STATE OF PUNJAB v. HIRALAL & ORS.
Citation: [1971] 3 S.C.R. 267; 1970 INSC 256
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: J.C. SHAH , K.S. HEGDE, A.N. GROVER
Judgment date:
Case summary
1970 INSC 256. Supreme Court of India judgment dated 1970-12-18. STATE OF PUNJAB v. HIRALAL & ORS. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
A STATE OF PUNJAB v. IDRALAL & ORS. December 18, 1970 267 B [J. c. SHAH, C. J. , K. s. HEGDE AND A. N. 6ROVER, JJ. ] c D E F Constitution of India, Art. 16(1) & (4)-Reservation for backward classes made applicable -~o initial appointments as well as promotions- Validity of. The appellant-State issued an Order according to which reservation of posts for Scheduled castes, tribes and backward classes was made applicable not only to initial recruitment but also to promotions. Res- pondents I and 3 were in the State Government service and the former was the senior. ~ut since the latter belonged to a scheduled caste he was promoted over the first respondent as per the Order, The High Court quashed the promotion on the basis that such reservation might lead to various anomalies. In appeal to this Court, HELD : Article 16( I) provides for equality of opportunity to all citizens in relation to appointment to any office in the service of the State subject to the exception in Art.
16(4) that the State may make reser· vations in favour of backward classes. The reservation contemplated by Art. 16( 4) can be made not merely to initial recruitment but also to posts to •which promotions are to be made. Every such reservation under Art. 16( 4) does introduce an element of discrimination and promotion of junior officers over seniors; but the Constitution makers thought fit, in the interest& Of society as a whole, that backward classes should be afforded some protection. If, however, the reservation u"der . Art. 16(4) makes the rule in Art. 16(1) meaningless, the decision of the State w f the Constitution-markers 'to make ade- quate safeguard for the. advjlncement of backward classes and to secure for the\t a,dequate representation in the services. " The extent of reservation to be made is primarily a matter for the State to decide. By this we do not mean to say that the decision of the State is not open to judicial review.
The reser- vation must be only for the purpose of giving adequate repre- sentation in the services to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes. The exception proyideJ in Art. 16(4) should not make the rule embodied in Art. 16(1) mean- ingless. Bur the burden of establishing that a particular reserva- tion made by the State is offensive to Art. 16 (I) is on the person who takes the plea. The mere fact that the reservation made may give extensive benefits to some of the persons who have the. benefit of the reservation does not by itself inake the reservation bad. The length of the leap to be provided depends upon the gap to be covered. As observed by the majority in Rangachari' s case(') : "The condition precedent for the exercise of the powers conferred by Art. 16 ( 4) is that the State ought to be satisfied that any backward class of citizens is not adequately represented in its services.
This condition precedent may refer either to the numerical inadequacy of representation in the services or· even to the qualita- tive inadequacy of representation. The advancement of the socially and educationally backward classes requires --- (! ) [1962] 2 S. C. R. 586. A B c D E F H .. ;;, -. ~ 1 ' . ---"' A B c D PUNJAB v. l{JRALAL (Heyde, J. ) not only that they should have adequate representat on in the lowest rung of services but that tl\ey sho:ild aspire to secure adequate representation in selection posts il the services as well. In the context the express:on 'adequately represen"ed' imports consideratio1s of \ize' as well as 'values'; numbers as well as the nature of appointments held and so it involvei; not mer! y th! numerical test but also the qualitative one. It is 'hus by the operation of the numerical and a qualit tive te't that the adequacy or otherwise of the representation of backward classes in any service has to be i·Jd ;e.
d; and if that b~ so, it would not be reasonable to hold that the inadequacy of representation can and must be cure:! only by reserving a proportionately higher percent1ge qf appointments at the initial stage. In a given case the State may well take the view that a certain perc,ntage of selection posts should also be reserved. for re,e-va- tion of such posts may make the representation of back- ward classes in the services adequate, the adequ1cy of such representation being considered qualitatively. " 2'73 It is true that every reservation under Art. 16(4) does in- troduce an element of discrimination particularlv when the ques- tion. of 1'fOTilTition ari<es. It is an inevitable co'lseque'l<:e of any reservat;on of posts that junior officers are allowe1 to take a E march over their seniors. This circumstance is boun<l to dis- plca'e the senior officers.
It may also be that some of t'iem will get frustrated but then the Constitution maker' hwe t'iouqht fit in the intere,•s of the society as a whole that the backward chss of citizen' of th;s countrv should be afforded certain protec•ion- as observed by this Court in A. Peeriaka•uppan etc. v. F State of Tamil Nadu(') : G "It cannot be denied that unaided many sections of thi' cou11trv cannot compete wi'h the advanced sections of the Notio11. Advantage, secured due to hi't"rcal . rea,ons should not be considered as fundamen•al rfaht,. N1tion'< i'lterest will be best served takinq a long ran~e view-if the backward classes are heloed to march for- war<l and talce their olace in line with the advanced sections of the people. " There w~s no ma 1 erial before the Hi~h Cou-t and there 1s lllO material before us from which we can conclude th•t the imnucm$1 H order i' viohtive of Art. 16(1). Reservation of an'lOi. ,tments under~~- 16(4) c~nnot be struck down on. hypotheti~ (') r1Q71] 2 S. C. R.
430. 4-L807Sup. Cl/71 274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1971]3 s. c. R. grounds or on imaginary possibilities. He who assails the reser- vation under that Art. must satisfactorily establish that there has been a violation of Art. 16 (1). For the reasons mentioned above. this appeal is allowed and the order of the High. Court set aside. Respondent No. I who was the petitioner before the High Court is not represented before this Court. In the circumstances of this case we make no order as to costs. V. P. S. Appeal allowed. A B -
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.