12/17/2020 Article 16 of the

Indian Constitution
Submitted To: Miss Phibanker Paswett,
Assistant Professor, NEF Law College,
Guwahati

Submitted By: Debarchana Shandilya

BBA.LLB(H), 5TH SEMESTER, ROLL NO. 164
1. Write an exhaustive note on “Equal opportunities in matters of public employment”
mentioned in Article 16 of the Constitution. Support your answer with relevant case
laws.
Answer:
The Constitution of India is a document that lays down the framework demarcating
fundamental political code, structure, procedures, powers, and duties of government
institutions and sets out fundamental rights, directive principles, and the duties of citizens.
Articles 12-35 of Indian Constitution deal with Fundamental Rights. These human rights are
conferred upon the citizens of India for the Constitution tells that these rights are inviolable.
Right to Life, Right to Dignity, Right to Education etc. all come under one of the six main
fundamental rights. Articles 14 -18 of the Constitution deal with the Right to Equality that
guarantees equal rights for everyone, irrespective of religion, gender, caste, race or place of
birth. It ensures equal employment opportunities in the government and insures against
discrimination by the State in matters of employment on the basis of caste, religion, etc. This
right also includes the abolition of titles as well as untouchability.

Article 16 of the Indian Constitution - Equal opportunities in matters of public

employment:
Article 16 of the Indian Constitution guarantees equal opportunity to all citizens in matters
related to employment in the public sector. Equal opportunity is a term which has differing
definitions and there is no consensus as to the precise meaning. The Constitution of India has
given a wide interpretation of this article. Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) principles
apply to the following-
a. Access to jobs
b. Conditions of employment
c. Relationships in the workplace
d. The evaluation of performance
e. The opportunity for training and career development

Exceptions to Article 16:

Some exceptions to this right are given below-

a. The Parliament may pass a law mentioning that specific jobs can only be filled by candidates
who are residing in a particular area. This requirement is mainly for those posts that necessitate
the knowledge of the locality and the language of the area.

b. The State may also set aside some posts for members of the backward classes, Scheduled
Castes or Scheduled Tribes which are not properly represented in the services under the State
to uplift the weaker sections of the society.
c. Also, a law may be passed which may entail that the holder of an office of any religious
institution shall also be a person professing that specific religion.

d. This right shall not be granted to the overseas citizens of India as directed by the Citizenship
(Amendment) Bill, 2003

Provisions under Article 16:

a. Article 16(1) states that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters
relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. The State is still free to
lay down the requisite qualifications for the recruitment of employees for the Government
services. The Government can also pick and choose applicants for the purpose of employment
as long as the applicants have been given an equal opportunity to apply for the Government
service. The qualification pointed may, besides mental excellence, include physical fitness,
sense of discipline, moral integrity and loyalty to the state. Principle of equal pay for equal
work is also covered in section 16(1).

Case Law 1:
Markendaya
Vs.
The State of Andhra Pradesh

In this case, difference in pay scale between graduate supervisors holding degree in
Engineering and non-graduate supervisors being diploma and licence holders was upheld. It
was held that on the basis of difference in educational qualifications such difference in pay
scales was justified and would not offend Article 14 and 16. The Court pointed out that where
two classes of employees perform identical or similar duties and carry out the same functions
with the same measure of responsibility having the same academic qualifications, they would
be entitled to equal pay.

b. Article 16(2) states that 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. The words ‘any employment or office under the
state’ mentioned in clause 2 of Article 16 implies that the said provision refers only to public
employment and not to the employment in the private sector.

c. Article 16(3) states that 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.
d. Article 16(4) states that 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. The scope of Article 16(4) was considered by the Supreme Court in Devadasan vs.
Union of India, AIR 1964 S.C. 179.

Case Law 2:
K.C Vasanth Kumar
Vs.
The State of Karnataka, AIR 1985

The Supreme Court in this case held that the reservations in favour of backward classes must
be based on the mean test. It has been further suggested that the policy of reservations should
be reviewed every five years or so and if a class has reached up to that level where it does not
need the reservation its name should be deleted from the list of backward classes.

Case Law 3:
Devadasan
Vs.
The Union of India, AIR 1964

In this case “carry forward rule” made by the Government to regulate the appointment of
persons of backward classes in government services was involved. The Supreme Court struck
down the “carry forward rule” as unconstitutional on the ground that the power vested in the
government cannot be so exercised so as to deny reasonable equality of opportunity in matters
of public employment for the members of classes other than backward classes. In this case, the
reservation of posts to the members of backward classes had exceeded 50% and had gone up
to 68% due to “carry forward rule”. The Supreme Court held that each year of recruitment must
be considered by itself and the reservation for each year should not be excessive so as to create
monopoly or interfere unduly with the legitimate claims of the rest of the society. So, the court
held that reservation should be less than 50%, but how much less than 50% should depend
upon the prevailing situations.

e. Article 16(4A) was inserted in the Constitution through the 77th Amendment. It states that
nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for reservation in
matters of promotion, with consequential seniority, to any class or classes of posts in the
services under the State in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes which, in
the opinion of the State, are not adequately represented in the services under the State.

Case Law 4:
S. Vinodkumar
Vs.
The Union of India, AIR 1996
It was held in this case that the relaxation of qualifying marks and standard of evaluation in
matters of reservation in promotion was not permissible.

f. Article 16(4B) was inserted in the Indian Constitution through the 81st Amendment Act,
2000. It states that nothing in this article shall prevent the State from considering any unfilled
vacancies of a year which are reserved for being filled up in that year in accordance with any
provision for reservation made under clause (4) or clause (4A) as a separate class of vacancies
to be filled up in any succeeding year or years and such class of vacancies shall not be
considered together with the vacancies of the year in which they are being filled up for
determining the ceiling of fifty per cent reservation on total number of vacancies of that year.

g. Article 16(5) states that nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any law which
provides that the incumbent of an office in connection with the affairs of any religious or
denominational institution or any member of the governing body thereof shall be a person
professing a particular religion or belonging to a particular denomination.

h. Article 16(6) states that nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any
provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any economically weaker
sections of citizens other than the classes mentioned in clause (4), in addition to the existing
reservation and subject to a maximum of ten per cent of the posts in each category.

Case Law 5:

Indira Sawhney & Ors.

Vs.
The Union of India

The Supreme Court in this case upheld the following-

a. Implementation of separate reservation for other backward classes in central government
jobs.
b. Exclusion of the Creamy layer of other backward classes from enjoying reservation facilities.
c. Restriction of reservations within the 50% limit.
d. Declaration of separate reservations for economically poor among forward castes as invalid.

Conclusion:

The slogan “equality of opportunity” commands wide allegiance among the members of
contemporary societies. Under scrutiny, equality of opportunity divides into several different
ideals, some of them being opposed rivals. It is controversial which of these ideals, if any, are
morally acceptable, and which, if any, should be coercively enforced the ideal of a society in
which people do not suffer disadvantage from discrimination on grounds of supposed race,
ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation is widely upheld as desirable in itself. For many, the
ideal is more compelling than any argument that might be offered to support it as requirements
of justice.