Sanskar Sarjan Education Society's

D.T.S.S. COLLEGE OF LAW

ACADEMIC YEAR 2024-2025 F.Y.LLB

SEMESTER – II

NAME – Sumit Suresh Kadam

ROLL NO - 37
SUBJECT- CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
(TOPIC) ASSIGNMENT – Equality of Opportunity

1
SR.N TABLE OF CONTENT PAGE NO.
O

1. Acknowledgment 3

Introduction
2. 4

Evolution of Article 16 of the COI

3. 6

What are the Landmark Judgements Based Under Article

4. 16 of the COI? 7

Conclusion
5. 8

2
 Acknowledgment

It is a great pleasure for me to undertake this project. My topic for the Assignment is "Equality
of Opportunity" and I am happy that I have been given this opportunity to express my views on
the topic. I am especially thankful to our subject professor for allotting this topic to me.
I am grateful to our Professor for explaining the topic so well during the lectures which helped me
a lot in preparing for my assignment. This project has increased my knowledge on this topic which
is helping in present and will also help me in future.
I also thank my D.T.S.S. COLLEGE OF LAW family for making me a part of this esteemed
University.

(Sumit Suresh Kadam)

(Roll No 37)

3
Introduction

Article 16 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) is given under Part III of the Constitution.
Article 16 is a fundamental Right which guarantees equal opportunity in public employments of
state to all the citizens of India. It prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste,
sex, descent, place of birth, residence, or any of them in respect of any employment or office
under the State.

Article 16 ensures that all citizens have equal access to opportunities in government employment
and prohibits unfair treatment based on certain characteristics.
Additionally, Article 16 allows for reservations to be made in public employment for
disadvantaged groups, such as Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward
Classes, to address historical and social inequalities.

What is Article 16 of the COI?

Article 16 briefly states the provisions guaranteeing equal opportunity to all the citizens in public
employment without any discrimination as a general rule but subject to certain exceptions.

General Rule :
 Clause (1) states the provision for Equal Opportunity as:
o equality of opportunity to all the citizens in matters of public employment under the
State.
o It is only applicable to offices under the Central and the State Governments.
 Clause (2) states the provisions for Equal Access to Public Employment as:
o It prohibits the State from conferring any discrimination against citizens in the
matter of public employment on the grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex,
descent, place of birth, residence, or any of them.
Exceptions to the General Rule
 Clause (3) states the provisions for parliament to enact laws as:
o It empowers the parliament to enact laws any legislation requiring residence in a
state or union territory as a pre-condition for particular employment or
appointments in the respective state or union territory or in local authorities or other
authorities within that state or union territory.
 Clause (4) states the provisions for Reservations as:
o It empowers the State to make provisions for the reservation of appointments or
posts in favor of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is
not adequately represented in the services under the State.
 Clause (4A) states the provisions for Special Provisions for Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes as:
o It provides for the reservation of posts in favor of any Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes in public employment.
o It was added by the 77th Constitutional Amendment 1995.
 Clause (4B) states the provisions for Reservations in Promotion as:
o It allows the State to provide reservation in matters of promotion to any class or
classes of posts in the services under the State in favor of the Scheduled Castes and
the Scheduled Tribes.
o It was added by the 81st Constitutional Amendment, 2000.
 Clause (5) states the provisions for enactment of laws where Clause (1) and Clause (2)
shall not be applicable as:
o It allows incumbents of any office to be religiously qualified for appointment of a
4
 person professing a particular religion or belonging to a particular denomination.
 Clause (6) states the provisions for Reservation in Promotions as:
o It allows the State to reserve appointments or posts in favor of any economically
weaker section of citizen other than the class mentioned in clause (4), in addition to
the existing reservation and subject to a maximum of 10% of the post in each
category.

Opportunities:

Substantive
Equality of
Equality of
Opportunity
Opportunity

Article 16 aims to ensure that all citizens have an The concept of substantive equality goes beyond
equal chance to be employed in government formal equality by recognizing that treating everyone
services, regardless of their background. the same may not result in true equality due to
historical disadvantages and social inequalities.

The purpose of Articles 15(4) and 16(4) is to ensure

equality of opportunity of the socially backward The same has been explained under Article 16, Clause
classes, the criterion for sub-classification within a 4, 4A and 4B of COI
class (be it the Other Backward Classes or the
Scheduled Castes or Tribes) must be an indicator
of social backwardness

Equality of opportunity was framed in the language

of equal representation subject to these two
caveats.

5
Evolution of Article 16 of the COI

The State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951):

• The Supreme Court initially took a formal approach, viewing reservations as
an exception to equal opportunity.
It held that reservation of seats in educational institutions was
unconstitutional without express provision.

Venkataramana v. The State of Madras (1951):

The court ruled that only Harijans and backward Hindus could be considered as
"backward classes" for reservation in public jobs

M R Balaji v. State of Mysore (1962):

The Supreme Court prescribed a 50% ceiling for reservations for the first time

State of Kerala v. N M Thomas (1975)

• The court made an "expansive and substantive reading of the equality
code," upholding a Kerala law that relaxed qualifying criteria for SC and ST
candidates in government jobs.

E.V. Chinnaiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors (2004)

The law on consequential seniority was upheld, stating that the efficiency of
administration was only relaxed, not "obliterated," by the rule.

• In this case the Court reframed the quota-versus-

efficiency question, arguing that reservation
reflects the mandate of substantive equality in the
Constitution, not an exception to the equality rule.
• CJI Chandrachud's opinion on efficiency: Argued
State Of Punjab that securing higher marks in an examination does
and Ors. v not necessarily contribute to higher efficiency, and
that meeting minimum qualifications is sufficient
Davinder Singh to maintain efficient administration.
and Ors (2020) • Reservation is seen as a means to ensure
substantive equality, despite potential impacts on
traditional notions of efficiency
• The binary of reservation versus merit is rejected,
with constitutional amendments viewed as "an
emphatic repudiation" of this binary.

6
What are the Landmark Judgements Based Under Article 16 of the COI?

M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006)

•The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of all the impugned
amendments related to reservation in promotions for SCs and STs.
The court ruled that the amendments did not violate the basic structure of equality
under Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution.
•The court held that the amendments are enabling provisions, allowing but not
forcing the States to provide reservation in promotions if they identify
backwardness, inadequate representation, and maintain overall efficiency.

Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta case (2018)

•The Supreme Court held that reservation in promotions does not
require the State to collect quantifiable data on the backwardness of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.
The Court held that creamy layer exclusion extends to SC/STs and, hence
the State cannot grant reservations in the promotion to SC/ST
individuals who belong to the creamy layer of their community

Ajay Kumar Shukla and Ors. v. Arvind Rai and Ors. (2021)
•Gauhati High Court held in this case that there is no fundamental right to
promotion, but an employee has only the right to be considered for promotion,
when it arises, by relevant rules.

7
 • Constitutional validity of
103rd Constitutional Amendment Act,
2019 was challenged. The Supreme
Court upheld the validity of 103rd
Janhit Abhiyan v. Constitutional Amendment.
Union of India • The Court introduced 10% EWS
(2022) reservation under the
103rd Constitution (Amendment) Act,
2019 by amending Articles 15 and 16.
• It inserted Article 15 (6) and Article 16
(6)

Conclusion

The right to equality is considered as the most important fundamental right. It guarantees
equal opportunity and upliftment of people belonging to economically and socially weaker sectors of
society. This also brought in the concept of equal pay and equal work under public employment. This
provision was important for the overall growth of the nation and for the allocation of equal
opportunities to all.