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 shall be denied a government job based on religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, or residence.

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.

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.

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.

Example:

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

Article 16(4A):

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.

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.

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