Case Ruling
Led to the introduction of the First
State of Madras v. Court ruled that caste
Champakam Dorairajan based Communal Award violate
1951 Article 15(1) of the constitution.
The government's 68%
M. R. Balaji v. State of reservation on college admissions
Mysore was deemed excessive and
1963 unreasonable, and was capped at
50%.
Reaffirmed Bihar State Harijan
Syndicate Bank SC & ST
Kalyan Parishad v. Union of
Employees Association &
India in that reservation policy
Others v. Union of India
cannot be denied by method of
& Others
selection, and was applicable to
1990
the highest level of promotion.
The constitution recognized social
and educational backwardness,
but not economic backwardness.
The court upheld separate
Indra Sawhney & Others reservation for OBC in central
v. Union of India government jobs, but excluded
AIR 1993 SC 477 these to the "creamy layer" (the
forward section of a backward
class, above a certain income). At
no point should the reservation
exceed 50%.
General Manager
A divided court held that
Southern Railway v.
reservations could be made in
Rangachari
promotions as well as
AIR 1962 SC 36,
appointments.
Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Upheld the "carry forward rule"
Karamchari Sangh of the railway board in a selection
(Railway) v. Union of of posts above 50% reservation,
India allowing for "some excess". This
Notes
Amendment of the constitution, by
inserting 15(3) which invalidated
the judgment.
Almost all states except Tamil
Nadu (69%, under 9th schedule)
and Rajasthan (68% quota
including 14% for forwarding
castes) have observed this 50%
limit. Tamil Nadu exceeded the
limit in 1980. Andhra Pradesh tried
to exceed the limit in 2005, which
was postponed by the high court.
This judgment was implemented
only in Syndicate Bank to
April 1993.
Judgement implemented, with 27%
central government reservation for
OBCs. However, some states
denied the existence of the creamy
layer, and a report commissioned
by the supreme court was not
implemented. The case was pressed
again in 1999 and the supreme
court reaffirmed the creamy layer
exclusion and extended it to SCs
and STs.
This was overruled in the 1992
case Indra Sawhney & Others v.
Union of India.[11]
This led to the addition of clause
4A to article 16 of the constitution,
empowering the state to make
provision for reservation in
 was overruled in Indra Sawhney
promotion to any posts where
v. UOI which held that
(1981) 1 SCC 246 SC/ST are not adequately
reservations cannot be applied in
represented.
promotions.

Union of India v. Varpal

Singh Hence, Article 16(4-A) was further
AIR 1996 SC 448, SCs/STs who were given the amended by the Constitution
benefit of promotion would not (Eighty-Fifth Amendment) Act,
Ajitsingh Januja & Others get consequential seniority 2001 giving them the benefit of
v. State of Punjab consequential seniority
AIR 1996 SC 1189

Articles 16 (4) and (4A) do not

M. G. Badappanavar v. confer fundamental rights or
State of Karnataka constitutional duties, but invest
2001 (2) SCC 666 discretion in the state to consider
providing reservation.[13]

Post-Graduate Institute of
When considering a single post,
Medical Education and
no reservation can be made (as it
Research, Chandigarh v.
would amount to 100%
Faculty Association
reservation).[14]
AIR 1998 SC 1767

challenging the conclusion of the

Ashok Kumar Gupta:
Mandal Commission that about 77th Constitution amendment (Art
Vidyasagar Gupta v. State
52% of the total population of 16(4 A) & (16 4B) introduced to
of Uttar Pradesh
India belonged to Other invalidate judgement.
1997 (5) SCC 201
Backward Classes classification

M. Nagraj & Others v. Upheld the constitutionality of the 1. Art. 16(4)(A) and 16(4)(B) flow
Union of India and 77th amendment. from Art. 16(4) and do not alter the
Others. structure of Art. 16(4). 2.
AIR 2007 SC 71 Backwardness and inadequacy of
representation are the compelling
reasons for providing reservations
keeping in mind the overall
efficiencies of state administration.
3. Government has to apply cadre
strength as a unit in the operation
of the roster in order to ascertain
whether a given group is
adequately represented in the
service. The roster has to be post-
specific with the inbuilt concept of
replacement rather than being
based on vacancies. 4. Direct
 recruitment to ensure adequate
representation of a backward
category may be made at the
discretion of the authority. 5.
Backlog vacancies are excluded
from the 50% limit. 6. Reserved
category candidates are entitled to
compete for general category posts,
and will not be counted against the
quota limit. 7. Reserved candidates
are entitled to compete with the
general candidates for promotion to
the general post. On their selection,
they are to be adjusted in the
general post as per the roster and
the reserved candidates should be
adjusted in the points earmarked in
the roster to the reserved
candidates. 8. Each post must be
marked for the particular category
of the candidate to be appointed,
and any subsequent vacancy has to
be filled by that category alone
(replacement theory).

R. K. Sabharwal v. State A roster to select members for a

of Punjab body is to operate only until the
AIR 1995 SC 1371: reservation quota is reached, and
(1995) 2 SCC 745 thereafter disposed.

This decision was overruled and

reinstated in subsequent
Union of India v. Varpal Reserved-category candidates
years, and M. G. Badappanvar v.
Singh benefiting from accelerated
State of Karnataka (2001[2] SCC
AIR 1996 SC 448, promotion would not gain
666: AIR 2001 SC 260) held that
Ajitsingh Januja & Others consequential seniority over
roster promotions were for the
v. State of Punjab general candidates when
limited purpose of due
AIR 1996 SC 1189: 1995 considering subsequent
representation at various levels of
2 SCC 715 promotion.
service, and did not confer
seniority.

M. Nagraj & Others v. The 85th constitutional amendment

Upheld the constitutionality of the
Union of India and Others added consequential seniority to
85th amendment.
AIR 2007 SC 71 Art 16 (4)(A)

S. Vinodkumar v. Union of It is not permissible to relax By the Constitution (82nd)

India standards of evaluation in matters Amendment Act a proviso was
 inserted at the end of Art 335.M.
Nagraj & Others v. Union of India
1996 6 SCC 580 of reservation in promotion
and Others (AIR 2007 SC 71) held
the amendments constitutional.

Government rules for reservation

Suraj Bhan Meena v. State
cannot be introduced without
of Rajasthan
quantifiable data of backwardness
(2011) 1 SCC 467
and underrepresentation.

S. Balakrishnan v. S.
Chandrasekar
The Madras High Court held that
28/2/2005,
reservation in promotion is
The Government of Tamil
available only to SC and ST and
Nadu Vs. Registration
not to OBC.
Department SC/ST
(9/12/2005)

Sudam Shankar Baviskar

v. Edu. Off. (Sec), Z. P. Consequential seniority is not
Jalgaon available to VJNT
2007 (2) MhLJ 802

Union of India v. S. Reserved quotas are not counted

Kalugasalamoorthy for a person selected on the basis
2010 writ no. 15926/2007 of his own seniority.

I. R. Coelho (deceased) by
Tamil Nadu Reservations were put
LRS. v. State of Tamil Supreme court advised Tamil
under the 9th Schedule of the
Nadu Nadu to follow 50% reservation
constitution, which had already
2007 (2) SCC 1: 2007 limit
been upheld by the court.
AIR(SC) 861

The right to establish educational

Unni Krishnan, J.P. &
institutions can neither be a trade This was overruled in T.M.A. Pai
Others. v. State of Andhra
or business nor can it be a Foundation v State of
Pradesh & Others.
profession within the meaning of Karnataka (2002 8 SCC 481)
1993 (1) SCC 645
Article 19(1)(g).

Reservations cannot be enforced

P. A. Inamdar v. State of
on private educational institutions 93rd constitutional amendment
Maharashtra
which do not receive government introduced Art 15(5).
2005 AIR(SC) 3226
funding.

Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. The supreme court overruled

State of Bihar further criteria Bihar and Uttar
1995 5 SCC 403 Pradesh had codified to identify
 the "creamy layer", such as
educational qualifications and
property holdings, as arbitrary
and unconstitutional.[15]

Upheld the 93rd Amendment; found

creamy layer principle applies to
OBCs and not STs and SCs. The
Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. government must set reservation
Recommended reviews of
Union of India thresholds to ensure quality and
merit do not suffer, and set a
backwardness every 10 years.
2007 RD-SC 609
deadline to reach free and
compulsory education for every
child.

It held that the 50% cap on quota is

not inviolable and affirmative
Upheld the 103rd Amendment
Janhit Abhiyan vs Union action on economic basis may go a
which introduced 10% reservation
Of India long way in eradicating caste-based
for Economically Weaker
Writ Petition (Civil) reservation. This constitutional
Section (EWS) in education and
No(S). 55 OF 2019 amendment pushed the total
public employment.
reservation to 59.50% in central
institutions.