Article 16: Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment

Actual Article:

Article 16 guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment and prevents discrimination in government jobs.

Provisions Related to Article 16 of the Indian Constitution

Article 16(1):

Every citizen has an equal opportunity to apply for public employment (government jobs).

Explanation: Article 16(1) – Equal Opportunity in Government Jobs

This ensures that all citizens have a fair chance to apply for government jobs. The government cannot deny employment opportunities to anyone based on personal factors like caste, religion, or gender.

Example:

Suppose there are 100 vacancies in a government department. Every eligible citizen has the right to apply and compete for these jobs, without any preference given to a particular caste or religion.

Article 16(2):

"No citizen, 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."

Explanation: Article 16(2) – No Discrimination in Government Jobs

This prevents the government from discriminating against anyone in job appointments based on personal factors.

Example:

A Muslim candidate cannot be denied a government job just because of religion.
A woman cannot be rejected for a police officer post just because of her gender.
A person from Kerala cannot be rejected from a central government job just because of his birthplace.

✅ Both Clause (1) and Clause (2) apply only to government jobs (public employment).

🔴 Exception Clauses: (Clauses 3 to 6)

These allow certain relaxations to help disadvantaged groups.

Article 16(3):

Parliament can make laws requiring residence in a particular state or union territory for certain jobs.

Explanation: Article 16(3) – Residence-Based Eligibility for Certain Jobs

In special cases, Parliament can pass a law requiring a person to be a resident of a particular state to apply for some government jobs.

Example:

A state government can require that only people who have lived in Karnataka for at least 10 years are eligible for certain local government jobs.

In Andhra Pradesh or Telangana, certain local government jobs can be reserved for people who live in that state, to protect their employment rights.

Article 16(4):

The state can provide reservations in government jobs for backward classes that are not adequately represented.

Explanation: Article 16(4) – Reservation for Backward Classes

If a particular social group is underrepresented in government jobs, the government can reserve seats for them. This helps promote social equality.

The State can reserve jobs for SCs and STs (and backward classes) if they are not well-represented in government jobs.

Example:

If SCs form 15% of the population in a state but only 5% are in govt. jobs, then the state can create job reservations to improve representation

The government reserves 27% of government jobs for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) to ensure they get fair employment opportunities.

❗ Important Clarifications:

Article 16(4) is an enabling provision, not a right.
It gives the government a choice (not compulsion) to implement reservations.

✅ Citizens cannot demand reservation as a fundamental right.

📘 Mandal Commission and Indira Sawhney Case – UPSC Notes

🔹1. First & Second Backward Classes Commission

Commission Details
First Backward Classes Commission Chaired by Kaka Kalelkar in 1953, submitted report in 1955, not implemented.
Second Backward Classes Commission (Mandal Commission) Appointed in 1979 by Morarji Desai government under Article 340. Chaired by B.P. Mandal, a Member of Parliament.

Commission	Details
First Backward Classes Commission	Chaired by Kaka Kalelkar in 1953, submitted report in 1955, not implemented.
Second Backward Classes Commission (Mandal Commission)	Appointed in 1979 by Morarji Desai government under Article 340. Chaired by B.P. Mandal, a Member of Parliament.

📊 2. Key Recommendations of Mandal Commission (1980)

Identified 3743 castes as Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs).

Estimated OBC population at ~52% (excluding SCs/STs).

Recommended:

27% reservation in central government jobs for OBCs.

With existing 22.5% for SCs/STs, total reservation = 49.5%.

No reservation based only on economic criteria.

📅 3. Implementation Timeline

Year Event
1990 V.P. Singh Government announced 27% OBC reservation.
1991 Narasimha Rao Government made 2 changes:
(a) Preference to poorer sections of OBCs (economic criteria),
(b) Additional 10% reservation for “other economically backward” not covered under existing schemes.
1992 Indira Sawhney case verdict pronounced by the Supreme Court.

Year	Event
1990	V.P. Singh Government announced 27% OBC reservation.
1991	Narasimha Rao Government made 2 changes:
(a) Preference to poorer sections of OBCs (economic criteria),
(b) Additional 10% reservation for “other economically backward” not covered under existing schemes.

1992	Indira Sawhney case verdict pronounced by the Supreme Court.

🧠 Indira Sawhney Case (1992) – UPSC Notes

📚 1. Background

Reservation policy in India started with SCs and STs after independence.
Article 16(4) of the Constitution allows reservation in public employment for backward classes not adequately represented in services.
In 1979, the Mandal Commission was set up under B.P. Mandal to identify socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs).
Mandal Commission Report (1980) recommended:
- 27% reservation in central government jobs for OBCs.
- Total reservation = 49.5% (22.5% for SC/ST + 27% for OBCs).
In 1990, V.P. Singh government announced implementation of the Mandal recommendations, leading to nationwide protests, especially from general category students.
Indira Sawhney, a journalist, and others filed petitions challenging this move.

⚖️ 2. Key Constitutional Provisions Involved

Article 16(1): Equality of opportunity in public employment.
Article 16(4): Allows special provisions for backward classes not adequately represented.
Article 15(4): Special provisions for SEBCs in education.

🏛️ 3. Main Issues Before the Supreme Court

Whether Article 16(4) is an exception or a part of Article 16(1)?
Can the State identify backward classes solely based on economic criteria?
Is the 27% OBC reservation valid?
Whether reservation can exceed the 50% limit?
Is there a concept of 'creamy layer' among OBCs?
Can reservation be applied in promotions?
Whether Mandal Commission's recommendations were constitutionally valid?

🧑‍⚖️ 4. Judgment (1992) – Supreme Court Verdict (9-judge bench)

🗓️ Date: November 16, 1992

Reservation for OBCs (27%) is valid under Article 16(4).
Total reservation should not exceed 50%, except in extraordinary situations.
Economic criteria alone cannot be the basis for reservation.
Introduced the concept of 'creamy layer' among OBCs:
- Creamy Layer = economically advanced OBC individuals.
- They cannot avail of the reservation benefit.
Reservation in promotions was not allowed, but Parliament later amended the Constitution (77th Amendment, 1995) to allow it (only to SC/ST).
Backward classes = Social + Educational backwardness, not just economic.
Mandated the creation of a permanent statutory body (like NCBC) to identify backward classes.

🧾 5. Impact / Aftermath of the Case

Led to the formation of National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) in 1993.
77th Constitutional Amendment (1995): Added Article 16(4A) – allowed reservation in promotion for SCs/STs.
Creamy Layer concept later extended to promotions (Jarnail Singh case 2018).
The Court's 50% cap has been reaffirmed in many later cases.
In 2021, 102nd and 105th Amendments clarified the power of both Centre and States in OBC list making.

Year	Amendment / Action	Purpose
1993	Ram Nandan Committee	Identified Creamy Layer among OBCs.
1993	National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC)	Statutory body to manage OBC classification.
1994	76th Amendment	Placed Tamil Nadu's 69% reservation law in the 9th Schedule (to avoid judicial review).
1995	77th Amendment – Added Article 16(4A)	Allowed reservation in promotions for SCs/STs.
2000	81st Amendment – Article 16(4B)	Allowed backlog vacancies to exceed 50% cap.
2000	82nd Amendment – Article 335 Proviso	Allowed relaxation of qualifying marks in promotion for SC/ST.
2001	85th Amendment	Introduced “consequential seniority” for SC/ST promotions (retrospective from June 1995).
2018	102nd Amendment – Article 338B	Gave Constitutional status to NCBC.
2019	103rd Amendment – Articles 15(6) and 16(6)	Gave 10% EWS reservation (based on economic criteria) for non-SC/ST/OBC.

🧩 5. Related Landmark Cases

Case	Relevance
M.R. Balaji (1963)	Social + Educational criteria needed for reservation
State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1976)	Reservation in promotion allowed temporarily
Indra Sawhney (1992)	Set the modern framework of reservation
M. Nagaraj (2006)	Upheld reservation in promotion with conditions
Jarnail Singh (2018)	Creamy layer applies to SC/ST in promotion
Maratha Reservation Case (2021)	Reaffirmed 50% cap; struck down Maratha law

6. Present Relevance (UPSC 2025+)

EWS Reservation (103rd Amendment, 2019):
- 10% for economically weaker sections (EWS) in general category.
- The 50% cap was breached, raising questions in light of Indira Sawhney.
- In Janhit Abhiyan case (2022), Supreme Court upheld EWS quota by majority (3:2), distinguishing it from OBC/SC/ST quota.
Ongoing demand for OBC sub-categorization (Rohini Commission).
Creamy layer debate for SC/STs continues.

🔴 Indra Sawhney Case (1992):

Supreme Court said reservation in promotion is NOT allowed under Article 16(4).
Reservation is only allowed for initial recruitment.

Article 16(4A):(Added by 77th Amendment, 1995)

Allows reservation in promotion for SCs and STs.

✅ This was done to undo Indra Sawhney judgment.

Reservation in promotions for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) with consequential seniority (85th Amendment).

Explanation: Article 16(4A) – Reservation in Promotions for SC/ST

SC/ST employees can get reservation benefits in promotions within government jobs to help them reach higher positions.

Example:

If an SC employee is eligible for promotion to a senior post, there may be reserved seats ensuring they get a fair chance.

🔸 Catch-Up Rule (Virpal Singh Case – 1995; Ajit Singh – 1996):

General category officers who are promoted later than SC/ST due to reservation will regain seniority if they were originally senior.

🔸 Example:

A (General) is senior to B (SC).
B gets promoted first due to reservation.
Later, A also gets promoted.
Under the catch-up rule: A becomes senior again.

🔴 Parliament disagreed and passed:

85th Amendment (2001): Introduced Consequential Seniority
117th Amendment (2012) Bill (Not Enacted): Confirmed it

🔷 Consequential Seniority:

📘 Meaning:

Once a reserved candidate (SC/ST) is promoted before a general category person, he/she remains senior, even if the general candidate was originally senior.

🧠 Story Example:

A (General) and B (SC) are at Level 3.
B gets promoted to Level 4 before A because of reservation.
Later, A also gets promoted.
➡️ B remains senior to A under consequential seniority.

✅ Should There Be Creamy Layer Among SC/ST?

✅ M. Nagaraj vs Union of India (2006)

🔷 Background:

Parliament passed a law (77th Amendment) to give reservation in promotions to SCs and STs.
This was challenged in the Supreme Court.

👉 The Supreme Court (5-judge bench) said:
Yes, Parliament can give reservation in promotions to SCs/STs BUT with 3 conditions.

🧠 The 3 Conditions (VERY IMPORTANT):

🔹 Before giving promotion reservation to SCs/STs, the government must prove:

Backwardness
➤ Show that SCs/STs are still socially and educationally backward.
(Are they still facing discrimination or social disadvantage?)

Inadequate Representation
➤ Show that SCs/STs are not well-represented in jobs (especially higher posts).
(Less SC/ST officers in Class A, B, C jobs?)

Administrative Efficiency
➤ Show that giving promotion reservation will not harm how the government works.
(It should not reduce work quality, speed, or performance.)

🔴 Issues Raised After Nagaraj Judgment

Some people raised concerns/questions:

🔹 Should this judgment be reviewed by a 7-judge bench?
(Because it changed the meaning of earlier rulings like Indra Sawhney.)

🔹 Should States really be forced to collect quantifiable data (exact proof)?
(E.g., numbers showing how backward or underrepresented SCs/STs are.)

🔹 Should creamy layer SC/STs be excluded from promotion reservations?
(Should well-off SC/ST officers get reservations?)

✅ Jarnail Singh vs Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018) – What happened next

This was a 5-judge bench decision — it reviewed the Nagaraj judgment.

🔷 What did the Court say?

❌ No need to collect data for backwardness of SCs/STs
➤ Because SC/STs are already accepted as backward by the Constitution.
(Unlike OBCs who need to prove it every time.)

✅ But States still need to collect data on:

Inadequate representation

Impact on administrative efficiency

✅ Creamy layer should be excluded even from SC/STs
➤ Rich, socially advanced SC/ST people should not get promotion reservation.
➤ This helps the poorest & weakest get the benefits.

🎯 Full Meaning in Easy Words:

“We must remove the rich and advanced SC/ST individuals from the reservation system,
so that the poorest and most backward SC/ST people — who really need help —
can get government jobs or promotions through reservation.”

📌 Reason by Court:

If the same well-off SC/ST candidates keep getting jobs, the poorer SC/STs remain backward forever.
Quota should go to “weakest of the weaker sections.”

Article 16(4B):

Unfilled reserved vacancies for SC/STs can be carried forward to the next year.

Explanation: Article 16(4B) – Carry Forward Rule for SC/ST Vacancies

If reserved vacancies for SC/ST candidates are not filled in a year, they can be carried forward and filled in the next year.

Example:

If 10 government job seats were reserved for SC candidates but only 6 were filled, the remaining 4 can be added to next year’s vacancies.

🔷Sub-categorisation of OBC

🔶 What does “sub-categorisation” mean?

It means:

Dividing the large OBC category into smaller sub-groups, so that reservation is fairly distributed among all OBC castes — not just a few powerful ones.

🧾 Background:

📘 Mandal Commission Report (1980)

It identified 3,743 castes as Socially and Educationally Backward Classes.
Recommended 27% reservation for OBCs in Government jobs.
This was later upheld by the Supreme Court in the Indra Sawhney case (1992).

⚖️ Indra Sawhney Case (1992) – Key Points:

Issue	Verdict
Reservation for OBCs	✅ Upheld
Total reservation limit	⛔ Capped at 50%
Reservation in promotions	❌ Not allowed for OBCs
Creamy layer among OBCs	✅ Introduced — well-off OBCs excluded from reservation

🔍 Problems Now Being Raised:

Reservation was meant for 10 years, but it is being extended repeatedly.
Many upper caste groups like Jats, Marathas, Patidars, Gujjars are now demanding reservation due to:
- Job crisis
- Feeling of unfairness
- Economic backwardness

🚨 Key Issues with Current OBC Quota System:

New "vested interest" class has formed — some OBC communities are taking most of the benefits repeatedly.
It’s becoming unequal even within the OBC group.
Leads to caste-based politics, vote-bank targeting, and frustration among both:
- Upper castes, who feel excluded
- Poorer OBCs, who get no access to reservation

📊 Findings of G. Rohini Committee (2017–Present)

👉 This committee was set up to study sub-categorisation of OBCs — i.e., how reservation benefits are being used within OBC groups.

📈 Key Findings (from 2018 data):

Stat	What it means
🔹 97% of all OBC jobs/seats	Went to just 25% of the OBC castes
🔹 95% of jobs/seats	Taken by just 10 powerful OBC communities
🔹 983 OBC castes (37%)	Got 0 jobs or admissions in 3–5 years
🔹 994 OBC castes	Got only 2.68% representation in total

🧠 What does this mean?

A few dominant OBC castes are getting almost all the reservation benefits.
The poorest and most backward OBC groups are being left out.
This is unfair, even within the OBC category.

🧭 What is being suggested?

To ensure fairness within OBC reservation, the government may:

Divide OBC into 3 or 4 sub-categories (e.g., Extremely Backward, More Backward, Less Backward)
Allocate separate quotas within the 27% based on how backward and under-represented each sub-group is.

This is called OBC Sub-Categorisation.

✅ 5. Vertical & Horizontal Reservation – Simple Explanation

🔹 Vertical Reservation = Based on caste or economic status

Example: SC, ST, OBC, EWS
Fixed % is given (like SC – 15%, OBC – 27%)

🔹 Horizontal Reservation = Based on other factors

Like: Women, Disabled (PwD), Ex-servicemen
This is within each category

👉 Example:
If a woman belongs to OBC → she gets OBC + woman reservation (both applied).

❓ Doubt: If an OBC woman gets high marks, does she go in general or OBC?

✅ Supreme Court said:
If her marks are enough, she should be selected in General category, not forced into OBC quota.

✅ 6. All India Quota (AIQ)

AIQ is a system where students from any state can get seats in government medical colleges of other states.
Started in 1986, for fairness and merit.

🎓 AIQ Seats:

15% of UG (MBBS) seats
50% of PG (MD/MS) seats

Reservation in AIQ:

Category	Since
SC – 15%	2007
ST – 7.5%	2007
OBC – 27%	2021
EWS – 10%	2021

Article 16(5):

Religious institutions can appoint people of a particular religion for certain religious jobs.

Explanation: Article 16(5) – Special Provisions for Religious Institutions

Certain religious institutions can have rules to hire people belonging to that particular religion.

Example:

A Hindu temple can appoint only Hindu priests, or a Muslim religious institution can appoint only Muslim scholars.

Article 16(6):

Allows up to 10% reservation for economically weaker sections (EWS) in government jobs (103rd Amendment, 2019).

Explanation: Article 16(6) – 10% Reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS)

People from the General category (who do not belong to SC/ST/OBC) but are economically weak can get reservation benefits.

Example:

A student from a poor General-category family, earning less than ₹8 lakh per year, can get a 10% reservation in government jobs.

Detailed Explanation of Important Judgments and Commissions

1. Mandal Commission (1979)

Appointed under: Article 340
Objective: To identify socially and educationally backward classes and recommend measures for their upliftment.
Findings: The commission found that nearly 52% of India’s population belonged to Other Backward Classes (OBCs).
Key Recommendation: 27% reservation in government jobs and educational institutions for OBCs, ensuring that total reservation (including SC/ST) does not exceed 50%.

Impact of the Mandal Commission:

Implemented in 1990 by VP Singh’s government, leading to widespread protests.
Led to the landmark Indra Sawhney case (1992), which validated OBC reservations but placed certain restrictions.

2. Indra Sawhney Case (1992)

This was a Supreme Court judgment that examined the constitutional validity of OBC reservations based on the Mandal Commission’s recommendations.
The court upheld 27% reservation for OBCs but introduced the following conditions:

Key Rulings in Indra Sawhney Case:

Total reservation cannot exceed 50% – This was set as a constitutional limit to ensure balance in merit-based selection.
Carry Forward Rule is valid but must not breach 50% – If reserved category seats remain unfilled, they can be carried forward to the next year, but total reservation in any year cannot exceed 50%.
Merit should not be compromised – Reservation should not completely override merit-based selection.
No reservation in promotions – The court ruled that reservation can be provided at the time of appointment but not for promotions in government jobs.
Introduction of the Creamy Layer Concept –
- OBC candidates belonging to the “advanced sections” (wealthier or socially better-placed families) should be excluded from the reservation.
- This ensures that only truly disadvantaged OBCs benefit from affirmative action.
Establishment of a Permanent Statutory Body for OBCs – This led to the creation of the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) to review OBC lists periodically.

Impact of Indra Sawhney Case:

Introduced the “Creamy Layer” concept, which still plays a crucial role in OBC reservations.
Created a 50% cap on reservations, which became a legal benchmark.
Stopped reservation in promotions, though later amendments reintroduced it for SC/STs.

3. Important Constitutional Amendments Related to Reservation

77th Amendment (1995) – Reservation in Promotions for SC/ST

Overturned the Indra Sawhney ruling that banned reservation in promotions.
Allowed SC/ST employees to get reservation in promotions within government jobs.
Added Article 16(4A) to the Constitution.

81st Amendment (2000) – Backlog Vacancies Can Exceed 50% Ceiling

If reserved category seats remain unfilled, they can be carried forward to subsequent years.
These backlog vacancies will not be counted in the 50% limit of reservations.

82nd Amendment (2000) – Relaxation in Efficiency Criteria for SC/ST

Article 335 was amended to state that while considering reservations for SC/STs, efficiency in administration must be taken into account.
However, states can relax minimum qualifying marks for SC/ST candidates in government jobs.

85th Amendment (2001) – Consequential Seniority for SC/ST

Allowed promoted SC/ST employees to retain seniority over general candidates who were promoted later.
This strengthened SC/ST job security in government services.

4. M. Nagaraj Case vs. Union of India (2006)

This case challenged the validity of reservation in promotions given by the 77th, 81st, 82nd, and 85th amendments.
The Supreme Court upheld reservation in promotions but added strict conditions.

Key Conditions Laid Down in Nagaraj Judgment:

Backwardness of SC/ST must be proven – Before granting reservation in promotions, the government must show that SC/ST communities are still socially backward.
Inadequate Representation in Government Jobs – The state must provide data proving that SC/ST candidates are underrepresented in government jobs.
Reservation Should Not Harm Administrative Efficiency – The efficiency of the government administration must be maintained while implementing reservations.

5. Jarnail Singh vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018)

This case reviewed the Nagaraj judgment and modified some of its conditions.

Key Rulings in Jarnail Singh Case:

Struck Down the Backwardness Criteria – States do not need to collect quantifiable data to prove that SC/STs are still backward.
Need to Prove Inadequate Representation – However, states must still show inadequate representation before granting reservation in promotions.
Extended the Creamy Layer Concept to SC/STs –
- The creamy layer concept, earlier applied only to OBCs, was now extended to SC/STs.
- Wealthier SC/ST individuals (creamy layer) cannot get reservation in promotions.

Impact of Jarnail Singh Case:

Made it easier for SC/STs to get reservation in promotions, as they no longer need to prove their backwardness.
However, states must still prove inadequate representation before granting reservations.
Strengthened the creamy layer rule to ensure that only genuinely disadvantaged SC/STs benefit.

6. Justice Rohini Commission (2017 – Present)

Appointed by the government in 2017 to study the sub-categorization of OBCs.
The aim is to divide OBCs into sub-categories so that weaker OBCs do not lose out to stronger OBCs in reservations.
The commission submitted its report in 2023, but its recommendations are yet to be implemented.

Conclusion

India’s reservation system has evolved through various amendments and court rulings.
Indra Sawhney (1992) set the 50% cap and creamy layer rule.
M. Nagaraj (2006) and Jarnail Singh (2018) shaped reservation in promotions.
The Justice Rohini Commission could further reform OBC reservations in the future.

Article 16: Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment