Reservation of appointments and posts under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India cannot be struck down on hypothetical grounds or on imaginary possibilities.

Headnote:
The Bombay High Court in this case examined the validity and interpretation of Government Resolutions that made reservations for Scheduled Castes (S.Cs.), Scheduled Tribes (S.Ts.), and Denotified Tribes/Normadic Tribes (D.Ts./N.Ts.) in the category of Inspectors of Police and promotion from that category to that of Assistant Commissioners of Police in the Greater Bombay Police Force. The Court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Constitution of India, including Articles 16(1), (2), and (4), and interpreted the impugned Resolutions in light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in various precedents. The Court held that the Resolutions were valid and that the reservation of 13%, 7%, and 4% for S.Cs., S.Ts., and D.Ts./N.Ts., respectively, was not excessive or arbitrary. The Court also upheld the roster system, the carry forward rule, and the principle of reservation of vacancies for S.Cs., S.Ts., and D.Ts./N.Ts. in order to achieve adequate representation of these backward classes in the police force. The Court rejected the petitioners' arguments that the Resolutions violated the principle of equality and that they discriminated against members of the general category. The Court emphasized that reservation is not a concession or privilege but a constitutional obligation to ensure social justice and equality of opportunity for all citizens.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, who are Inspectors of Police, challenged the validity and interpretation of Government Resolutions that made reservations for Scheduled Castes (S.Cs.), Scheduled Tribes (S.Ts.), and Denotified Tribes/Normadic Tribes (D.Ts./N.Ts.) in the category of Inspectors of Police and promotion from that category to that of Assistant Commissioners of Police in the Greater Bombay Police Force. The petitioners argued that the Resolutions violated the principle of equality and discriminated against members of the general category.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the impugned Resolutions were valid and that the reservation of 13%, 7%, and 4% for S.Cs., S.Ts., and D.Ts./N.Ts., respectively, was not excessive or arbitrary. The Court also upheld the roster system, the carry forward rule, and the principle of reservation of vacancies for S.Cs., S.Ts., and D.Ts./N.Ts. in order to achieve adequate representation of these backward classes in the police force. The Court rejected the petitioners' arguments that the Resolutions violated the principle of equality and that they discriminated against members of the general category.
Issues: 1. Whether the Government Resolutions making reservations for Scheduled Castes (S.Cs.), Scheduled Tribes (S.Ts.), and Denotified Tribes/Normadic Tribes (D.Ts./N.Ts.) in the category of Inspectors of Police and promotion from that category to that of Assistant Commissioners of Police in the Greater Bombay Police Force were valid and constitutional. 2. Whether the reservation of 13%, 7%, and 4% for S.Cs., S.Ts., and D.Ts./N.Ts., respectively, was excessive or arbitrary. 3. Whether the roster system, the carry forward rule, and the principle of reservation of vacancies for S.Cs., S.Ts., and D.Ts./N.Ts. were valid and constitutional. 4. Whether the impugned Resolutions violated the principle of equality and discriminated against members of the general category.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India is an exception to Article 16(1) and (2) and that it confers a discretionary power on the Government to make reservations for backward classes of citizens who are not adequately represented in the services under the State. 2. The Court held that the impugned Resolutions were valid and that the reservation of 13%, 7%, and 4% for S.Cs., S.Ts., and D.Ts./N.Ts., respectively, was not excessive or arbitrary. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in State of Punjab v. Hira Lal, A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 1777, which held that reservation of appointments and posts under Article 16(4) cannot be struck down on hypothetical grounds or on imaginary possibilities. 3. The Court held that the roster system, the carry forward rule, and the principle of reservation of vacancies for S.Cs., S.Ts., and D.Ts./N.Ts. were valid and constitutional. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in T. Devadasan v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 179, which upheld the roster system and the carry forward rule as integral parts of the reservation policy. 4. The Court rejected the petitioners' arguments that the impugned Resolutions violated the principle of equality and that they discriminated against members of the general category. The Court held that reservation is not a concession or privilege but a constitutional obligation to ensure social justice and equality of opportunity for all citizens.
Final Decision: The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 134-A of the Constitution was granted to the petitioners.

Judgment

LENTIN B., J.: - These petitions are filed by certain Inspectors of Police. They question the validity and/or interpretation of Government Resolutions making reservations for Scheduled Castes (S.Cs.), Scheduled Tribes (S.Ts.) and Denotified Tribes/Normadic Tribes (Dts/Nts) in the category of Inspectors of Police and promotion from that category to that of Assistant Commissioners of Police in the Greater Bombay Police Force. Common questions of law arise. A common judgment.

2. Hereunder a broad outline of the Government Resolutions:

(A) Government Resolution dt. 23rd May, 1974 provides for the reservation of 13% in favour of S.Cs. and S.C. converts to Budhism, 7% in favour of S.Ts. and 4% in favour of D.Ts./N.Ts. in promotions made on the basis of seniority subject to fitness in appointments to all Class I, II, III and IV posts in grades or services in which the element of direct recruitment, if any does not exceed 50%. The Resolution provides for the maintenance of a roster and the procedure to be followed for promotion in respect of vacancies expected to arise during a year.

(B) Government Resolution dt. 23rd May, 1974 was partially modified by Government Resolution dt. 31st July, 1976 whereby the percentage of direct recruitment was raised from 50% as not to exceed 662/3%.

(C) By Government Resolution dt. 2nd March, 1977 certain supplementary instructions were issued pertaining to the accurate estimation of vacancies likely to arise in the next year, and the continuation of the select list with the direction that the names from the next year's list should be utilised only after the earlier list was exhausted.

(D) Government Resolution dt. 19th March, 1979 directed that when any reversion was to be effected, members of the Backward Classes already in service should not be reverted if their strength in the promotion cadre did not exceed the prescribed percentage of reservation.

(E) Government Resolution dt. 25th February, 1980 directed that if Government servants belonging to any of the 3 of Backward Classes, viz. S.C., S.T. and D.T./N.T., are not available for the reserved vacancies, then the Government servants belonging to other categories of the Backward Classes should be considered for promotion but only up to their quota. If Government servants belonging to any of the S.C. categories of Backward Classes are not available, then the vacancies should be kept vacant for 3 recruitment years and under no circumstances should they be filed by promoting non-Backward Class persons.

3. Hereunder Article 16(1), (2) and (4) of the Constitution :-

“16(1). There shall be equality of opportunity 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.

(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.”

4. The petitioners' learned Counsel Mr. Seervai asserts that Article 16(4) is an exception of Article 16(1) and (2). It confers a discretionary power on Government and no right is conferred on any person to reservation of posts. The condition precedent to the exercise of that power is that Government should form a particular opinion, viz. that a Backward Class (Which includes S.Cs. and S.Ts.) is not adequately represented in the services under the State. The discretionary power to make reservations is not an end in itself but merely a means to an end, viz. to secure adequate representation for members of Backward Classes, (State of Punjab v. Hira Lal)1, A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 1777. Article 16(4) speaks of adequate representation and unlike Article 15(4) does not confer a bount

Click Here to Read the rest of this document