the  touchstone of  any  reservation policy in  a secular,  socialist republic  may merit  better examination.    Surely,    extraneous    factors,    however passionately  projected,  cannot  shake  or  shape  judicial conclusions which must be founded on constitutional criteria and relevant  facts only.  What then  is the  defence of the Union to  the charge  of departure  from equal treatment for all citizens  alike ?  What is  the principle derivable from the precedents on the points raised ?      A technical  point is  taken in  the counter  affidavit that the  1st petitioner  is an unrecognised association and that, therefore,  the petitioner  to  that  extent,  is  not sustainable. It has to be overruled. Whether the petitioners belong to a recognised union or not, the fact remains that a large body  of persons  with a  common grievance  exists and they have  approached this  Court under Art. 32. Our current processual jurisprudence  is not  of individualistic  Anglo- Indian mould.  It is  broad-based and  people-oriented,  and envisions access to justice through ’class actions’, ’public interest  litigation’,   and  ’representative  proceedings’. Indeed, little  Indians in large numbers seeking remedies in courts through  collective  proceedings,  instead  of  being driven to  an expensive  plurality  of  litigations,  is  an affirmation of  participative justice  in our  democracy. We have no hesitation in holding that the narrow concept 225 of ’cause  of action’  and ’person aggrieved’ and individual litigation is becoming obsolescent in some jurisdictions. It must fairly  be stated that the learned Attorney General has taken  no   objection  to   a   non-recognised   association maintaining the writ petitions.      The case  of the  Union of India is that Arts. 46, 335, 16(1) and  16(4) must  be taken  as a constitutional package and not  read in  isolation. In  that view,  the  policy  of reservation is  geared to  equalisation of opportunities for employment and,  therefore, a  fulfillment  of  Art.  16(1). Reading the  two sub-articles as complementary to each other and  giving   a  wider   connotation   to   the   expression "appointment",  the   learned  Attorney  General  sought  to include in  its  semantic  circle  appointments  by  way  of promotion, deputation,  transfer and  on contract.  On  this footing, it  was urged  that Art. 16(4) completely protected the various  directives regarding appointments by promotion. It is  the case  of the Government that SC&ST have all along suffered social  and economic  deprivation and  utter under- representation  in   the  Government   service.   Naturally, reservation to  boost the chances of the SC&ST in Government services had  to be  resorted to  as a  pragmatic policy  of levelling up. Having regard to administrative efficiency and other social  factors, Government  had  been  reviewing  the position from  time to time and had tailored its reservation policy to  fit the  needs of  a given  service or  state  of affairs. The stand of the State is that-             ....once   the  Government  have  decided  after      reviewing the  overall position  of  representation  of      Scheduled   Castes/Scheduled   Tribes   in   Government      Services  that   the  reservation   principles   should      continue  in   certain  types   of  appointments,   the      reservation of a certain number of vacancies have to be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 33 of 62  

    provided,    irrespective    of    whether    Scheduled      Castes/Scheduled Tribes are already duly represented or      not in specific cadres of the Services.      Although  Rangachari’s   case  covered  only  selection posts, the  Union of  India took  the  view  that  the  same principle held  good for nonelection posts also. In fact, if at all the prospects of SC&STs in Government Service were to be improved,  it had to begin with non-selection posts. They are the lower categories where the members of the SC&ST have a chance. Provision of reservation in Class I services would be theoretically  attractive to  SC&STs but  not so  much in practice.           ....reservation in  promotional appointments  made      by  means  of  seniority-cum-suitability  is  necessary      because the 226      Scheduled Castes/Scheduled  Tribes who generally occupy      the  lower  positions  in  the  recruitment/promotional      panels cannot  get further  promotion at  all or as per      the  requisite  percentage  alongwith  other  employees      because of  their very  low position  in the  seniority      list The submission  of the  Central Government  is that not with standing the  extension of the principle of reservation, the presence of harijans and girijans is sparse.           ...In this  connection, an  extract from  the half      yearly report  of the  Ministry  of  Railways  for  the      period ending  31-3-1978 showing  the representation of      the  Scheduled  Castes  and  Scheduled  Tribes  in  the      various Railway Services presented to the Parliament by      the Government is reproduced below.... The table  furnished as  in 1978 shows that Scheduled Castes have in  Class I around 7% representation, in Class II 9.5%, in  Class   III  11.1%  and  even  in  Class  IV  (excluding safaiwalas) only  18%.  Safaiwalas,  who  are  menials  like scavengers and  sweepers, are  mostly  drawn  from  harijans since other  communities consider  such jobs  infra dig. So, there is 83% representation of SCs among safaiwalas. This is not because  of representation  but because  no one  else is forthcoming  for  such  ’untouchable’  jobs.  The  Scheduled Tribes have  a more  pathetic  tale  to  tell.  In  Class  I services they  have 1% representation, in Class II, 1.8%, in Class III,  2.2% and in Class IV (excluding safaiwalas) 5.1% and even  among safaiwalas  only 1.5%. On the basis of these statistics the  Railway Board’s  case is  that  adequacy  of representation for SC&STs even according to their population (forgetting centuries of total exclusion) is a long way off.      These official  figures culled  from the Reports of the Commissioner for  Scheduled Castes  and Scheduled Tribes are for  employment  in  Central  Govt.  not  confirmed  to  the Railways, and  reveal how  a square  deal to SCs and STs may take centuries,  observing the  current snail’s  pace in the intake.      Social realists  will read  these pessimistic figure of the last  ten years  which prove  the myth  and  negate  the neurotic  rhetoric   about  the   SC&ST  communities  having cornered all  the  posts  in  the  Central  Government  from Chaprasi to  Secretary, accelerating  there by the impending calamity   of    administrative   collapse    due   to   the disproportionate  presence   of  the   ’inefficient’  social components! A  mere formula of reservation is not the factum of recruitment. That is 227 morbid fancy.  The truth  is that  more aggressive  policies than  paper  reservations  are  the  need  if  equality  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 34 of 62  

excellence are  the creed.  Reservation is  but one strategy and historically  has established  itself. More must be done by a  complex of  processes by  which harijans/girijans will get boosted  in ’capabilities’, and mainstreamed to share in the Civil  Service cake.  The poor  annual assimilation into the public  employment sector of the weakest social segments makes a  tragic  mockery  of  the  statistical  jugglery  of harijan monopoly.  Any theory  or formula  is best tested by how it  works, not by how it is worded. Nikita Kruschev once remarked: "...a  theory isolated from practice, is dead, and practice which is not illumined by ....theory is blind". The theoretical attack  on over  representation flowing from the reservation rule  must be  tried out  in  practice,  as  the figures for  the last  10 years  show; and the justification for  more   facilities  and   higher  percentage  in  public employment  must  be  validated  by  the  thesis  of  social justice. Assertions either way end in a blind alley. That is why we  have been  at pains  to project  the  constitutional theory  and   resultant  representation   of   SC   and   ST reservations under Art. 16(4).      Percentage of reservations made in favour of Scheduled             Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST). ------------------------------------------------------------                Class I   Class II   Class III    Class IV   As on      ---------- ---------- -----------  ------------              SC      ST SC      ST SC       ST  SC        ST ------------------------------------------------------------ 1-1-70 . . . 2.36  0.40 3.84  0.37  9.27  1.47  18.09   3.59 1-1-71 . . . 2.58  0.41 4.06  0.43  9.89  1.70  18.37   3.65 1-1-72 . . . 2.99  0.50 4.13  0.44  9.77  1.72  18.61   3.82 1-1-73 . . . 3.14  0.50 4.52  0.49 10.05  1.95  18.37   3.92 1-1-74 . . . 3.25  0.57 4.59  0.49 10.33  2.13  18.53   3.84 1-1-75 . . . 3.43  0.62 4.98  0.59 10.71  2.27  18.64   3.99 1-1-76 . . . 3.46  0.68 5.41  0.74 11.31  2.51  18.75   3.93 1-1-77 . . . 4.16  0.77 6.77  0.77 11.84  2.78  19.07   4.35 1-1-78 . . . 4.50  0.85 6.44  0.88 12.22  2.86  19.13   4.66 1-1-79 . . . 4.75  0.94 7.37  1.03 12.55  3.11  19.32   5.19 ------------------------------------------------------------      The facts,  in the  statement we have digested from the Reports  of   the  Commissioner  for  Scheduled  Castes  and Scheduled Tribes, 228 conclusively show  the long  distance to  travel before  the SC&ST members  in the civil services can be said to have and a fair  or at  least a proportional deal. Classes II and III for the  whole of the central services have a range of 3.84% to 7.37%  and 9.27% to 12.55% for Scheduled Castes and 0.37% to 1.03% and 1.47% to 3.11% for Scheduled Tribes while their eligibility is  of the order of 15% and 7-1/2% respectively. What a  grievous beeway  after 33 long years may be the acid comment of  the victim  sector (i.e.  the harijans  and  the girijans).      The Central  Government has countered the submission of the petitioners,  presented persuasively  by Shri Venogopal, that reservation  compounded by  the carry  forward rule has ended up almost in cent per cent reservation to SC&STs (thus wholly  excluding   others  from   job  opportunities).  The counter-affidavit states thus:           I do  not admit that the Government is giving 100%      reservation  to  the  Scheduled  Castes  and  Scheduled      Tribes. I  submit that  normally only 15% and 7-1/2% of      the vacancies  by  means  of  a  roster  mechanism  are      reserved for  the Schedule  Castes and Scheduled Tribes      respectively. However,  in the  following cases, it may      look as  if 100%  of the  available vacancies are being

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 35 of 62  

    given to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes...... Of course,  based on  Rangachari (supra)  the State contends that   entry    even   at    the   promotional   points   is constitutionally permitted and protected. The grievance that junior harijans  steal a  march over other senior members of service is exceptional rather than general, according to the Railway  Board,  and,  in  any  case,  is  inevitable  where reservation is  permissible.  Furthermore  the  Ministry  of Railways, having  regard to  Art. 335 had taken special care to  give   training,  coaching  and  the  like,  to  prevent inefficiency and  to promote  competency of SC&ST members in service. The  deponent on  behalf of  the Union of India has explained the position thus:           I submit  that the  Ministry of  Railways, in 1974      after reviewing  the position  of intake  of  Scheduled      Castes and  Scheduled Tribes  in groups of posts filled      by promotion in Railway Services, and on the basis of a      recommendation made  by the  Parliamentary Committee on      the Welfare  of Scheduled  Castes and Scheduled Tribes,      introduced  a  scheme  of  training  of  the  Scheduled      Castes/Scheduled Tribes  employees on  the jobs  of the      posts to  which they  are to  be promoted. According to      this scheme,  if, during  selection proceedings,  it is      found that the Scheduled Castes/ 229      Scheduled  Tribes   of  requisite   standards  are  not      available for   being  placed on  the panel,  the  best      among  them   numbering  to   the  extent  of  reserved      vacancies  i.e.  who  secure  the  highest  marks,  are      provided with  in-service training.  For this  purpose,      such candidates  are promoted  an ad  hoc basis  for  a      period of  six months  to the  grade of the post on the      jobs of  which they are to receive training. During the      said six  months’ period,  the administration give them      all facilities for improving their knowledge and coming      upto the requisite standard, if necessary by organising      special coaching  classes. At  the end  of six  months’      period, a  special report is obtained on the working of      such candidate which is reviewed by the General Manager      or other  competent authority.  If, as a result of this      review, they  are found to have come upto the requisite      standard of  fitness to hold the post on regular basis,      they are  included in the panel and are promoted to the      grade regularly.  If, however,  the said review reveals      that such candidates, even after receiving the training      on the jobs to which they are to be promoted regularly,      have not  come upto  requisite standard of suitability,      such candidates  are immediately  reverted to the grade      from which  they were  given ad  hoc promotion  for the      purpose of training.      A further plea is taken that temporary promotions on ad hoc basis  are sometimes  given to  SC&ST members purely for short duration  "for the  purpose of imparting them with in- service training  on the  jobs of  the post  to  which  they aspire for  promotion". This had to be treated as a training period rather  than an  unconstitutional promotion  over the heads of  seniors.  In  short,  the  factual  submission  of massive infiltration  of incompetent  harijans/girijans into the Railway Service vertically all along the line is refuted by facts and figures. Secondly, the legal contentions of the petitioners have  also been  contested by the Union of India (given earlier).      In this  background, we  may  formulate  the  following points round  which arguments have ranged and then deal with some mini-submissions  and technical  objections put forward

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 36 of 62  

before us.      (1) Does  Art. 16(1)  insist on  absolute  equality  or permit realistic  and  rational  classification  of  unequal classes and treatment of such classes differently ?      (2) Do  SC&STs stand in a different class from the rest of the Indian community? 230      (3) Are  SC&ST castes, within the scope of Art. 16(2) ? If so,  does Art.  16(4) save  special provisions  in  their favour in matters promotion and allied matters ?      (4)   Do    the   directives    under   attack   impair administrative efficiency  to a  degree that it is violative of Art. 335 ?      (5) Do  the ten  circulars reduce the fundamental right under Art. 16(1) to a husk or cipherise it altogether ?      We must  state certain  constitutional fundamentals and societal elementals  before we  make a  dialectical study of the basic  issues thrown  up by  these cases.  Most  of  the submissions made  by counsel  for petitioners cannot survive Rangachari and  Thomas (supra) and our task is simplified by abiding by the propositions laid down therein, because these twin rulings  bind us  being of  benches of  five and  seven judges. Even  though we  would, we could not and even though we could,  we would,  not depart  from the holdings in these twin land-mark cases which set the gravestone on many of the contentions.      What are  the constitutional  fundamentals  bearing  on egalite vis  a vis backward classes, especially the SC&STs ? What are  the social essentials afflicting the life-style of the SCs&STs ? What is economic backwardness as distinct from social injustice  and how  does the  Constitution strike the path of  remedial jurisprudence  harmonising the  demands of both categories?      A  luminous   preface  to   the  constitutional  values nullified by  social realities  is found  in Dr.  Ambedkar’s address to the Constituent Assembly earlier extracted, which draws poignant  attention  to  the  life  of  contradictions between the  explosive social  and economic inequalities and the processes  of political  democracy. "How  long shall  we continue to  live this  life of  contradictions ?  How  long shall we  continue  to  deny  equality  in  our  social  and economic life?"  Was the interrogation before the framers of the Constitution and they wanted to enforce the principle of ’one man,  one value’. This perspective must inform the code of equality  contained in  Arts. 14  to 16. Equality being a dynamic concept  with flexible  import this  Court has  read into Arts. 14 to 16 the pragmatic doctrine of classification and equal  treatment to  all who fall within each class. But care must  be taken to see that classification is not pushed to such an extreme point as to make the fundamental right to equality cave  in and collapse. (See observations in Triloki Nath Khosa and Ors. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir 231      Ray, C.J.  in Kerala v. Thomas  epitomised the position in a few passages:           Articles 14,  15 and  16 from  part of a string of      constitutionally  guaranteed   rights.   These   rights      supplement each  other. Article 16 which ensures to all      citizens equality of opportunity in matters relating to      employment is  an incident  of  guarantee  of  equality      contained in  Article 14. Article 16(1) gives effect to      Article  14.   Both  Articles   14  and   16(1)  permit      reasonable classification  having a  nexus  to  be  the      object to be achieved.           Discrimination is the essence of classification...

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 37 of 62  

    Classification  is,   therefore,  to   be  founded   on      substantial  differences   which  distinguish   persons      grouped together  from those left out of the groups and      such differential  attributes  must  bear  a  just  and      rational  relation   to  the   object  sought   to   be      achieved....           There is  no denial  of  equality  of  opportunity      unless the  person who  complains of  discrimination is      equally situated  with the  person or  persons who  are      alleged to  have been  favoured. Article 16(1) does not      bar  a   reasonable  classification   of  employees  or      reasonable tests  for their  selection. State of Mysore      v. V.  P. Narasinga  Rao. This  equality of opportunity      need not be confused with absolute equality......           Under Article  16(1) equality  of  opportunity  of      employment means  equality as  between members  of  the      same  class  of  employees  and  not  equality  between      members of separate, independent class....           The rule  of parity  is  the  equal  treatment  of      equals   in    equal   circumstances.   The   rule   of      differentiation  in   enacting   laws   differentiating      between  different   persons  or  things  in  different      circumstances. The  circumstances which  govern one set      of persons  or objects  may not necessarily be the same      as governing  another set of persons or objects so that      the question of unequal treatment does not really arise      between persons  governed by  different conditions  and      different sets of circumstances.... A classification in      order to  be constitutional must rest upon distinctions      that are  substantial and not merely illusory. The test      is  whether   it  has  a  reasonable  basis  free  from      artificiality  and   arbitrariness  embracing  all  and      omitting none naturally falling into that category. 232 The learned  Chief Justice  relied upon earlier decisions to substantiate this  proposition. In  Triloki  Nath  Khosa  v. State of  J &  K(1) this  Court had  held that the State may make rules  guided by  realities just as the legislature "is free to  recognise degrees  of harm  and it  may confine its restrictions to  those classes  of cases  where the  need is deemed  to   be  the   clearest."  Thus  we  arrive  at  the constitutional truism  that the  State may  classify,  based upon substantial  differentia, groups  or classes  and  this process does  not necessarily spell violation of Arts. 14 to 16      Therefore, in the present case if the SC&STs stand on a substantially  different  footing  they  may  be  classified group-wise and  treated separately  since there  is a  Great Divide between  the SC&STs  on the  one hand and the rest of the Indian  community on  the other.  This is  no matter  of speculation or investigation because the Constitution itself has recognised  the direst  socioeconomic backward status of these species  of humanity.  We may quote Ray, C.J. where he observed:           The  Constitution   makes  a   classification   of      Scheduled  Castes  and  Scheduled  Tribes  in  numerous      provisions and  gives a  mandate to the State to accord      special or  favoured  treatment  to  them.  Article  46      contains  a   Directive  Principle   of  State  Policy-      fundamental in  the governance of the country enjoining      the State  to promote with special care educational and      economic  interests   of  the   Scheduled  Castes   and      Scheduled Tribes  and to  protect them from any special      injustice and  exploitation. Article  335 enjoins  that      the claims  of the  members the  Scheduled  Castes  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 38 of 62  

    Scheduled Tribes to the services and posts in the Union      and the  States  shall  be  taken  into  consideration.      Article 338  provides for  appointment by the President      of a  Special Officer  for  the  Scheduled  Castes  and      Scheduled Tribes to investigate all matters relating to      the   safeguards    provided   for   them   under   the      Constitution. Article  341  enables  the  President  by      public notification  to specify castes, races or tribes      which shall  be deemed  to be  Scheduled Castes  in the      States and  the Union Territories. Article 342 contains      provision  for   similar  notification  in  respect  of      Scheduled Tribes.  Article  366(24)  and  (25)  defines      Scheduled   Castes    and   Scheduled    Tribes.    The      classification by  the impugned  rule and  the order is      with a view to securing adequate representa- 233      tion to  Scheduled Castes  and Scheduled  Tribes in the      services of  the State as otherwise they would stagnate      in the lowest rung of the State services.           Article 335 of the Constitution states that claims      of members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes      shall be  taken into  consideration in  the  making  of      appointments to  the services  and posts  in connection      with  affairs   of  the   State  consistent   with  the      maintenance of efficiency of administration.           I had made similar observations in the same case:           The  Directive   Principles   of   State   Policy,      fundamental in the governance of the country, enjoin on      the  State   the  promotion   ’with  special  care  the      educational  and   economic  interests  of  the  weaker      sections of  the people,  and, in  particular,  of  the      Scheduled  Castes   and  the  Scheduled  Tribes...  and      protect them  from social  injustice’. To  neglect this      obligation is to play truant with Art. 46. Undoubtedly,      economic interests of a group-as also social justice to      it-are tied up with its place in the services under the      State.  Our   history,  unlike   that  of   some  other      countries, has  found a  zealous pursuit  of government      jobs as  a mark  of share  in State  power and economic      position. Moreover,  the  biggest-and  expanding,  with      considerable State undertaking, employer is Government,      Central and  State, much  so appointments in the public      services  matter  increasingly  in  the  prosperity  of      backward segments.  The Scheduled  Castes and Scheduled      Tribes have earned special mention in Art. 46 and other      weaker  section’   in  this  context  means  not  every      ’backward   class’   but   those   dismally   depressed      categories comparable economically and educationally to      Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.      Proceeding on  this footing,  the fundamental  right of equality of  opportunity has  to be  read as  justifying the categorization of  SC&STs  separately  for  the  purpose  of "adequate representation"  in the  service under  the State. The object is constitutionally sanctioned in terms, as Arts. 16(4) and  46 specificate.  The classification  is just  and reasonable. We  may, however, have to test whether the means used to  reach the  end are reasonable and do not outrun the purposes of  the classification.  Thus the scope of the case is narrowed down. 234      Of course,  apart from Art. 16(1), Art. 16(2) expressly forbids discrimination  on the  ground of caste and here the question arises  as to  whether  the  Scheduled  Castes  and Tribes are  castes within  the meaning  of Art.  16(2). Even assuming that  there is discrimination, Art. 16(2) cannot be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 39 of 62  

invoked unless  it is  predicated that  the Scheduled Castes are ’castes’.  Terminological similarities  are an  illusory guide and  we cannot go by verbal verisimilitude. It is very doubtful  whether   the  expression   caste  will  apply  to Scheduled  Castes.   At  any   rate,  Scheduled  Tribes  are identified by  their tribal  denomination. A tribe cannot be equated  with   a  caste.   As  stated  earlier,  there  are sufficient indications  in the  Constitution to suggest that the Scheduled   Castes  are not  mere castes.  They  may  be something less  or some thing more and the time badge is not the fact  that  the  members  belong  to  a  caste  but  the circumstance that  they belong  to an indescribably backward human group.  Ray, C.J.  in Kerala  v. Thomas  (supra)  made certain observations  which have  been extracted  earlier to make out that "Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are not a caste  within the  ordinary meaning  of  caste".  Since  a contrary view  is possible and has been taken by some judges a verdict  need not  be rested  on the view that SCs are not castes.  Even   assuming  they   are,   classification,   if permitted,  will   validate  the   differential  rules   for promotion. Moreover,  Art. 16(4)  is an  exception  to  Art. 16(2) also.      The   constitutional    enquiry    is    whether    the harijan/girijan fold  is so sharply marked off from the rest of the  Indian human family as to justify classification for considerate treatment in the field of public employment ?      Let  us  be  sure  of  the  social  facts.  Mark  Twain cynically remarked once: "Get your facts first, and them you can distort  them as much as you please." By that token, let us scan the status of the SC&STs, the result of reservations in habilitating them into State services and the depressment impact on efficiency by supersession of meritorious seniors. It is  a fact  of our  social history  and  a  blot  on  our cultural heritage  that 135 million men and women, described as SC&STs,  have been  suffering  as  "suppressed  classes", denied human  dignity and  languishing as  de  facto  bonded labour. They  still are,  in several places, "worse than the serf and the slave" and "their social standard is lower than the social  standard of  ordinary human  beings" (Ambedkar). Tortured, violated and even murdered, the saga of the SC&STs is not  only one  of economic  exploitation  but  of  social ostracisation. Referring  to the  sorrows of  the suppressed shudras (what I 235 prefer to  call the  panchama proletariat) Swami Vivekananda demanded shudra  raj and  refuted the  incapabilities of the groaning untouchables:           "Aye, Brahmins,  if the  Brahmin has more aptitude      for learning on the ground of heredity than the Pariah,      spend no  more money  on the  Brahmin’s  education  but      spend all  on the  Pariah. Give  to the weak, for there      all the  gift  is  needed...  Our  poor  people,  these      downtrodden masses of India, therefore, require to hear      and to  know what  they really  are. Aye, let every man      and woman  and child,  with-out  respect  of  caste  or      birth, weakness  and  strength,  hear  and  learn  that      behind the strong and the weak, behind the high and the      low, behind  everyone, there  is  that  Infinite  Soul,      assuring that  infinite possibility  and  the  infinite      capacity of  all to  become  great  and  good.  Let  us      proclaim to  every soul ’Arise, awake and stop not till      the goal is reached.’ Arise, awake! To make  democracy functional  and  the  republic  real  the social  and   economic  personality  of  these  backwardmost sections had  to be  restored. From  this angle, the ancient

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 40 of 62  

injustice on  the  shudras  among  the  shudras  has  to  be liquidated by effective equalising measures. Power, material power, is  the key  to socioeconomic salvation and the State being the  nidus of  power the  framers of  the Constitution have made  provision  for  representation  of  these  weaker sections both in the legislature and the executive.      More  poignant   is  the  fact  that  all  the  welfare programmes have  been only  on paper, not in practical life. With all  the ’pampering’  complained of, we find that these downtrodden  millions   remain  at   the   bottom   of   the socioeconomic  scale   and  totter   in  the  administrative services  surviving   with  difficulty   and  securing  some promotion here  or there  amidst a  hostile milieu.  If  the concessions, reservations,  relaxations and  other  partisan provisions  had   actually  brought   into  the  Services  a considerable percentage  at least  commensurate  with  their population, maybe,  the grievance  voiced may ring true. But as late  as 1971,  a former  Minister, B.  S. Murthy, in his book "Depressed  and Oppressed (Forever in Agony)" has given a sombre  picture of  the actual  plight of  the harijans of India and  the figures  of employment in Government Services of Scheduled  Castes and  Tribes as  on 1-1-1970  (20  years after the  Constitution) furnished  by him  (p. 74) are tell tale. In Class I services percentage-wise these castes which constitute 22.5%  of India’s  population had  0.40% in Class II, 0.40, in 236 Class  III,   1.47  and   in  Class   IV,  3.41.   This  was socioeconomic  democracy  in  reverse  gear  and  a  callous picture of  under-representation  in  administration  as  if harijans   and   girijans   were   still   untouchable   and unapproachable, vis-a-vis  Services under the State. Once we realise with  John Tyndall  that  "It  is  as  fatal  as  it cowardly to  blink facts because they are not to our taste", the wind  is taken  out of  the sails  of the  case  of  the petitioners. For,  in truth  and actual  life  whatever  the Railway Board’s  orders may  say the  representation of  the SC&STs remains  substantially  below  the  sanctioned  level although fair  representation, at  least  in  proportion  to their population  is what  is demographically just, ignoring for the moment the neutralisation of the iniquitions past.      We must remember that Art. 14 speaks of equality before the law  and Art. 16 vouchsafes equality of opportunity. The social  dynamics   of  equality   involve  the  strategy  of equalisation  in   a  society   of  stratification   through casteification. One of us did observe :           "In a  spacious  sense,  ’equal  opportunity’  for      members of a hierarchical society makes sense only if a      strategy   by   which   the   under   privileged   have      environmental  facilities  for  developing  their  full      human potential. This consummation is accomplished only      when the  utterly depressed  groups can  claim  a  fair      share in  public life  and economic activity, including      employment under  the State,  or when  a classless  and      casteless society  blossoms as  a  result  of  positive      State action.  To help  the lagging social segments, by      special care,  is a  step towards  and  not  against  a      larger and stabler equality.....           It is  a statistically  proved social  reality  in      India  that   the  depressed   employment  position  of      harijans is  the master  problem in  the battle against      generations of retardation, and ’reservation’ and other      solutions have  made no  significant  impact  on  their      employment in  public services.  In  such  an    unjust      situation,  to   maintain  mechanical  equality  is  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 41 of 62  

    perpetuate actual  inequality.  A  battery  of  several      programmes to fight down this fell backwardness must be      tried out by the State." Subha Rao,  J. in  Devadasan’s case brought out the need for equalisation to  produce stable  equality in  society  by  a telling imagery.  Although he was in a minority on one point in that  case, that  did not  detract from  the validity  or force of the general observations: 237           Article 14 lays down the general rule of equality.      Article 16  is an  instance of  the application  of the      general rule  with special  reference to opportunity of      appointments under  the State. It says that there shall      be equality  of opportunity for all citizens in matters      relating to  employment or  appointment to  any  office      under the  State. If  it stood  alone, all the backward      communities would go to the wall in a society of uneven      basic social structure; the said rule of equality would      remain only  an utopian  conception unless  a practical      content was  given to it. Its strict enforcement brings      about the  very situation  it seek to avoid. To make my      point clear,  take the illustration of a horse race-one      is a  first class-race  horse and the other an ordinary      one. Both are made to run from the same starting point.      Though theoretically  they are  given equal opportunity      to run  the race, in practice the ordinary horse is not      given an  equal opportunity  to compete  with the  race      horse. Indeed,  that is denied to it. So a handicap may      be given  either in  the nature  of extra  weight or  a      start from  a longer  distance. By doing so, what would      otherwise has  been a  force of  a competition would be      made a real one. The same difficulty had confronted the      makers of  the Constitution  at the  time it  was made.      Centuries  of   calculated  oppression   and   habitual      submission  reduced   a  considerable  section  of  our      community to  a life  of serfdom. It would be well nigh      impossible to  raise their standards if the doctrine of      equal opportunity  was strictly enforced in their case.      They would  not have  any chance  if they  were made to      enter   the   open   field   of   competition   without      Adventitious aids  till such time when they could stand      on their own legs. A strikingly  similar strain  of justice  thinking has  been developed in  other jurisdictions  in  the  field  of  equal protection and  benign discrimination by Polyvos G. Polyviou in his  book "The  Equal Protection  of the Laws". It may be meaningful to notice the argument :           "....focuses on  the concepts  of equal  treatment      and  equal  opportunity,  professes  to  construe  them      realistically,  and  declares  that  ’(t)  he  minority      applicant does  not have  an opportunity "equal" to the      white’s   because    the   discriminatory   denial   of      educational, professional  and  cultural  opportunities      for generations  past has  severely handicapped  him in      any  contest  of  early  intellectual  attainment’.  As      Professor Cox  has  well  put  the  question,  ’(d)  we      achieve 238      equality  by   putting  each  individual  on  the  same      starting line  today or  by giving  minority applicants      head-starts   designed    to   offset    the   probable      consequences  of   past  discrimination  and  injustice      against  the   group  with   which  the   applicant  is      identified ?      The same  author deals with ’reverse discrimination’ in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 42 of 62  

school admissions  and refers to Prof. Dworkin’s socio-jural defense of preferences:           Nor should  it be  forgotten  in  this  connection      that, at  least in  terms of traditional theory, rights      to equal  treatment and to freedom from discrimination,      as normally conceived, are personal and individual, and      that ’(e)qual  protection is not achieved through (the)      indiscriminate  imposition   of  inequalities  for  the      alleged  benefit   of  groups,  however  disadvantaged.      Benevolent quotas  and reverse  discrimination on  this      view,   fatally    offend   fundamental    notions   of      individualism inherent  in the  notion of  equality. In      answer, it  may be  said that  to regard the concept of      equality    simply     from    this     (traditionally)      individualistic point  of view  is to  take  an  unduly      restrictive view  of its  social function and to ignore      its allegedly  multifaceted character.  Or, to  adopt a      somewhat different  strategy, one may read the right to      equal  treatment   (both  the  more  general  right  to      equality and  the right enshrined in the constitutional      guarantee  of   equal  protection)  in  a  particularly      abstract way  and formulate it in such a manner that it      is not  necessarily violated  by the adoption of benign      racial classifications.  In this way, Professor Dworkin      distinguishes between  two ’different  sorts of rights’      which individuals may be said to have. The first is the      right to  equal treatment,  which is  the right  to  an      equal distribution of some opportunity or resource, and      the second  is the  right to  treatment  as  an  equal,      ’which  is   the  right,   not  to   receive  the  same      distribution of  some burden  or  benefit,  but  to  be      treated with  the same  respect and  concern as  anyone      else’. For  Dworkin it  is the right to treatment as an      equal that  is fundamental,  whilst the  right to equal      treatment is only derivable, and it is the former that,      as a general matter, is given ’constitutional standing’      by the  Equal Protection  Clause. In other words, white      applicants for  admission to  Law School  who may  have      been turned  away because  of the  reservation of  some      places for  members of  disadvantaged  minority  groups      cannot  (in   a  case  like  the  one  set  out  above)      successfully complain, the reason being that they 239      do  not   have  a  right  to  equal  treatment  in  the      assignment of  places, but they do have the right to be      treated as equals, that is, with equal respect, concern      and sympathy,  in the  making of  decisions as to which      admissions standards should be used. More specifically,      this right  is viewed  by Dworkin  as meaning that each      candidate for  admission has a right that his interests      should be  looked at  ’as fully and sympathetically’ as      the interests  of any  others when  decisions are being      taken as  to which  of the  many possible  criteria for      admission to  elevate to  the status  of the  pertinent      ones. But  if this  condition  is  satisfied,  rejected      white applicants will fail in their contention that the      particular   admissions    program   was   unfair   and      unconstitutional (even  if they  had  been  effectively      excluded from consideration as a result of the adoption      of racial  criteria in  determining the  allocation  of      some of  the available  places).  The  simple  question      Dworkin  would  ask  in  these  cases  is  whether  the      particular admissions  program serves  a proper  policy      that respects the right of all members of the community      to be treated as equals, but not otherwise.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 43 of 62  

No debate  is needed  to uphold reservation in promotions as such. Not  only has  Rangachari sustained  it in  regard  to selection posts,  Thomas’s case  decided by a Bench of seven Judges, has expressly approved Rangachari. The only question bearing on  reservation vis-a-vis promotion is as to whether it is  unconstitutional if  it is  extended to non-selection posts while  it is  constitutional in  regard  to  selection posts.      Anyway, Annexure  F, one  of the circulars sought to be quashed by  the petitioners  relates only to selection posts and has  been expressly   upheld  in Rangachari’s  case. The quantum of  reservation  is  not  excessive;  the  field  of eligibility is  not too  unreasonable, the  operation of the reservation is  limited to selection posts and no relaxation of qualifications  is written  into the circular except that candidates of  the SC&ST  communities "should be judged in a sympathetic manner".  Moreover, administrative efficiency is secure because  there is  a direction  "to give  such  staff additional training  and coaching,  to bring  them up to the standard of  others".  The  rejection  of  the  invalidatory contention of the petitioners is inevitable.      Annexure H  is bad for unconstitutionality according to the petitioners  for many  reasons. For  one thing, an SC/ST employee gets  one grading  higher than otherwise assignable to him  on the  record of  his service. So much so, if he is ’good’ he will be categorised as ’very 240 good’. This fiction or fraud in grading is said to be a vice rendering the  promotional prospects unreasonable. We do not agree.  Superficially   viewed,  this   clumsy  process   of reclassifying ability  may strike  one as  disingenuous.  Of course, this  concession is  confined to  only 25%   of  the total number  of vacancies  in a  particular grade  or  post filled in  a year.  So there  is no  rampant vice  of  every harijan or  girijan jumping  over the  heads of others. More importantly, we  think this is only an administrative device of showing  a concession  or  furtherance  of  prospects  of selection. Even  as under  Art. 15(4)  and Art. 16(4) lesser marks are prescribed as sufficient for SC&STs or extra marks are added  to give  them an  advantage the re-grading is one more method  of boosting  the chances  of selection of these depressed classes. There is nothing shady about it. If there is advancement of prospects of SC&ST by addition of marks or prescribing  lesser  minimum  marks  or  by  relaxing  other qualifications,  I   see  no   particular  outrage   in  re- categorisation which  is but  a different mode of conferring an advantage  for the  plain and  understandable reason that SC&STs do need some extra help. It is important to note that the  prescribed  minimum  qualifications  and  standards  of fitness are continued even for SC&STs under Annexure H.      The other  vice pointed  out against Annexure H is that the qualifying  marks in  respect  of  SC&ST  candidates  is somewhat less than is applicable to candidates of unreserved groups. There  is no  merit in  this objection  and no  good ground exists  which militates against the constitutionality of Annexure H.      Annexure I  is also  unexceptionable since  all that it does: is  to  readjust  the  proportion  of  reservation  in conformity  with   the  latest   Census.  Posts   for  which recruitment,  realistically   speaking,  takes  place  on  a regional basis  are subjected  to  reservation  taking  into account the  percentage of SC&ST population in the concerned State. This  is also reasonable. Likewise, the carry forward rule being  raised from  2 years  to 3  years also cannot be struck down.  It  must  be  realised  that  law  is  not  an

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 44 of 62  

abstraction but an actual prescription in action. So what we have to  be more  careful about is to scrutinise whether the carry forward rule by being increased to 3 years is going to confer a  monopoly   upon the  SC&ST candidates  and deprive others  of  their  opportunity  for  appointment.  From  the percentage furnished  by the Railway Board we find that even if we  carry forward vacancies for any number of years there is no  prospect, within the reasonable future, of sufficient number of  SC & ST candidates turning up to fill them. There is a  provision that if sufficient number of candidates from the SC  & ST  are not  found, applicants from the unreserved communities will  be given  the  appointment  provisionally. After 3 years those vacancies cease to be reserved. Going by the actuals it is clear that no serious infraction of 241 any individual’s  fundamental right  under Art.  16(1) takes place and  no monopoly  is conceivably  conferred  on  SC&ST candidates, they  are not available in sufficient numbers to reach anywhere near the percentage reserved.       Even  going by  the majority,  Devadasan’s case  ( ’ ) lays down the proposition that under Art. 16(4) "reservation of a  reasonable percentage  B of  posts for  members of the Scheduled Castes  and Tribes is within the competence of the State. What  the percentage  ought to  be  must  necessarily depend upon  the circumstances obtaining from time to time." Madholkar, J. speaking for the majority has struck down only one restriction.  "In order to effectuate the guarantee each year of  recruitment will  have to  be  by  itself  and  the representation for  backward communities  should not  be  so excessive as  to create  a monopoly or to disturb unduly the legitimate claims  of other  communities." (emphasis added). Unlimited reservation  of appointments  may be impermissible because it  renders Art.  16(1) nugatory.  At the same time, Art.  16(4),   calculated  to  promote  social  justice  and expressive of  the deep  concern of the Constitution for the limping bracket of Indians, must be given full play. That is why the  only restraint  imposed by Mudholkar, J. is that an exercise of  power under  Art. 16(4) "does not mean that the provision made  by the  State  should  have  the  effect  of virtually obliterating the rest of the Article, particularly clauses (1)  and (2)  thereof."(’) By  the three-year ’carry forward’ rule  one is  unable to  see how,  in practice, the total vacancies  will be  gobbled up  by the harijan/girijan groups "virtually  obliterating" Art.  16(1). The  court has made it  very clear  that the  problem  of  giving  adequate representation to  backward classes  under Art.  16(4) is  a matter for  the Government  to consider, bearing in mind the need for  a reasonable  balance between  the rival claims as pointed out in Balaji’s case.(2)       It  is true  that  in  Balaji’s  case  and  Devadasans case(l) ’the  carry forward’  rule for  backward classes for exceeded 50%  and was struck down. We must remember that the percentage of  reservation for  backward  classes  including SC&ST was rather high in both the cases. In Devadasan’s case the court  went into the actuals, not into the hypothetical. This is  most important.  The Court  actually  verified  the degree of  deprivation of  the ’equal opportunity’ right and discovered: (3 )           In the  case before  us 45 vacancies have actually      been filled out of which 29 have gone to members of the      Scheduled      (1) [1964] 4 SCR 680 at 695.      (2) [1963] Supp. 1 SCR 439.      (3) Ibid at 693-94. 242

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 45 of 62  

    Castes and Tribes on the basis of reservation permitted      by the carry forward rule. This comes to about 64.4% of      reservation. Such  being the result of the operation of      the carry  for ward  rule we  must, on the basis of the      decision in Balaji’s case hold that the rule is bad.                                             (emphasis added) What is  striking is that the Court did not take an academic view or make a notional evaluation but checked up to satisfy itself about the seriousness of the infraction of the right. On that  footing, the petitioners have not demonstrated that in any  particular year,  virtually and  in actual  terms of promotion, there  has been-a  substantial excess over 50% in favour of  the SC&ST  promotees. Mathematical  calculations, departing from realities of the case, may startle us without justification, the apprehension being misplaced. All that we need say  is that the Railway Board shall take care to issue instructions to  see that  in no year shall SC&ST candidates be actually  appointed to substantially more than 50% of the promotional  posts.   Some  excess   will  not   affect   as mathematical precision  is different  in human  affairs, but substantial excess  will void the selection. Subject to this rider or  condition that  the ’carry forward’ rule shall not result, in  any given year, in the selection or appointments of SC&ST candidates considerably in excess of 50%, we uphold Annexure I.       Heated arguments about the hurt caused by Annexure ’J’ have been addressed to us. It deals with the 40-point roster and the  posts allotted  to the  SC&ST allottees.  Once  the fundamental  premises   are  accepted   there   is   nothing unreasonable or wrong in Annexures 1 and 2 to Annexure J. It is significant  that with  a view to prevent total exclusion of others  there is  a provision  that if there are only two vacancies in  a given  year, in more than one may be treated as reserved  and if  there is only one vacancy, it should be treated  as   unreserved.  Implementation   of  reservations necessarily involves  practical steps like evolving a roster system. Once  the parameters  of reservation  are within the framework of  the fundamental  rights,  minute  scrutiny  of every    administrative     measure    and    hunting    for unconstitutionality is not permissible.       Far  more serious  is the criticism of Annexure ’K’ on the basis  of which  reservations were  introduced  even  to promotion posts  filled by  the  ’seniority-cum-suitability’ rule. Some  other relaxations  and  con  cessions  also  are granted under it to SC/ST candidates. But the maximum mayhem inflicted by Annexure K is in the extension of the operation of promotional  reservation to  non-selection posts.  It was urged that  Rangachari (supra)  did not  cover non-selection posts and, there 243 fore, could  not be  an authority  to sustain  its validity. There is no force in this submission.       The  sting of the argument against reservation is that it promotes  inefficiency in administration by choosing sub- standards candidates  in preference  to  those  with  better mettle. Competitive  skill is more relevant in higher posts, especially those  where selection  is  made  by  competitive examinations. Lesser  classes of  posts, where  promotion is secured mechanically by virtue of seniority except where the candidate is unfit, do not require a high degree of skill as in the  case of  selection posts.  (See 1968 1 SCR p. 721 at 734). It  is obvious  that as  between  selection  and  non- selection posts  the role  of merit  is functionally  more ‘ relevant in  the former  than  in  the  latter.  And  if  in Rangachari reservation  has been  held valid  in the case of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 46 of 62  

selection posts,  such reservation in non-selection posts is an afortiori  case. If,  in selecting  top officers  you may reserve posts  for SC/ST  with lesser  merit,  how  can  you rationally argue  that for  the  posts  of  peons  or  lower division clerks  reservation will  spell calamity ? The part that efficiency  plays is  far more  in the  case of  higher posts than  in the  appointments to the lower posts. On this approach Annexure K is beyond reproach.        One  may  easily  sympathise  with  holders  of  non- selection posts.  They are  many  in  number  in  the  lower stations  of   life.  They  are  economically  backward  and burdened with  the drudgery  of life. That is why there is a ballyhoo raised  by a  larger number  of  people  when  some categories in  far more  distressing social situations enter the  arena  with  preferential  treatment.  Looking  at  the problem from  the point  of view  of law  and logic  and the constitutional   justification    under   Art.   16(4)   for reservation in  favour of  the panchama proletariat there is nothing to  strike  down  in  Annexure  K.  As  between  the socially, even  economically depressed  and the economically backward,  the   Constitution  has   emphatically  cast  its preference for the former. Who are we, as Judges to question the wisdom  of provisions  made  by  Government  within  the parameters of  Art. 16(4)?  The answer  is obvious  that the writ of  the court  cannot quash what is not contrary to the Constitution however  tearful the consequences for those who may be  adversely affected.  The progressive  trend must, of course, be  to classify on the have-not basis but the SC/ST, category is,  generally speaking,  not only  deplorably poor but also  humiliatingly pariah  in their lot. Maybe, some of the forward  lines of  the backward classes have the best of both the  words and  their electoral muscle qua caste scares away even  radical parties  from talking secularism to them. We are not concerned with that II dubious brand. In the long run, the  recipe for  backwardness is  not creating a vested interest in backward castes but liquidation of handi 244 caps, social economic, by constructive projects. All this is in another street and we need not walk that way now.       Trite  arguments about efficiency and inefficiency are a trifle phoney because, after all, at the higher levels the harijan/girijan appointees  are a microscopic percentage and even in  the case  of Classes  III and  II  posts  they  are negligible. The  preponderant majority  coming from the well reserved  communities   are  presumably  efficient  and  the dilution of  efficiency caused by the minimal induction of a small percentage  of ’reserved’ candidates cannot affect the over-all administrative efficiency significantly. Indeed, it will be  gross exaggeration  to visualise  a collapse of the Administration because  5 to  10% of  the  total  number  of officials in  the various classes happen to be sub-standard. Moreover, care  has been  taken to  give in-service training and coaching to correct the deficiency.       It  is fashionable  to say-and there is, perhaps, some truth in  it- that  from generation to generation there is a deterioration in  efficiency  in  all  walks  of  life  from politics to  pedagogy to  officialdom and other professions. Nevertheless, the  world has  been going  forward  and  only parties whose  personal interest is affected forecast a doom on account  of progressive  deficiency in efficiency. We are not  impressed   with   the   misfortune   predicted   about governmental personnel being manned by morons merely because a sprinkling  of harijans/girijans  happen to find their way into the  Services. Their  apathy and  backwardness are such that  in   spite  of   these  favourable   provisions,   the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 47 of 62  

unfortunates  have   neither  the  awareness  nor  qualified members to  take their  rightful place in the Administration of the  country. The  malady of modern India lies elsewhere, and the  merit-mongers are  greater risks  in many  respects than the  naive tribals  and the  slightly  better  off  low castes. Nor  does the  specious  plea  that  because  a  few harijans are  better off,  therefore, the bulk at the bottom deserves no  jack-up provisions  merit scrutiny.  A  swallow does not  make a  summer. Maybe,  the State may, when social conditions warrant, justifiably restrict harijan benefits to the harijans  among  the  harijans  and  forbid  the  higher harijans from robbing the lowlier brethren       We  have  adverted  to  Annexure  M  earlier  in  this judgment which  shows the  determination  of  Government  to impart in-service training to those SC&ST candidates who are found to  be below  par. Even  temporary promotions on an ad hoc basis  are limited  to six  months only to give training and experience  than the spoil permanently the efficiency of the system.  The Annexure  has come under attack because the reservation quota  has been  raised thereby  from 50  to 66- 2/3%. We have earlier dis 245 cussed this aspect and pointed out that what is important is not so much the figures mentioned on paper but the facts and circumstances in  real life.  We have  also entered a caveat that in any particular year there shall not, as a fact, be a substantial increase  upon 50%  of induction  of  ’reserved’ candidates. It is true that Shri Venugopal, counsel for some of the  petitioners tried  to demonstrate that on account of reservation percentages  coupled with the carry forward rule it is perfectly within the realm of possibility that in some years a  monopoly may  be conferred  on the SC&ST candidates for certain  categories or  classes  of  posts.  The  mystic "maybe" do not scare us. The actual "must be" will alert us. The  Constitution   deals   with   social   realities,   not speculative  possibilities.  I  have  limited  the  physical operation of  reservation in  any particular  year in such a manner that  there  will  be  a  real  opportunity  for  the exercise of  the right  under Art. 16(1) for every candidate of the unreserved communities.       Certain  minor attacks such as that a candidate of the SC&ST communities who has failed may still be tried if other successful  candidates   from  those   communities  are  not forthcoming. This may seem strange disbelief in examinations as measure  of  merit.  But  to  read  stray  provisions  in isolation may be unfair to the scheme. Look at the desperate State  in   which  Government   is  trying   to  give   fair representation to harijans/girijans in Administration. These miserables suppressed  by centuries  of trampling  are still slumbering despite  inducements to  awaken. It  is a genetic calumny and  unscientific assertion  to castigate  the SC&ST communities as possessed of less intellectual potential what with Valmiki and Vyasa to Baba Sahib Ambedkar. The darkening and be  numbing environment  of ages  in which  shudras  and panchamas have  suffered their  mental powers  to be chained accounts  for  their  seeming,  retardation.  Once  brighter atmosphere and better opportunity enliven their talent their contribution to  the Indian  treasury will  raise the  human resources and  democratic status  of Bharat.  A democracy of talent is  an inarticulate major premise of our culture. The fundamental question  arises  as  to  what  is  "merit"  and "suitability". Elitists  whose sympathies  with  the  masses have dried  up are, from the standards of the Indian people, least suitable  to run  Government and  least meritorious to handle state  business, if  we envision  a Service  State in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 48 of 62  

which the millions are the consumers. A sensitized heart and a vibrant  head, tuned  to the  tears of  the  people,  will speedily quicken  the developmental  needs of  the  country, including its  rural stretches  and slum  squalour.  Sincere dedication and  intellectual integrity-these are some of the major components  of "merit"  and "suitability"-not  degrees from Oxford  or Cambridge,  Harvard or  Stanford or  simian, though Indian, 246 institutions. Unfortunately,  the very  orientation  of  our selection process is distorted and those like the candidates from the  SC&ST who,  from their birth, have had a traumatic understanding of  the conditions  of agrestic India have, in one sense,  more capability  than those who have lived under affluent circumstances  and are  calIous to the human lot of the sorrowing masses. Moreover, our examination system makes memory the  master of  ’merit’ and  banishes creativity into exile. We  need not  enter these  areas where  a fundamental transformation and  a radical  re-orientation  even  in  the assessment of  the qualities  needed by the personnel in the Administration and  the socialist  values to be possessed by the echelons  in office  is a  consummation devoutly  to  be wished. This  may have to be subjected to a national debate. The  colonial   hangover  still   clings  to  our  selection processes with  superstitious tenacity and narrower concepts of efficiency  and merit  are readily  evolved to  push  out Gandhis and J.Ps, Ambedkars and Nehrus, to mention but a few who knew the heart-beats of the people. I diva gate and make these observations  only to  debunk the exaggerated argument about harijans  and girijans  being sub-standard. We may put aside  this   angle  of  vision  and  approach  the  problem traditionally because  every  new  idea  has  resistance  to encounter before acceptance, every original thought has been branded a  hearsay. Be  that as  it may,  the constitutional merits of  the various  Board Circulars now discussed do not warrant  their   judicial  ’execution’-subject   to  certain cautionary limitations already indicated.       The  argument that  there  are  rich  and  influential harijans who  rob all  the privileges leaving the serf-level sufferers as suppressed as ever. The Administration may well innovate and  classify to weed out the creamy layer of SC&ST but the court cannot force the State in that behalf.       For  a comparative thought we may glance at Polyviou’s ’The Equal protection of the laws’: (’)           "A third  argument traditionally  employed against      the  use   of  preferential   discrimination  is   that      affirmative measures  of the  kind discussed  here  may      significantly curtail  efficiency. It does indeed stand      to reason  that the  immediate result  of benignity  in      admission and  selection process  will almost certainly      be the  selection of  those who are not as competent or      as able  as some  of those left out. ’Special admission      programmes, almost  by definition,  operate to  in sure      that students are placed in schools for which they are      (1) The  equal protection of the laws by G. Polyviou p. 360. 247      not qualified  ! The same objection applies with equal,      if not   more,  force to  the area  of  employment  and      elsewhere. One  possible answer  is that the importance      of efficiency  must be compared with and ultimately set      against  the   significance  of   integration  or   the      prevention of  discrimination, and that integration and      the rectification  of socially  harmful deprivation are      the more  pressing needs.  Or one  can fall back on the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 49 of 62  

    very different  arguments  that  traditional  admission      processes are  unfair because  these are  geared to the      usual type of applicant and that preferential treatment      after all only seeks to counteract such inherent bias.       There  is a  human problem behind these writ petitions which we clearly appreciate. Most of the Classes II, III and IV employees  are economically  backward  and  struggle  for survival what  with price  spirals and  other  tribulations. They hope,  after years  of  yeomen  service,  to  get  some promotion and  augment their poor resources in the afternoon of their  life. Then they find another class, with which the Constitution shows ultra sympathy, elbowing them out, not on a massive  scale, but  minimally. Even  this  marginal  push hurts these  species living at subsistence level and so they scream. The economically backward and the socio-economically backward truly  belong  to  the  ’have-not’  camp  and  must jointly act  to bring about a transformation of the economic order by  putting sufficient  pressure and  make Art.  38  a living reality.  Estrangement  between  the  two  categories weakens the  militancy of a joint operation to inject social justice in the current economic order. The truth is that the employment market  is distressingly a musical chair business and when  starvation faces  men their sympathy for their far weaker  brethren   vanishes.  The   true  solution  for  the country’s problems, as reflected in these writ petitions, is in developmental  expansion involving  the millions,  rather than denial  to the weakest sector of Indian life the morsel to which  it is justly entitled. Even Administration will do well  to   remember  that  Indian  despair,  after  infinite patience, may  augur danger  unless  ’the  sorry  scheme  of things entire’  is remoulded  nearer to  Art. 38. Even these observations are  made only  to  emphasise  that  the  legal content of the contentions put forward by the petitioners is less than  presentable although their economic grievance may be agonisingly genuine. The Court has its limitations unlike the Administration  and can  give  justice  only  under  the Constitution and not over it.       The  human pressure behind these writ petitions is the chronic drought  of employment  opportunities despite talent enough to make 248 deserts bloom.  So long  as this scarcity persists and power goes with  office, the  jaundiced politics  of snatching the jobs going,  initially or  at promotion  level, by  hook  or crook, is  the only ’development’ that takes place, whatever the National Plans proclaim. The vast human potential of the harijans and  girijans, on-fifth  of the Indian people, goes to thistles  and every communal effort to twist the politics of power  for promoting  chances  of  getting  jobs  becomes inevitable  caste   being  a  deeprooted  pathology  in  our country. Thus jobbery, politics, casteism and elections make an  unholy,  though  invisible,  alliance  against  national development which alone can liberate Indians from social and economic privation.  If democracy itself thus plays into the hands of  hostile forces,  the jurisprudence  of keeping the backward as backward and perpetuation of discrimination as a vested caste right may prevail as a rule of life.      The  remedy  of  ’reservations’  to  correct  inherited imbalances  must  not  be  an  overkill.  Backward  classes, outside the  Scheduled Castes and Tribes, cannot bypass Art. 16(2) save  where very  substantial  cultural  and  economic disparity stares  at society.  The  dubious  obsession  with ’backwardness’ and  the  politicking  with  castes  labelled backward classes  may, on  an appropriate  occasion,  demand judicial examination.  The politics of power cannot sabotage

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 50 of 62  

the principles  of  one  man,  one  value.  No  sociological explanation  for   the  flood   of  ruinous  writ  petitions regarding service  conditions can  be found  except on  this basis. Behind  the writ  petitions we deal with now is caste clamour to  keep all  the jobs  safe from  being ’robbed’ by ’reserved’ communities.  It is forward caste versus backward caste, wearing  the casteless caste-marks! And the political process is  likewise caste-polluted  Gunnar Myrdal writes in his Asian Drama: ( ’ )           The type of appeal that can be made by politicians      has also changed greatly since the liberation movement.      They can  no longer  put  the  blame  for  poverty  and      stagnation on  colonial masters,  but must  explain why      there  is   not  great   progress  now  that  India  is      independent           Thus a  key to  the understanding  of the power of      the  political   bosses   is   the   inherited   social      stratification of  India  and,  above  all,  its  caste      system. At  election times the caste groups function as      political vote  banks  whereby  the  ballots  of  their      members are joined to the candidate with a party label.      For this reason alone the local political bosses have a      vested interest  in preserving  the social and economic      status quo  and exploiting it as a matrix for political      action.      (1) Gunnar Myrdal, Asian Drama, Vol. I, pp. 249 M. N. Srinivas, the noted sociologist is more than right (1) A            One  cannot help  wondering whether  the drive to      political maturity  is, after  all, a  good thing  in a      country  which  has  still  not  had  a  proper  social      revolution. It may well result in premature old age. We need  now, not  stagnation wearing  the mask of stability and scrambling  acrimoniously over  the same  shrunken cake, but progress  by the constructive process of explosive rural development and exploitation of the untapped human potential of  the  Scheduled  Castes  and  Scheduled  Tribes.  Sterile ’reservations’ will  not help  us go ahead unless, alongside of it,  we have heroic national involvement of the masses in actual action,  not paper-logged plan exercises. In the last analysis, privation  can be  banished  only  by  production, discontent  by   distributive  justice   and  litigation  by socially  relevant   Justice.  The   writ   petitions   are, regrettably, negative,  although the driving force of penury deserves  sympathy.   This,  perhaps,   is   a   materialist interpretation of  ’service litigation’ and a trim foot-note to these writ petitions. D      Before I  conclude, I  must strike  a futuristic  note. Excellence and  equality may cooperating fruitfully and need not  compete   destructively.   Ultimately   harijan/girijan militancy must  find fulfillment in effective main-streaming and creative contribution. While they have miles to go, they have promises  to keep.  The poignant  words of the Reverend Jesse Jackson come to my mind (1)            "I  don’t see  how, we can survive as a people if      we don’t  have a great push for excellence now....A lot      of what  we’ve done  in the  past will be in vain if we      don’t. We  can make one of the most valid contributions      to Western  civilization, even  more of  a contribution      than   slavery.   Because   slavery   was   our   great      contribution against  our will. Now it’s time for us to      make a great contribution as an act of will."       Given  the opportunity and the environment, the Indian dalits can make India great and give up crutches.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 51 of 62  

     The  writ petitions  as  well  as  the  Special  Leave Petitions cannot but be dismissed.       PATHAK,  J.-My brothers  Krishna  Iyer  and  Chinnappa Reddy  are   agreed  that   the  writ  petitions  should  be dismissed. They  have held  against the  petitioners on  the several contentions raised in the      (1)  M.  N.  Srinivas,  "Changing  Attitudes  in  India      Today" Yogana, October I 1961, p. 26. 250 case. With  respect, I  find myself unable to agree with all that they have said.       I  intend to confine myself here to certain aspects of the case which appear to possess a fundamental importance.        Three   provisions  of  the  Constitution  relate  to reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. They are Art.  46, Art.  16(4) and  Art. 335.  The three  form  a single frame of reference. Art. 46, a Directive Principle of State Policy,  proclaims the  principle that the State shall promote with  special  care  the  educational  and  economic interests of  the weaker  sections of  the people,  and,  in particular,  of  the  Scheduled  Castes  and  the  Scheduled Tribes, and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of  exploitation.  One  of  the  modes  in  which  the economic interests  of the  Scheduled Castes  and  Scheduled Tribes can be promoted is the reservation of appointments or posts in their favour in services under the State where they are not  adequately represented.  Art. 16(4)  declares  that when the  State intends  to make  such provision  nothing in Art. 16  shall prevent  it from  doing so.  The equality  of opportunity guaranteed  to all  citizens in matters relating to employment  or appointment  to any office under the State will not restrain the State from making such reservation. It is now  well accepted  that the "equality provisions of Part III  of   the  Constitution   constitute  a   single   code, illustrating the  multi-faceted  character  of  the  central concept of  equality. Art.  16(4)  also  is  one  facet.  It enables a  backward class  of citizens,  by the  process  of reservation in Government service, to move along the road to ultimate equality with the more advanced classes. It is part of the  process of  equalization. Then  follows Art. 335. It provides that  the claims  of the  members of  the Scheduled Castes  and   Scheduled   Tribes   shall   be   taken   into consideration in  the making of appointments to services and posts in  connection with  the affairs  of-the  Union  or  a State, but-and this is imperative-such consideration must be consistent   with   the   maintenance   of   efficiency   of administration.  The  paramount  need  is  to  maintain  the efficiency of administration. That is dictated by the common good. It  embraces the  need of  all, the national good, and not of a mere section of the people. To its primacy all else is subordinate.  Therefore, whatever  is done in considering the claims of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes must be consistent  with that  supreme need,  the maintenance  of efficiency of  administration. Art.  335, it must be clearly stated,  does   not  contain   a  positive   principle,  the advancement of  Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and a negative  principle,   the  maintenance   of  efficiency  of administration. This analysis of the article does not 251 truly comprehend  its  contents.  -  It  contains  a  single principle,  the   A  advancement  of  Scheduled  Castes  and Scheduled Tribes,  but through  modes and avenues which must not  detract   from  the   maintenance   of   an   efficient administration. That  limitation is  imposed as  a clear and positive condition.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 52 of 62  

      A   generally  acknowledged   and  long   established principle  for   securing  an  efficient  administration  is throwing open  the  doors  to  general  recruitment,  either directly or  by promotion,  where the governing criterion is excellence and  the emphasis  is solely on quality. I he net of selection  is spread  far and  wide, and  the competitive best are  collected, regardless  of religion,  race,  caste, sex, descent,  place of birth or residence. However, a quota of the  posts may  be reserved in favour of a backward class of   citizens,   but   the   interests   of   an   efficient administration require  that at  least half the total number of posts  be kept  open to  attract the best of the nation‘s talent and  not more  than half  be made the sum of reserved quotas. If  it was  otherwise, an excess of reserved quotaas would convert the State service into a collective membership predominantly of backward classes. This, it is evident, will be inconsistent  with the  all-important goal of maintaining the  efficiency   of  administration.   In  considering  the proportion of  reserved quotas  in the  context  of  college admissions, this  (’court laid down in M. R. Balaji v. State of Mysore(’)  that broadly a special provision providing for reservation should be less than 50%, .and how much less than 50% would  depend upon the relevant prevailing circumstances in each  case. And,  in this  connection, Gajendragadkar, J. (as he then was) speaking for the Court, observed:            " .. when the State makes a special provision for      the advancement  of  the  weaker  sections  of  society      specified in  Art. 15(4),  it has  to approach its task      objectively and  in a  rational manner. Undoubtedly, it      has to  take reasonable and even generous steps to help      the advancement  of weaker  elements; the extent of the      problem  must  be  weighed,  the  requirements  of  the      community at  large must be borne in mind and a formula      must be evolved which would strike a reasonable balance      between the several relevant considerations."                                          (Emphasis supplied) The  Court   struck  down   the  reservation   of   68%   as constitutionally Invalid.       (1) [1963] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 439. 470. 252      The principle  that reserved quotas should not together exceed 50% of the vacancies available in a year was affirmed by this  Court, by a majority of four learned judges to one, in T.  Devadasan v.  Union of  India,(’) as  the reason  for striking down  a "carry  forward" rule which, for promotions in  the  Central  Secretariat  Service,  permitted  a  carry forward for  two successive  years of  the  annual  reserved quota. It was found in that case that observance of the rule had resulted  in 65%,  of the  vacancies of  the year  being filled by  reserved quotas, current and carried forward. The "carry forward"  rule was  held constitutionally  invalid on the basis  that for  the purpose  of Art. 16(1) each year of recruitment had  to be  considered as  a distinct  unit  for applying the  50% rule.  Mudholkar, J.,  on  behalf  of  the majority, said:            "We  would like  to emphasize  that the guarantee      contained in  Art. 16(1)  is for  ensuring equality  of      opportunity for  all citizens  relating to  employment,      and to appointments to any office under the State. This      means that  on every occasion for recruitment the State      should see  that all  citizens are treated equally. The      guarantee is to each individual citizen and, therefore,      every citizen  who is seeking employment or appointment      to an office under the State is entitled to be afforded      an  opportunity   for  seeking   such   employment   or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 53 of 62  

    appointment whenever  it is  intended to  be filled. In      order  to   effectuate  the   guarantee  each  year  of      recruitment will  have to  be considered  by itself and      the reservation  for backward communities should not be      so excessive  as to  create a  monopoly or  to  disturb      unduly the legitimate claims of other communities."       It  seems to  me that  apart from  the impact  that an excessive reservation  in a particular year is bound to have on the  general community  of citizens, there is the further far-reaching significance  this assumes  in the  context  of Art. 335. The maintenance of efficiency of administration is bound to be adversely affected if general candidates of high merit are  correspondingly excluded from recruitment because the large  bulk of  the vacancies,  numbering anything  over 50%, is allotted to the reserved quota. In view of a maximum age limit  invariably prescribed,  some of  such meritorious candidates may  be loss to the service altogether. Viewed in that light,  a maximum  of 50%  for reserved quotas in their totality is  a rule  which appears fair and reasonable, just and equitable,  and violation  of which would contravene Art 335.       (1) [1964] 4 S.C.R. 680. 253       It  has been  urged by  the respondents  that Devadasn (supra) is  A no  longer good  law in  view of  the  7-Judge decision in  State of  Kerala v  N. M.  Thomas(’).  It  does appear from  some of  the individual  Judgments delivered in the latter  case that  although Devadas (supra) has not been expressly overruled  by a  majority of  the Bench  there are observations by  the majority of Judges which throw doubt on the  validity   of  the   principle  enunciated  by  it  and ultimately  the   Court  has  upheld  the  promotion  of  34 Scheduled Caste  and Scheduled  Tribe candidates  among  the total promotion  of 51  candidates. It  would seem then that there is an apparent conflict between Devadas (supra) and N. M. Thomas  (supra). The  validity of Rule 13AA of the Kerala State and  Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 was questioned in N. M.  Thomas (supra).  That Rule permitted the exemption of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe members from passing the promotion tests  for a  specified period. That more than 50% of the  promotions went to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates  was a consequence of the operation of Rule 13AA. It  is doubtful  whether the petitioners’ challenge to the "carry  forward" rule can avoid what has been said in N. M. Thomas  (supra) and,  therefore, a  conclusion  in  their favour does  not seem possible in this case. As the position is not  clear, and  in any event as my learned brothers have taken a definite view in favour of the "carry forward" rule, I have confined myself to expressing these observations.        The  petitioners  have  challenged  other  provisions prescribed in  favour of members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled  Tribes   and  have  attempted  to  support  their submissions by  reference to  data purporting  to prove that those measures  have resulted  in reverse discrimination and are also  inconsistent with the maintenance of efficiency of administration.  We  have  been  taken  through  charts  and statistics among other documentary material but the material placed before  us does  not clearly and definitely establish what it  seeks to  prove. In  the circumstances,  it is  not possible to record a finding in favour of the petitioners on those points. G       Accordingly,  the writ  petitions  are  dismissed  but without any order as to costs.        CHINNAPPA  REDDY  J.-In  the  name  of  Equality  (of opportunity),  we   are   asked   to   deny   Equality   (of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 54 of 62  

opportunity), in these Writ Petitions. That we cannot do and that we will not do. If we do that we will be subverting the spirit and the sense of the Constitution. The       (1) [1976] 1 S.C.R. 906. 254 petitioners claim  that their  Fundamental Right to Equality of  Opportunity   in  the   matter  of   public  employment, guaranteed by  Art.  16(1)  of  the  Constitution  has  been flouted by  a series  of orders  and circulars issued by the Railway Board  reserving posts  at several levels and making various concessions  in favour  of members  of the Scheduled Castes and  the Scheduled  Tribes. This has been done, it is claimed, at the cost of efficiency, though forbidden by Art. 335 of the Constitution. The plain answer of the respondents is that  everyone  of  the  orders  and  circulars  has  the backing of Art. 16(1), 16(4) and other special provisions of the Constitution  and that  the  alarm  of  inefficiency  is nothing but a bogey.        My  brother  Krishna  Iyer,  J.  has  considered  the questions raised  in his  own characteristic,  scintillating way and  in some  depth. Though respect for my brother would ordinarily prevent  me from  venturing to  write a  separate opinion, specially  when I  agree whole  heatedly  with  his conclusions and  the, route  traversed by  him, I propose to make, in  this case,  certain general observations because I expect  the  same  questions  to  be  raised  repeatedly  in different situations  and in  different forms and it is just as well  that I  project my own prosaic and pedestrian point of view,  without going  into the  detail or  depth  already explored by my brother.      The  class   of  people  known  compendiously  as  ’the Scheduled Castes’,  recognized and  described as such in the Constitution of  India   have been  treated  as  ’casteless’ outcastes and  untouchables  and  have  been  oppressed  and subjected to  every manner of depravation and discrimination for centuries  upon centuries  by a  unique system of social and economic  segregation, a  system of  "graded inequality" (Dr. B.R.  Ambedkar), of  "gradation and  degradation"  (Dr. C.R. Reddy)  and of  "gigantic  cold-blooded  repression"  ( Rabindranath   Tagore). And  for centuries  they  were  even prevented from  protesting their plight. Nor was any attempt made by  the superior  and elitist  classes to know anything about them.  All that  a Scheduled Caste parent could do was to lament:      "Hush, my child; don’t cry, my treasure;       Weeping is in vain, For the enemy will never       Understand our pain.       For the ocean has its limits       Prisons have their walls around       But our suffering and our torment       have no limit and no bound." Then, in  1950, came  the Constitution rousing expectations, raising hopes,  making promises  and generally  heralding  a new, a bitter and 255 a more decent life for the underprivileged and the oppressed people of  India. While  the preamble  to  the  Constitution proclaims the  resolution of  the people to constitute India into a Sovereign (also. ’Socialist, Secular’, Since the 42nd Amendment) Democratic  Republic and  to secure  to  all  its citizens, "Justice,  Social,  economic  and  political"  and "Equality  of   Status  and   opportunity"  and  to  promote ’Fraternity, assuring  the dignity of the individual", while the Right  to Equality before the Law (Art. 14) and Equality of Opportunity  n the  matter of public employment (Art. 16)

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 55 of 62  

are guaranteed  as Fundamental Rights and while the State is enjoyed by  the Directive  Principles  of  State  Policy  to promote the  welfare of  the p  people by  securing a social order in which justice, social, economic and political shall inform all the institutions of the national life Art. 38(1), to endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities  Art. 38  (2), and,  to direct  its policy towards securing  that the  ownership  and  control  of  the material resources  of the  community are  so distributed as best to  subserve the  common good  Art. 39(b)  and that the operation of  the economic  system does  not result  in  the concentration of  wealth and  means  of  production  to  the common detriment  Art. 39(c),  pursuant to the very preamble and the  provisions of  the Constitution, special provisions have been  made.  in  particular,  for  the  protection  and advancement of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in recognition  of their  existing, low  social and economic status and  the consequent  inability and  failure on  their part to  avail  themselves  of  any  opportunity  for  self- advancement. It  is recognized that the failure of the State to create  a climatic  situation and  provide the  necessary impetus for  the increasing  participation of the members of the Scheduled  Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in the public services would  tentamount to  a denial  to  them  of  equal opportunity in  the matter  of public  employment. Art.  335 which is  included in  part XVI  of the Constitution dealing with  ’special   provisions  relating  to  certain  classes’ expressly provides:            "The  claims of  the  members  of  the  Scheduled      Castes and  the Scheduled  Tribes shall  be taken  into      consideration, consistently  with  the  maintenance  of      efficiency  of   administration  in   the   making   of      appointments to  services and  posts in connection with      the affairs to the Union or of a State."       Art.  46, one  of the  Directive Principles  of  State Policy, enjoins:            "The  State shall  promote with  special care the      educational  and   economic  interest   of  the  weaker      sections of the 256       people,  and, in  particular, of  the Scheduled Castes      and the  Scheduled Tribes,  and shall protect them from      social in justice and all forms of exploitation." - i       Art.  16 (1)  and 16  (4) which  guarantee equality of opportunity in matters of public employment read as follows:            "16  (1) There  shall be  equality of opportunity      for all  citizens in  matters relating to employment or      appointment to any office under the State."            "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 represent in the services under the State "       Art.  16 (2)  which  bars  discrimination  on  certain rounds is as follows:            "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."       Now,  it has been said, very rightly, a Constitutional instrument is  sui generis  and, obviously  and necessarily, its interpretation  cannot always  run on  the same lines as the interpretation  of statutes  made  in  exercise  of  the powers conferred  by it.  A constitution, like ours, born of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 56 of 62  

an anti-imperialist  struggle, influenced  by Constitutional instruments, events and r evolutions elsewhere, in search of a better  world and wedded to the idea of justice, economic, social and  political,  to  all,  must  receive  a  generous interpretation so  as to  give all  its  citizens  the  full measure of  justice so  proclaimed instead of ’the austerity of tabulated  legalism’(1). And  so, when the Constitutional instrument to be expounded is a constitution like the Indian Constitution, the  expositors are  to concern themselves not with words  and mere  words only,  but, as  much,  with  the philosophy or what we may call ’the spirit and the sense’ of the Constitution.  Here we  do not  have to  venture upon  a voyage of  discovery to find the spirit and the sense of the Constitution; we  do not  have to  look  to  any  extraneous sources for inspiration and guidance; they may be sought and found in  the Preamble to the Constitution, in the Directive Principles of State Policy, and other such provisions.       See Minister of Home Affairs :       [1979] (3) All E.R. 21. 257        Because   Fundamental  Rights   are  justiciable  and Directive  Principles  are  not,  it  was  assumed,  in  the beginning, that  Fundamental Rights held a superior position under the  Constitution than  the Directive  Principles, and that  the  latter  were  only  of  secondary  importance  as compared with  the Fundamental  Rights. That way of thinking is  of   the  past  and  has  become  obsolete.  It  is  now universally  recognised  that  the  difference  between  the Fundamental Rights  and Directive  Principles lies  in  this that Fundamental  Rights are  primarily  aimed  at  assuring political freedom to the citizens by protecting them against excessive State  action while  the Directive  Principles are aimed  at   securing  social   and  economic   freedoms   by appropriate,  State   action.  The  Fundamental  Rights  are intended to foster the ideal of a political democracy and to prevent the establishment of authoritarian rule but they arc of no value unless they can be enforced by resort to Courts. So they  are made  justiciable. But, it is also evident that notwithstanding  their   great  importance,   the  Directive Principles cannot  in the  very nature of things be enforced in a  Court of  law. It  is unimaginable  that any Court can compel a  legislature to  make a law If the Court can compel Parliament to  make laws  then Parliamentary democracy would soon be  reduced to  an oligarchy  of Judges.  It is in that sense  that   the  Constitution   says  that  the  Directive Principles shall  not be  enforceable by Courts. It does not mean that  Directive  Principles  are  less  important  than Fundamental Rights  or that  they are  not  binding  on  the various organs  of the  State. Art.  37 of  the Constitution emphatically   states    that   Directive   Principles   are ’nevertheless Fundamental  in the  governance of the country and it  shall be  the duty  of  the  State  to  apply  these principles in  making laws.  It follows  that it becomes the duty of  the Court  to apply  the  Directive  Principles  in interpreting the  Constitution and  the laws.  The Directive Principles  should   serve  the   Courts  as   a   code   of interpretation.   Fundamental    Rights   should   thus   be interpreted in the light of the Directive Principles and the later should,  whenever and  wherever possible, be read into the former. Every law attacked on the ground of infringement of a  Fundamental Right  should, among other considerations, be examined  to find  out if the law does not advance one or other of  the Directive  Principles  or  if  it  is  not  in discharge of some of the undoubted obligations of the State, constitutional  or   otherwise,  towards   its  citizens  or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 57 of 62  

sections of  its citizens,  flowing out of the preamble. the Directive   Principles   and   other   provisions   of   the Constitution.       So,  we have  it that  the Constitutional  goal is the establishment  of   a  Socialist  Democracy  which  Justice, economic, social and political 258 is secure  and all men are equal and have equal opportunity. Inequality, whether  of status,  facility or opportunity, is to end, privilege is to cease and exploitation is to go. The under-privileged, the  deprived and  the exploited are to be protected and  nourished so  as to  take their  place in  an egalitarian society.  State action  is to  be towards  those ends. It  is  in  this  context  that  Art.  16  has  to  be interpreted when  State action is questioned as contravening Art. 16.       Let  us now  take a  look at Art. 16(1) and Art 16(4). Art.  16(1)  guarantees  equality  of  opportunity  for  all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. To the class of citizens who are economically and socially backward this guarantee will be no more than  mere wishful  thinking, and  mere ’vanity....wind and confusion",  if it  is not  translated into  reality  by necessary state  action to protect and nurture such class of citizens so  as to  enable them  to  shake  off  the  heart- crushing burden  of  thousand years’ deprivation from their shoulders and to claim a fair proportion of participation in the Administration.  Reservation  of  posts  and  all  other measures  designed  to  promote  the  participation  of  The Scheduled Castes  and the  Scheduled Tribes  in  the  Public Services  at   all  levels  are  in  our  opinion  necessary consequences flowing fro the Fundamental Right guaranteed by Art. 16(1)S  This very  idea is  emphasised further  by Art. 16(4). Art.  16(4) is  not in  the nature of an exception to Art. 16(1).  It is  a facet  of Art. 16(1) which fosters and furthers the  idea of  equality of  opportunity with special reference to  an under  privileged  and  deprived  class  of citizens to when egalite de droit (formal or legal equality) is not  egalite de  fait (practical or factual equality). It is illustrative  of what  the State  must do to wipe out the distinction between egalite de droit and egalite de fait. It recognises  that   the  right  to  equality  of  opportunity includes the  right of  the  underprivileged  to  conditions comparable to  or  compensatory  of  those  enjoyed  by  the privileged. Equality of opportunity must be such as to yield ’Equality of  Results’ and  not that  which  simply  enables people, socially  and economically  better  placed,  to  win against the  less fortunate,  even when  the competition  is itself otherwise  equitable. John  Rawls  in  ’A  Theory  of Justice’ demands  the priority of equality in a distributive sense and  the setting  up of  the Social System "so that no one  gains   or  loses  from  his  arbitrary  place  in  the distribution of  natural assets  or his own initial position in  society   without  giving   or  receiving   compensatory advantages in return". His basic principle of social justice is:  "All  social  primary  goods-liberty  and  opportunity, income and  wealth, and  the bases of self-respect-are to be distributed equally unless an unequal distribution of any or all these goods is to the advantage of the least 259 favoured". One  of the  essential elements of his conception of social  A justice  is what  he  calls  the  principle  of redress: "This is the principle that undeserved inequalities call for  redress;  and  since  inequalities  of  birth  and natural endowment  are undeserved,  these  inequalities  are

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 58 of 62  

somehow to  be compensated  for". Society  must,  therefore, treat more  favourably those  with fewer  native assets  and those born  into less  favourable social  positions. If  the statement that  ’Equality of opportunity must yield Equality of Results’ and if the fulfillment of Articles 16(1) in Art. 16(4) ever needed a philosophical foundation it is furnished by Rawls’ Theory of Justice and the Redress Principle.       The  interpretation of  Arts. 16(1)  and 16(4) came up for  consideration  in  several  cases  before  this  Court. Perhaps the most important of them is State of Kerala & Anv. v. N.  M. Thomas  & Ors.,(1) which was decided by a Bench of seven Judges.  The question was whether a certain rule which gave a  longer period  of exemption  to members belonging to Scheduled Castes  and Scheduled  Tribes than  to others from passing certain  departmental tests  in order to be eligible for promotion  from the Post of Lower Division Clerk to that of Upper  Division Clerk  was not violative of Art. 16(1) of the Constitution.  The Court  by a  majority of  five to two upheld the rule as valid. Ray, C. J., observed:       "The  rule of  equality within  Articles 14  and 16(1) will not be violated by a rule which will ensure equality of representation in  the services  for  unrepresented  classes after  satisfying   the  basic   needs  of   efficiency   of administration.  Article  16(2)  rules  out  some  basis  of classification including  race,  caste,  descent,  place  of birth  etc.   Article  16(4)  clarifies  and  explains  that classification on  the basis  of backwardness  does not fall within Article  16(2) and  is legitimate for the purposes of Article 16(1).  If preference shall be given to a particular under-represented community  other than  a backward class or under-represented State  in an All India Service such a rule will  contravene   Article  16(2).  A  similar  rule  giving preference to  an under-represented  backward  community  is valid and  will not contravene articles 14, 16(1) and 16(2). Article 16(4) removes any doubt in this respect".       (I) [1976] 1 SCR 906 @930-933. 260        "The   classification  of   employees  belonging   to Scheduled Castes  and Scheduled  Tribes for allowing them an extended period  of two  years for passing the special tests for promotion is a just and reasonable classification having rational nexus  to the object of providing equal opportunity for all  citizens  in  matters  relating  to  employment  or appointment to public office."                 xx                      xx             xx       "The  Constitution makes a classification of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in numerous provisions and gives a mandate  to  the  State  to  accord  special  or  favoured treatment to them."                 xx                      xx             xx       "Article 335 of the Constitution states that claims of members of  the Scheduled  Castes and Scheduled Tribes shall be taken into consideration in the making of appointments to the services  and posts  in connection  with affairs  of the State consistent  with  the  maintenance  of  efficiency  of administration. The  impugned rule  and the  impugned orders are related to this constitutional mandate."       "Our  constitution aims  at  equality  of  status  and opportunity  for   all  citizens  including  those  who  are socially,  economically   and  educationally  backward.  The claims of  members  Or  backward  classes  require  adequate representation  in  legislative  and  executive  bodies.  If members of Scheduled Castes and Tribes, who are said by this Court to be backward classes, can maintain minimum necessary requirement   of   administrative   efficiency,   not   only

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 59 of 62  

representation but  also preference  may be given to them to enforce equality  and to  eliminate inequality.  Articles 15 (4) and  16(4) bring out the position of backward classes to merit  equality   Special  provisions   are  made   for  the advancement  of   backward  classes   and  reservations   of appointments  and   posts  for   them  to   secure  adequate representation. These  provisions will bring out the content of equality  guaranteed by Articles 14, 15(1) and 16(1). The basic concept  of equality  is equality  of opportunity  for appointment. Preferential treatment for members of  backward classes with  due regard to administrative efficiency alone, can mean  equality of opportunity for all citizens. Equality under 261       Article  16 could  not have  a different  content from      equality under  Article 14. Equality of opportunity for      unequals  can   only  mean  aggravation  of  inequality      Equality  of  opportunity  admits  discrimination  with      reason and  prohibits  discrimination  without  reason.      Discrimination    with     reasons    means    rational      classification  for  differential  treatment  having  n      nexus  to   the  constitutionally  permissible  object.      Preferential representation for the backward classes in      services with  due regard  to administrative efficiency      is  permissible  object  and  backward  classes  are  a      rational classification recognised by our Constitution.      Therefore,  differential   treatment  in  standards  of      selection are within the concept of equality".      xx             xx              xx              xx           "All legitimate methods are available for equality      of opportunity  in service under Article 16(1). Article      16(1) is  affirmative whereas Article 14 is negative in      language. Article 16(4) indicates one of the methods of      achieving equality embodied in Article 16(1)".       Equally illuminating observations were made by Mathew, J., Beg.,  J., Krishna Iyer, J., and Fazal Ali, J., in their separate concurring opinions but I do not propose to extract them in  the interest of space. It is enough to mention that all five  learned judges  who constituted  the majority were emphatic in  repudiating the  theory (propounded  in earlier cases) that  Art. 16(4) was in the nature of an exception to Art. 16(1).  All were agreed that Art. 16(4) was a facet, an illustration or  a method  of application of Art. 16(1). So, it is now no longer necessary to apologetically explain laws aimed at  achieving equality  as permissible  exceptions; it can now  be boldly  claimed that  such  laws  are  necessary incidents of equality.      It  all  began  with  The  General  Manager),  Southern Railway  v.  Rangachari(1).  Two  circulars  issued  by  the Railway Board  reserving selection  (promotional)  posts  in Class III of the Railway Service in favour of the members of the  Scheduled   Castes  and   the  Scheduled  Tribes,  were questioned in  that  case  as  offending  Art.  16.  It  was contended that  Art. 16(4)  applied only  to reservation  of posts at  the  stage  of  initial  appointment  and  not  to promotional posts.  The contention  was rejected  and it was held that  Art.  16(4)  applied  at  the  stage  of  initial appointment  as  well  as  at  the  stage  of  promotion  by selection.It was  in the case that observations were made to the           (1) [1962] 2 SCR 586. 262 effect that  Art. 16(4) was in the nature of an exception to Art. 16(1),  but, as  we have  seen such a view is no longer tenable in view of State of Kerala & Anr. v.  N. M. Thomas &

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 60 of 62  

Ors. (supra).       Much  of the  argument of  the learned counsel for the petitioners was  anchored  to,  T.  Devodasan  v.  Union  of India(z &  Anr.(1) 17  1/2% of vacancies in an establishment were reserved  for  members  of  the  scheduled  Castes  and Scheduled Tribes.  Alongside  the  reservation  rule,  there operated what  is known as "the carry-forward rule" familiar to all  Govt. employees  and those  connected with  ’service problems’.  The   carry-forward  rule  so  operated  in  the particular case  that out  of 45  appointments made  by  the Government 29  were from  among the  candidates belonging to the Scheduled  Castes and  Scheduled Tribes.  In other words the reservation  Came to  65% which was far in excess of the 177% originally  contemplated by  the Reservation  rule.  In those circumstances,  a Constitution  Bench  of  this  Court (Subba Rao,  J. dissenting)  declared the carry-forward rule bad. The Court did not strike down the carry-forward rule on the  ground  that  it  was  inherently  vicious  or  on  the hypothetical consideration  that it  was bound  to  lead  to vicious results  in  the  future  if  permitted  to  operate without inhibition.  The judgment  of the  Court was founded upon the  viciousness exposed  by the  actual working of the rule in  practice. The  learned judges  indicated  that  the repercussions of  such a  rule would have to be watched from year to year.        Another   case  upon  which  the  petitioners  placed reliance was  M. R. Balaji & Ors. v. State, of Mysore(2). In that  case   the  percent  age  of  seats  reserved  in  the Engineering and  Medical colleges  for the educationally and socially backward classes and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes came  to 68%  leaving only  32% of  the seats for the merit pool.  The  Court  held  that  generally  and  broadly reservation should not exceed 50%. The actual percentage was to depend upon the relevant prevailing circumstances in each case. As  the reservation in that case for exceeded what was generally and  broadly permissible, the reservation was held to be bad. There again the Court was concerned directly with the immediate,  actual, practical  result of the Reservation rule.      In A.  Peeriakaruppan, etc.  Y. State  of Tamil  Nadu & Ors.,(3) reservation  of 41%  of the seat in medical college in the State of      (1) [1964] 4 SCR 680.      (2) [1963] Suppl. I SCR 439.      (3) [1971] 2 SCR 430 @ 441-442. 263 Tamil  Nadu   for  students   coming   from   socially   and educationally  back-ward  classes  was  upheld.  Hegde,  J., observed (at p. 441-442):           "There is  no basis  for the  contention that  the      reservation made  for backward classes is excessive. We      were not  told why  it  is  excessive.  Undoubtedly  we      should not  forget that  it is  against  the  immediate      interest of  the Nation  to exclude from the portals of      our medical  colleges qualified  and competent students      but then the immediate advantages of the Nation have to      be harmonised  with its long range interests. It cannot      be denied  that unaided  many sections of the people in      this country  cannot compete with the advanced sections      of the  Nation. Advantages  secured due  to  historical      reasons should  not be considered as fundamental mental      rights. Nation’s  interest will be best served-taking a      long range  view-if the  backward classes are helped to      march forward  and take  their place  in line  with the      advanced  sections  of  the  people.  That  is  why  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 61 of 62  

    Balaqi’s case [1931] Suppl 1 SCR (439), this Court held      that the  total of  reservations for  backward classes,      scheduled  castes   and  scheduled  tribes  should  not      ordinarily exceed  50% of  the available  seats. In the      present case  it is  41%. On  the material before us we      are  unable  to  hold  that  the  said  reservation  is      excessive".      In State  of  Punjab  v.  Hiralal  &  Ors.,(l)  a  rule reserving the  first out  of every ten vacancies to a member of the  Scheduled Castes  and Scheduled Tribes and providing for ’carry-forward’ of the vacancy if suitable candidate was not  available   was  struck  down  by  the  High  Court  by visualising various  hypothetical cases  which could lead to anomalous situations  in which  a person getting the benefit of reservation  may jump  over the  heads of  several of his seniors not only in his own grade but even in higher grades. This  Court   reversed  the   decision  of  the  High  Court observing:           "The extent of reservation to be made is primarily      a matter  for the  State to  decide. By  this we do not      mean to  say that the decision of the State is not open      to judicial  re view.  The reservation must be only for      the purpose  of giving  adequate representation  in the      service to  the Scheduled  Castes, Scheduled Tribes and      Backward Classes".                xx                                 xx       (1) [1971] 3 SCR 267 @ 272, 273, 274. 264           "The mere  fact that the reservation made may give      extensive benefits  to some of the persons who have the      benefit of  the reservation does not by itself make the      reservation bad.  The length of the leap to be provided      depends upon the gap to be covered".      xx           xx           xx             xx      "There was  no material before the High Court and there is no material before us from which we can conclude that the impugned order  is violative  of Art.  16(1). Reservation of appointments under  Art. 16(4)  cannot  be  struck  down  on hypothetical grounds  or on  imaginary possibilities. He who assails the  reservation under that Art. must satisfactorily establish that there has been a violation of Art. 16(1)".      The report of the Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled  Tribes  for  1977-78  and  the  ’Reports  on  the progress  made   in  the  intake  of  Scheduled  castes  and Scheduled Tribes  against vacancies  reserved  for  them  in recruitment and  promotion categories  in the Rail ways’ for the half  years ending  March  31,  1974,  March  31,  1975, September 30,  1976, March  31, 1977  and September 30, 1979 were placed  before us.  they reveal  how painfully slow and woefully in  significant has  been progress  achieved by the members of  the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the matter of their participation in the Railway administration. My brother  Krishna Iyer  J has  extracted some of the facts and figures.  I do not think it is necessary for me to refer to them  over again. It is sufficient to say that members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes far from acquiring any  monopolistic   or  excessive  representation  over  any category of  posts (other  than sweepers)  are nowhere  near being adequately  represented. Neither  the Reservation rule nor the ’carry-forward for three years’ rule has resulted in any such  ’disastrous’ consequences.  The complaint  of  the petitioners that  the circulars  and orders  had resulted in excessive  representation   of  the   Scheduled  Castes  and Scheduled Tribes  is without  foundation generally  or  with reference to any particular year.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 62 of 62  

    One of  the contentions  vehemently  submitted  by  the learned counsel  for the  petitioners was that efficiency of administration would  suffer and  safety of  the  travelling public would  consequently be  jeopardised  if  reservations were made and promotions affected in the manner sought to be done  by   the  Railway   Board.  This  is  claimed  by  the respondents to  be no  more than  a bogey.  In  the  counter affidavit filed  on behalf  of the Railway Board it has been pointed out  that minimum  standards arc  insisted upon  for every appointment 265 and  in   the  case   of  candidates  wanting  in  requisite standards, those  h with the highest marks are given special intensive  training  to  enable  them  to  come  up  to  the requisite standards.  In the case of posts which involve the safety of  movement of  trains there  is  no  relaxation  of standards in  favour of  candidates belonging  to  Scheduled Castes and  Scheduled Tribes  and they  are required to pass the same rigid tests as other candidates.      Therefore, we  see that when posts whether at the stage of initial  appointment or  at the  state of  promotion  are reserved or  other preferential  treatment  is  accorded  to members of  the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other socially and  economically backward  classes, it  is  not  a concession  or   privilege  extended   to  them,  it  is  in recognition of their undoubted Fundamental Right to Equality of  Opportunity  and  in  discharge  of  the  Constitutional obligation imposed  upon the  state to  secure  to  all  its citizens  ’Justice,  social,  economic  and  political’  and ’Equality to status and opportunity’, to assure ’the dignity of the  individual’ among  all citizens,  to  ’promote  with special D.  care the  educational and  economic interests of the  weaker   section  of   the  people’,  to  ensure  their participation on  equal basis  in the  administration of the affairs of  the country and generally to foster the ideal of a  ’Sovereign,  Socialist,  Secular,  Democratic  Republic’. Every  lawful  method  is  permissible  to  secure  the  due representation of  the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the  public  Services.  There  is  no  fixed  ceiling  to reservation or  preferential  treatment  in  favour  of  the Scheduled  Castes  and  Scheduled  Tribes  though  generally reservation may not be far in excess of fifty percent. There is no  rigidity about the fifty percent rule which is only a convenient guideline laid down by Judges. Every case must be decided with  reference to  the  present  practical  results yielded  by  the  application  of  the  particular  rule  of preferential   treatment   and   not   with   reference   to hypothetical results  which the  application of the rule may yield in  the future. Judged in the light of this discussion I am  unable to find anything illegal or unconstitutional in any one of the impugned orders and circulars. Each order and circular has  been  individually  discussed  by  my  brother Krishna Iyer  J with whose reasoning and conclusions I agree and to which I wish to add no more.                                     PBR Petitions dismissed. 266