http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: TRILOKI NATH TIKU & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/12/1966

BENCH: RAO, K. SUBBA (CJ) BENCH: RAO, K. SUBBA (CJ) SHAH, J.C. SIKRI, S.M. RAMASWAMI, V. VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.

CITATION:  1967 AIR 1283            1967 SCR  (2) 265  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1971 SC2206  (4)  R          1972 SC1375  (75,87)  RF         1973 SC 930  (4)  E&R        1985 SC1495  (12,49)

ACT:       Constitution  of  India,  Art.  16(4)-Reservation   in favour of backward classes-Requirements of  Article-Backward class, what is.

HEADNOTE:       The petitioners were school teachers in the service of the  State  of Jammu & Kashmir.  Persons below them  in  the seniority list were promoted to the higher grade because the State  Government in making the promotions gave- 50% of  the higher  posts  to  Muslims, 60% of the  remain50%  to  Jammu Hindus  and  the  rest to Kashmiri Pandits  and  Sikhs.  its method  of  reservation was justified under Art. 16  of  the Constitution  an the ground that Muslims all over the  State and   Hindus  in  Jammu  were  backward  communities.    The petitioners were Kashmiri Pandits.  They came to this  Court under Art. 32. HELD  :  The  predominant  concept  underlying  Art.  16  is equality  of  opportunity in the matter of  employment;  and without  detriment to that concept, the State is enabled  to make  reservations in favour of backward classes to  give  a practical content to the concept of equality.  It is  impli- cit  in  the  article-  that the  doctrine  of  equality  of opportunity shall-be reconciled with that of reservation  in favour  of  backward classes in such a way that  the  latter while  serving  the  cause of  backward  classes  shall  not unreasonably encroach upon the field of equality. [268 G-H] The  power under cl. 4 of Art. 16 can only be  exercised  in favour of backward classes of citizens.  While the State has necessarily  to  ascertain  whether a  particular  class  of citizens  are backward or not, having regard  to  acceptable criteria    its is not the   final word on the question,  it is  a  justifiable issue.  The power under cl. (4)  is  also conditioned by the fact that in regard any backward  classes

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

of  citizens  there  is no adequate  representation  in  the services of the State, [269 A-B] A class cannot be accepted as backward merely because it  is not adequately represented in the services under the  State. Such  a  contention  if accepted would  exclude  the  really backward  classes  from  the benefit of  the  provision  and confer  the benefit only on a class of citizens who,  though rich and cultured have taken to other avocation in life [270 B-C] [On the material before it the Court found it impossible  to say  whether  the Muslims of the entire State of  Jammu  and Kashmir  and  the  Hindus of Jammu  Province  were  backward communities  within the meaning of Art. 16.  The High  Court was therefore asked to collect the relevant material and  to sent a report.] [270 E-G] M.   R. Balaji v. State of Mysore, [1963] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 439 and R.    Chitralekha  v. State of Mysore, [1964]  6  S.C.R. 368, referred to.

JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 107 of 1965. Writ Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of fundamental rights. Naunit Lal and Vineet Kumar for the petitioners. 266 S.   V.  Gupte,  Solicitor-General of  India,  Raja  Jaswant Singh, Advocate-General for the State of Jammu and  Kashmir, and R. H. Dhebar, for respondents Nos.  1 and 2. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Subba  Rao,  C,J.   This  petition  under  Art.  32  of  the Constitution of India has been filed by two teachers for the issue  of  an  appropriate  writ  to  quash  the  orders  of promotion of respondents 3 to 83 and to direct the State  of Jammu  &  Kashmir, the 1st respondent, and the  Director  of Education,   Jammu  &  Kashmir  State,  Srinagar,  the   2nd respondent,  to  promote  them  to  the  cadre  of  gazetted teachers with retrospective effect. The facts are simple.  The 1st petitioner entered government service of the erstwhile State of Jammu & Kashmir on May 16, 1943, as a teacher in the Government School, Trehgam.  He is an M.A., B.T., and is at present working as a teacher in the Government   Higher  Secondary  School,  Sopore.   The   2nd petitioner  was likewise appointed as a teacher on  February 26,  1952, in the Government Middle School, Nigam,  Kashmir. He  is a B.A., B.T., and is at present working as a  teacher in the Government High School, Batamallo.  In the year 1957, the 1st respondent prepared a seniority list of teachers  of grade  Rs. 80-8-200.  From time to time the  1st  respondent prepared  the seniority lists of teachers of the said  grade and the last of them was prepared in 1961.  Therein the  1st petitioner  was given the serial No. 104, and the 2nd  peti- tioner  was given the serial No. 140.  Whenever  there  were vacancies  in the higher grade of Rs.  250-25-350-EB-30-500, which is a gazetted cadre, they were filled by promotion  of teachers in the lower grade comprised in the said  seniority list.   It  is  alleged that in promoting  teachers  to  the gazetted  cadre, respondents 1 and 2 adopted  the  following basis :                (1)  50 % of the gazetted posts to be  filled               by promotion are given to Muslims;                (2)  about  60% of the remaining 50%  of  the               posts are filled by Jamvi Hindus (Hindus  from               Jammu Province of the State, majority of  whom

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

             are Dogras); and                (3)  the  remaining  40% of the  50%  of  the               posts are given to Kashmiri Pandits; some time               one  or  two posts are given to Sikhs  out  of               turn. To state it differently, out of every 100 gazetted posts, 50 went  to Muslims of the entire State of Jammu, , &  Kashmir, 30  went  to  Hindus from the Province  of  Jammu,  and  the remaining 20 went 267 to Kashmiri Pandits, out of which one or two went to  Sikhs. The,  said basis is not disclosed in any order made  by  the State,  but is arrived at on the footing of recruitments  by promotion  made to the gazetted posts of teachers from  time to time.  It is also averred that promotions are made not on the  basis of merit and seniority, but purely on the  ground of  religion,  caste  and place of  birth.   It  is  further alleged  that though the two petitioners are seniors as  per the  aforesaid seniority list, they have been superseded  by respondents 3 to 83 only on the ground that the  petitioners happen  to be Kashmiri Pandits and respondents 3 to  83  are either Muslims or Jammu Hindus. In  the counter-affidavit the State does not deny  the  fact that  promotions  to gazetted posts are made in  the  manner indicated  by  the petitioners but says that 50  %,  of  the posts were filled by Muslims of the entire State of Jammu  & Kashmir  and 40% of them were filled by Jammu citizens.   It proceeds  to  support this reservation on  the  ground  that Muslims of the entire State and the Hindus of Jammu Province constituted   "backward   classes"’  for  the   purpose   of employment and that it is done in order to reduce  gradually the   imbalance  between  the  backward  classes   and   the progressive ones.. It  may  be noticed at the outset that  though  the  factual basis for the promotions to the gazetted posts is  admitted, no order made, by the Government is placed before us  either specifying   the  backward  classes  or  the  criteria   for backwardness or fixing a proportion between backward classes and  others  in the matter of promotion.  There is  also  no acceptable  material from which we can gather  the  relevant facts,  namely,  the latest census  figures  disclosing  the strength  of  the population in the Provinces of  Jammu  and Kashmir,  the population figures of the  various.  religious groups, the break-up figures of the different communities of the   two  major  religious  groups,  the  state  of   their backwardness-social’,  economic  and  cultural-the  criteria adopted  by the State for ascertaining the  backwardness  of different  groups  and  other relevant  material.   What  is placed before us is a general assertion, unsupported by  any acceptable data, that all the Muslims of both the  Provinces of the State are backward and the majority of the Hindus  of the Jammu Province are likewise backward.  During the course of  the  argument,  two statements  showing  the  population figures  communitywise  (1961  census)  and  the  population figures  community-wise (1941 census) with literacy  figures and  their percentage are placed before us.  Apart from  the fact  that the petitioners have no opportunity to  test  the correctness of the figures, the 1941 census figures may  not afford  any  workable guide, as a quarter of a  century  has passed by since then and there must have been  revolutionary changes during this period. 268 The  law  on  the subject is  well  settled.   The  relevant provision of the Constitution is Art. 16, which reads                (1)  There  shall be equality of  opportunity

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

             for  all  citizens  in  matters  relating   to               employment or appointment to any office  under               the State.                (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.                (3)  Nothing  in this article  shall  prevent               Parliament from making any law prescribing, in               regard to a class or classes of employment  or               appointment to an office under the  Government               of, or any local or other authority within,  a               State  or Union territory, any requirement  as               to  residence  within  that  State  or   Union               territory   prior   to  such   employment   or               appointment.                (4)  Nothing  in this article  shall  prevent               the  State from making any provision  for  the               reservation of appointments or posts in favour               of  any backward class of citizens  which,  in               the  opinion of the State, is  not  adequately               represented in the services under the State. (Clauses  (1)  and  (2) of Art.  16  guarantee  equality  of opportunity   to  all  citizens  in  matters   relating   to employment  or  appointment to any office under  the  State. But  if  the  said  clauses of  the  article  are  literally enforced,  instead of giving equality of opportunity to  all citizens,  it  will  lead to  glaring  inequalities.   In  a country where there are different strata of society  ranging from highly sophisticated to lowly backward, the concept  of equality will drive the latter to the wall.  Their condition would become worse than what it is.  So, in order to give  a real  opportunity to them to compete with the better  placed people,  cls.  (3) and (4) are introduced  in  the  article. While  clause (2) prohibits the place of birth or  residence as  the sole criterion in the matter of  employment,  clause (3) permits residential qualification in the State or  Union territory.   While  clauses  (1)  and  (2)  guarantee  equal opportunity to all citizens, clause (4) enables the State to make a provision for reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward classes of citizens.  The predominant concept underlying the provision is equality of  opportunity in  the matter of employment; and, without detriment to  the said  concept, the State is enabled to make reservations  in favour of backwarded classes to give a practical content  to the concept of equality.  It is implicit in the article that the doctrine of equality of opportunity shall be  reconciled with  that of reservation in favour of backward  classes  in such  a  way  that the latter while  serving  the  cause  of backward classes shall not unreasonably 269 the power conferred upon the State under clause (4) can only be  exercised  in favour of backward classes  of  citizens;. that  is to say, whether a particular class of citizens  are backward  is.  an objective factor to be determined  by  the State.  While the State has necessarily to ascertain whether a  particular class of citizens are backward or not,  having regard  to acceptable criteria, it is not the final word  on the question; it is a justiciable issue.  While ordinarily a court  may accept the decision of the State in that  regard, it  is  open to be canvassed if that decision  is  based  on irrelevant  considerations.  The power under clause  (4)  is also conditioned by the fact that in regard to any  backward classes of citizens there is. no adequate representation  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

the  services under the State.  The opinion of the State  in this regard may ordinarily be accepted as final, except when it  is established that there is an abuse of power.  A  fair reading  of Art. 16, therefore, discloses the following  in- gredients for the applicability of the provision : (i) there shall  be  equality of opportunity for all citizens  in  the matter  of  employment; (ii) there can  be  reservations  of appointments  or  posts in favour of backward  classes;  and (iii) the backward classes are not adequately represented in the services under the State. Decided cases have laid down certain tests for  ascertaining whether  a  particular  class is a backward  class  or  not. Though  the decision in M. R. Balaji v. State  of  Mysore(1) turned upon.  Art. 15(4) of the Constitution, the principles laid  down therein, will equally apply to the facts  of  the present case.  There this Court held that backwardness under Art.  15(4)  must be social and political  and  that  social backwardness  was  in the ultimate analysis  the  result  of poverty to a very large extent.  In the context of admission to  educational institutions this Court held that  speaking. generally  in  a  broad way the  provision  for  reservation should  be less than 50% and that actual  percentage  should depend upon the prevailing circumstances in each case. The  decision in R. Chitralekha v. State of  Mysore(2)  also turned  upon  the  interpretation  of,  Art.  15(4)  of  the Constitution.   In that case the Government of  Mysore  laid down  that  classification  of  socially  and  educationally backward classes should be made on the following basis : (i) economic conditions, and (ii) occupation.  But the order  of the Government did not take into consideration the caste  of the applicant as one of the criteria for backwardness.  This Court pointed out that, though the caste of a group of citi- zens might be a relevant circumstance in ascertaining  their social  backwardness,  it  could  not be  the  sole  or  the dominant  test  in  that behalf.  This  Court  accepted  the criteria  adopted by the Mysore Government for  ascertaining the backwardness of a class.  The. (1) [1963] Supp.  I S. C.R. 439. (2) [1964] 6 S.C.R. 368.. 270 argument  advanced on behalf of the State, namely, that  the difference  in the phraseology used in Art. 15(4)  and  Art. 16(4), namely socially and educationally backward classes in the  former and backward. classes ;in the latter,  leads  to the   inevitable  conclusion  that  "backward  classes"   of citizens in Art. 16(4) are only such classes of citizens who are not adequately represented in the services of the  State does not appeal to us.  The sole test of backwardness  under Art.  16(4),  the argument proceeds, is  the  inadequacy  of representation  in the services under the State; that is  to say,  however  advanced  a  particular  class  of  citizens, socially  and  educationally, may be, if that class  is  not adequately  represented in the services under the State,  it is  a backward class.  This contention, if  accepted,  would exclude the really backward classes from the benefit of  the provision and confer the benefit only on a class of citizens who,  though rich and cultured, have taken to  other  avoca- tions  of life.  It is, therefore, necessary to satisfy  two conditions  to attract clause (4) of Art. 16, namely, (i)  a class   of   citizens  is  backward,  i.e.,   socially   and educationally,  in the sense explained in Balaji’s  case(1); and (ii) the said class is not adequately represented in the services under the State. The question therefore is whether Mohammedans of the  entire State  of  Jammu  &  Kashmir and the  Hindus  of  the  Jammu

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

Province are backward in the sense explained above and  also whether ,they are not adequately represented in the services of  the State.  Secondly, if they are backward, whether  the percentages  of  reservations  provided  for  them  in   the gazetted  cadre of teachers are reasonable having regard  to the  employment opportunities ’in that cadre of service  to the  general public.  We find it very difficult to  come  to one conclusion or other on the material placed before us. It is, therefore, necessary to call for a report before we  can finally  dispose of the writ petition.  We direct  the  High Court  of  Jammu  & Kashmir either  directly  or  through  a District  Court to .gather the necessary material, such  as, the  total  population  of the entire  State,  the  break-up figures  of  the two provinces, the  strength  of  different communities  and  the extent of their  social  and  economic backwardness  and the criteria applied by the State in  that regard.   ’The High Court is directed to submit  the  report within  two months from the date of receipt of  the  record. The parties will have liberty to place necessary  material, oral and documentary, before the High Court or the  District Court, as the case may be.  Costs will abide the result. G. C.                   Report called for. (1) [1963] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 439. 271