1. Petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste community. He is an advocate by profession. He is a former member of the Karnataka State SC/ST Commission. It is the case of the petitioner that he is having knowledge of and practical experience in the matters relating to human rights. He applied for being appointed as Member of the State Human Rights Commission (Commission for short). Respondent Nos.3 and 4 also applied for being appointed as Members of the Commission. Certain other persons also applied for the said post. Respondent No.3 and 4 are selected and appointed as Members of the Commission. The Selection of Respondent Nos.3 and 4 is under challenge in this writ petition.

2. Sri M.S. Rajendra Prasad, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner is a Scheduled Caste candidate; though no reservation is provided under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (‘the Act’ for short), the concerned authorities should have selected atleast one person from Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe category having regard to the intention contained in Article-16 of the Constitution of India. He further submits that the petitioner is equally competent as the selected candidate and there is no reason as to why he should be excluded from being appointed particularly when he belongs to Scheduled Caste category.

The writ petition is opposed by the learned Government Advocate and Sri Krishnaswamy, learned advocate appearing for Respondent No.3 by contending that since no reservation is provided under the Act, the petitioner cannot claim that he should be selected under reserved category as of right.

3. As is clear from Section-21 of the Act, the State Commission shall consist of : –

(a) A Chairperson who has been a Chief Justice of a High Court;

(b) One Member who is, or has been, a Judge of a High Court of District Judge in the State with a minimum of seven years experience as District Judge;

(c) One Member to be appointed from among persons having knowledge of or practical experience in matters relating to human rights.

The petitioner does not come under category (a) and (b), but he claims to be appointed under category (c). In that category, Respondent No.3 is appointed. Thus the challenge virtually is to the appointment of Respondent No.3 as a member of the Commission.

4. Clause (1) of Article-16 of the Constitution of India no doubt provides equality of opportunity for all citizens in the services under State. It implies that opportunity should be given not only to the particular section of the society or particular class of the society, but to all classes of citizens. Therefore this can be achieved by making a reasonable classification so that every class of citizens is duly represented in the services under the State, which will enable the equality of opportunity to all the citizens. There cannot be any dispute that the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes have been given a special status in the Constitution and they constitute a class by themselves. Clause-(4) of Article-16 of the Constitution of India testifies that nothing in Article-16 shall prevent the State from making any provision 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. Clause-4 of Article-16 of the Constitution cannot be read in isolation, but has to be read as part and parcel of Articles 16(1) and 16(2) of the Constitution. If Article-16 of the Constitution is read in its entirety, it is clear that if the State if of the opinion that any backward class of citizens is not adequately represented in the Services under the State, the State is not prevented from making provision for reservation in appointments in favour of such class. But no reservation is provided for the membership of the Human Rights Commission under the Act. Unless the reservation is provided, the petitioner cannot contend that he has got a