or expression.

the
court later held, "Clause
of
In line with the foregoing a r g u m e n t s , the Constitution."17 In the
s t r u c t u r e of
Case, the same
Article 15court alsoviolate
does not invalidated provision for admiSsion in a medical
the basic vational was
come
not
col ge
because
such reservation
personnel court decided tho
exclusively to the wards of army
clause (5) of Article 15. The the case ecided
cOvered either by clause (4) o r and did not sider the e
consider
primarily with reference to
Articles 15 and 19(1)(8)
Article 29(2) hibits den
which prohibits denial possi-
with reference to
amongst which wards a
reservation
bility of such institutions on grounds
admission in educational
army
persons are not included.
in matters of public emnlo
16. Equality of opportunity
of opportunity for all citizens inma
employ
m e n t . - (1) There shall be equality
or to any office under the State
appointment
ters relating to employment
of race, caste, sex, descent.
(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only religion,
be ineligible for, or discriminated
place of birth, residence or any of them,
under the State.
against in respect of, any employment or office
3) Nothing in this article shall prevent Parliament from making any
law prescribing, in regard to a class or classes of employment or appoint
ment to an office funder the Government of, or
any local or other authority
within, a State or Union territory, any requirement as to residence within
that State or Union
territory] prior to such employment
or
appointment
4) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from
vision for the reservation of making any pro
ward class of citizens appointments posts in favour of any back
or
which, in the
represented in the services under theopinion
of the
State, not adequately
is
State.
IC4-A) Nothing in this article shall
provision for reservation in matters ofprevent the State from making any
seniority to any class or classes promotion 20[, with consequer
in favour of the Scheduled of posts in the
Castes services under the
and the Scheduled Tribes
opinion of the State, are not which,
in
the State adequately represented in the services
u
15. See,
16. See, commentary
Bennett Coleman&Arts. 19(1)(g) and (b) above.
on
v.
Ambica Mills Ltd, Co. v. Union of India,
17. Indian
Medical Assn. (1974) 4 SCC
656:
(1972) 2 SCC 788: AIR ujarat
also cited v.
Union of AIR 1974 SC 1300. 1973 SC 1o6, o
18. Subs. this book atp. 260, fn.India, (2011) 7 SCC
by the Constitution 37. 179, 278: AIR
2011 SC court
has
specified the First (7th
in
Amendment) 2305 *

requirement
19. Ins.
by the
as to Schedule
residence or Act,
any local or 1956, S. 29 and any
State

20. Ins. Constitution (77th within

thin that State other
u er
authorit within its territory,
authority
by the State". *
Constitution (85th Amendment) Act,
Amendment) Act, 2001,
1995, S.
S.
2.
2
(w.e.f. 17-6-1995)
5)
ART. 16]

(4-B) Nothing in this article shall prevent the

vacancies of a year which are State from
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS 109
any unfilled
at year in accordanc with any provisionreserved
that year for for Deing considering
filled 1u onsidering
being filled up in
clause (4) or clause
separate class of servation made under
(4-A) as a

in any succeeding year or years and such class vacancies to be filled

0e
dered together with the vacancies«of the of vacancies shall up
onsiderea mining the ceiling of year in which they a be
up for determining
not
ceiling fifty per cent
number of vacancies of that year.] reservation on
on total
() Nothing in this article shall affect theoperation of
des that the incumbent of an ofice in
prov any law which
any religious or denominational connection with the affairs of
institution or
any
erning body thereot shall be a person professing a member of the gov.
belonging to a particular denomination. particular religion or
Article 16 is another instance of the
before law laid down in Article 14 and
application of the general rule of equality
the of
prohibition of discrimination in
Article 15() with respect to the
any office under the State.
opportunity tor
employment or appointment to
DasJ said:
Explaining the relative
scope of Articles 14, 15 and 16,

Article 14 guarantees the general

right of equality; Arts. 15 and 16 are instances of
the same right in favour of citizens in some
special circumstances. Art.
general than Art. 16, the latter being confined to matters relating to 15 is more
or
appointment to any office under the State. It is also worthy of noteemployment
that Art. 15
does not mention 'descent' as one of the
whereas Art. 16 does.22 prohibited grounds discrimination,
of

This
relationship has been further emphasised in Thomas23 and Indra Sauwhney v.
Union of India4 discussed below and above under Article 15(4).

CLAUSE (1)
lause (1) lays down the general rule that there shall be equal opportunity tor cite
n s in matters relating to "employment" or "appointment to any office" under
a t e t gives the right only for equal opportunity, i.e. the right to be consid-
ed tor employment or appointment.t dos not give the right to be employed
4PpOinted to any office under the StateThe rule applies only in respect or
oyments or offices which are held under the Staty, i.e. in respect ot persons
holding office
as subordinate to the
State(What guaranteed
is is the equality of
own
POTuntyThe clause accordingly, does not prevent the State from laying o
s t e qualifications for recruitment for government services, and it is Oge
ld be
authority to lay down such other conditions of appointment as
s . by the Constitution (81st Amendment) Act, 2000, S. 2. AIS,

a Rama Rao v. State of A.P, AIR 1961 SC 564: (1961) 2

SCR 931. n
upta State of
v.
5. (1976) 2SCC 310:Rajasthan, (2002) 4 SCC 34, 41.
AIR 1976 SC
1992 490.
Supp
(3) SCC 217: AIR 1993 SC 477
110 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

Qonducive to the maintenance ot proper discipline amono PART

Like all other employers, government is also entitled to pick ment s.
amongst a large number of candidates offering themselves for
government
and chooseservant.)
TOm
long as an applicant, along with chancemployment
others, has been given his
said that he did not have an equal oPPOrtunity along with others a n
been selected in preference to him.* While clause () does not precludehomay
may have
h
cannot be
istrative
from making selection from numerous candidatean admin
authority a

themselves for employment theselection testmust not bearbitrarye(i

f be arbitrary ofering
hich has a nexus the seler
tion test is not based upon some reasonable principly whic
cient pertormance of the duties and obligations of the particular
with
equal opportunity for employment under the State would be o office(then
aqual violated)The
fications posited may, besides mental excellence, include physical fitness,
Sense
discipline, moral integrity and loyalty to the State.Technical qualiñcation aandof
standards may be prescribed where they are necessary.
The expression "matters relating to employment or appointment" mustinchude
all matters in relation to employment both prior and subsequent to the employ
ment which are incidental to the employment and form part of the terms and
conditions of such employment) Thus(the guarantee in clause (1) will cover:
initial appointments 2) promotions 3) termination of employment" and 4
matters relating to salary, periodical increments, leave, gratuity, pension, age of
superannuation, ete.)Logically and going by numerous precedents determina
tion of seniority must also fall within it. But a
held that "Seniority is not a fundamental
three-judge Bench of the court has
right"32 Principle of equal pay for equal
work is also covered by equality of opportunity in Article 16(1).3 The same un
damental principle of
equality of opportunity should apply in all these mate
between persons who are either seeking the same employment, or have obtained
the same
removal from
employmentl"Appointment" in clause (1) will include termination
service) Arbitrary invocation of enforcement of a service on

terminating the service of a temporary employee may itself constitute con

equal protection and offend the denla
t is not
equality
clause in Articles 14 and 16(1)"
obligatory
to make
rules of recruitment before service is
uted
or a
post is created or filled up)In
the absence of rules,
a
consit
can be laid down in the
executive qualifications for a
order creating the service
or post ana
25. Southern Railtoay Rangachari, AIR
v.

Stare y u.P
AIR 1956 C 520. 1962 SC 36: (1962) SCR 586; Banarsidas
2 v.

26. High Court of Calcutta v. Amal Kumar

27. Roy, AIR
Sukhnandan Thakur v. State of Bihar, AlR 1962 SC 1704: (1963) 1 SCR 437
28. Krishan 1957 Pat 617
Chander Nayar Central Tractor
v.
Organisation,
Rangachari, AlR 1962 SC
36: (1962) 2 SCR 586; Ram AIR 1962 SC 602; Southern RaiunAIR
.

1964 SC 1559: (1964) 7 SCR 228. Sharan v. Inspector General of

29. Southern Raikoay Poe
30. Union of India v.
v. Rangachari, AlR 1962 SC
36: (1962) SCR 586.
Southern RailuayPandurang
2
31.
Kashinath More, AlR
v. 1962 SC 630.
Bimlesh Tanwar v. Kangachari,
AlR 1962 SC
32. 36: (1962) SCR
State Haryana, (2003) 5 SCC 586.
Randhir Singh v. Union ofof India,
2
33. 604, 620:
539: AIR 1993 SC 286. (1982) 1 SCC 618; State AIR 2003 SC 2000.
of M. P. v. Pramod Bhartiya, (1995) 1 SCC
*
34. Govt. Branch Press v. D.B. Bel.
(1979) 1 SCC 477: AIR
1979 SC 429.
 ART. 16

up
FUNDAMENTAL
rding to those qualifications." But there is no rule of equality between
RIGHTS 111 111
ependent classes of service. Thus,
the
mbers or 1ards belong to two separate and distinct classes of service
sta-
road-side sta
n whom there is no scope for equality or inequality of opportunity in m
tion maste

Article 16(1), accordingly, was not intringed by rules

ters of p nromoted faster than road-side station masters to the posts ofenahlino
station
bepKewise, Article 16(1) has no. application to persons
masters,1
occupying differ-
in the
the same service. Accordingly, it Income Tax Officers of
Class I aro
entat gradesnointment as Assistant Commissioners, but
grades re
ible Income Tax Officers
Il not.
not, there can be
are
no question ot denial of
equality of opportuni-
of Class
of Class
Cimilarly, irregular, ad-hoc or temporary appointees cannot claim equality
ith regular and permanent appointees. So also classification het enydepu-
ty.3
wniss 2nd departmental candidates is justified." But if different standards
f promotion are laid down in relation to the same class of Income Ta icers,
Article 16 is violated.40 Government action has been held invalid where the sen-

jority of the person

was disregarded." While promoting persons of one orads
grade
orclass to the higher grade, no discrimination can be made between those who
came to the existing grade through promotion and those who came through
direct recruitment.2 Right to be considered for promotion is recognised as a fun-

damental right under this article.*" There is nothing wrong in providing differ-
have higher educational qualifications." Distinction
ent grades for persons who
between the degree, diploma and certificate holders."5 The State
may be drawn
to observe such a distribution.5 There is no denial of equal-
may also decide not
retirement of government servants."
ity if the service rules permit premature does not prohibit the
So also equality of opportunity in matters of employment
down appropriate
prescription of compulsory retirement.45 It is one thing lay
to

qualifications and for a particular job, but complete neglect

requisite experience

35. Ramesh Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, (1978) 1 SCC 37: AIR 1978 SC 327.
AlR 1960 SU 364
Assn. v. Central Railway,
0. All ndia Station Masters' and Asst. Station Masters'
37. Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi v. Union
of India, AR 1962
SCC 1: AIR
SC 1139
2006 SC 1806; Indiam Drugs
o

v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4

y, State
of Karnataka
Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen, (2007) 1 SCC 408.
. Jagdish Vyas v. Union of India, (2010) 4 SCC 150: AIR 201o SC 1596. KarA,
Vasant Jayaram
Union of India v.
V. Union of India, AIR 1964 Puni 155;
gan
(1970) 3 SCC 658: AIR 1970 SC 2092.
a t e of Mysore v. P.R. Kulkarni, (1973) 3 SCC 597: AIR 1972 SC 2170.
2.
S.M. Pandit v. State ofGujarat, (1972) 4SCC 778: AIR 1972S25 (1977) 3 SCL 9
arashtra, 9/70
bo8: AIR 1972 SC 508; S.B.Patwardhan v. Stateof Maharashtra,
AI4
AIR 1977 SC 2051. CC
3
5. Badrinath v. Govt. of T.N., (200o) 8 SCC,395 Markendeya v.
State of A.P, (1989)
AIR 1972 Mys 88;
V
191: AIR 10R ate of Mysore, 282; Chandrat
6 SCC
Board, (1994)
and Drainage
P.K,vC amanv. T.N. Water Supply
PK. v. C.K. Saji, (2004) 3 SCC
0. 734 Union ofn
47. Dilip
Kumar Gargv. State ofu.P., (2009) 4 (1967) 2 LLJ
246;
T.G. 1965 SC
280:
ShivacharanaSingh v. State of Mysore, AIR AlR 1971 SC 2369.
0OL Chand Dasumal Pardasani, (1972) 3 SCC 273:
P.
*
AlR 1977 D
Radhakrishna Naidu v. Govt. of A.P., (1977) 1 SCC 561:
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

without valid reason, of the requisite experience, on the soleorn.

PART A
particular amount of salary on a particular date cannot be counten dot drawinga
There can be no absolutes when claims to dawin
justice on
are considered. The
goal of Articles 14 and 16 is limited to eaualit. ofof iinequal complaints
parables, a necessary implication of which is permissibility amor com
sification, having nexus with the of o

and continued object to be achieved. if reasona

So, two seri la
dissimilarly, though they
they are not comparable services so as to apparently discharged
ity. But if in the
furnish a basis for
service there are two sources
same
similar started
the claim to e
posts, classification based solely on the of
a
source ot
recruitment to the a
However, even recruitment is not same
among the members of the same permissible
otherwise than on mere source service, a classification
of recruitment based
may at times be such as educational
of the same permissible. Though line can be drawn when qualification,
service a classification
a
been recruited on
the basis of
is
sought to be made betweenamong members
those who had
who were results of a
is, appointed to the non-cadre posts competitive examination and those
therefore, precarious,
who were cannot claim to be outside the rules and whose tenure
the cadre ofappointed
treated on the same
strictly in accordance with the rules and to footing those
the service.50 as

Important posts borne on

ing the questions arose in
relationship of Articles State
Article 16()
of Kerala v. N.M.
14, 15 and 16. Thomas5 (Thomas) regara
the protected
passing special testsexemption of the The point at issue was
51 vacancies of for LDCs to the SCs and whetner
belonging
the UDCs promotion as the Sls
to those
who had by promoting the UDCs and the ro
could be passed those tests. The LDCs from these filling up ot 34 Ou
upheld under Article
Ray C, Mathew, question was whether groups in pre
did not fall Beg, Krishna 16(1) or
Article 16(4). The this arrange
was of the
under Article Iyer and Fazal Ali JJ, held majority of five Juulges,
view that 16(4) but that these
forbid the State from Article 16(1) were valid under
rested on the rendering permitted reasonableArticle 16(1). arrang
social The n
premise
temporary period. that the justice to the classification
and an t
impugned backward classes. Its
exemption
Ray C stated had been opi for na
of
constitutionallycategorically thatat Articles granted only
xplained guaranteed
incident.of rig
as an rights 14, 15 and 16
therefore,
to permitted reasonableguaranteesupplementing
of
equality
form art of a string
each other.part
employment
relatable to all matters
it relatable
or
aPpointment. classification
Article of the contained in Art
rticle 16 was

of object and of
icle
of employment,16(1)
mattersof law using employees
the in
Article 14 and,
purpose
crimination prohibited
empioyment, or
and
State action permit.ression
ana
permitted exxpr matters relating
"equality"
by Article 16(2); Article classification made
except classifica
164) ation on the basis
49. State of Orissa v. N.N. Swamy, (1977) 2 SCC 5o8: AIR
indicated involving the dis-
one of
50. Katyani
Dayal v. Union of India, (1980) 3 SCC 245, 1977 SC
the methods
of Directly Appointed Officers of Indian Railway 271: (1980)
1237

Union of SCR- 139,

3
SC 2422. v.

51. India, (1993) affirmed in

364: Federation
(1976) 2 SCC 310: AIR 1976 SC 490. 3 SCC
AIR 1993
ART. 16

ofa
achieving
the
ality embodied in Article
kwardness did not fall 16(1), and
basis ofbackward
within the
« FUNDAMENTAL
explained that classific
RICHTS 1 3
oT giving preference to an the
ords, a rule
prohibition of Articatin
classi16lfic2at),im
backward community was
valid and
would notepresente unrepresented or
of
Article
In
16(2: Article 16(4)
the guarantee
removed anydoubt in
this respersene Ar
of equality before the law is
contravene
thieontravene
Artie"epr
respect. MathewArticles
athew J 14, 161) and
underrepresented
ffective material equality, and that Articla rmal equalitthat that emphasised
emphasised
Article 16(1). Krishna lyer| agreed with the Chief 64) was not an also
very exception
Article 16l4) is an tration of
constitutionally
Justice, stating to
sanctified clearly
clearly that
th
putin
in the Constitution to make matters clear
beyond douhtclassification and
and Gupta J}, in their
na
dissent, followed M.R. Balaji v. State of Mes
and argued that carving out classes of citizens for
amnlovment, except in cases for which favoured freat
there is an
in clause (4) of Article 16, would in the very nature of express provision
things run
counter
orinciple of equality of opportunity enshrined in clause (1) of Article s6 to the
ored to the view that reservation of seats tor backward classes
at the cost of efficiency. It was pointed out that the exemption, should not be
though
limited period, would not lend constitutionality to the impugned rules,only for a
The most outstanding contribution ot the Thomas cases was recognition of
the distinction between formal and substantive equality and emphasis on the
latter. Accordingly a requirement of positive steps was read in Article 16(t) and
its clause (4) was seen as complementary to it rather than an exception as was
thought until then. Therefore, some of the judges deprecated limitation of any
percentage of reservation.
Five years later in Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railuway) v. Union of
to the
India" Sangh), Krishna lyer J, reiterated that Article 16(4) imparts
(ABSK
seemingly static equality embedded in Article 16(1) dynamic
a qualityby import
achievement of equak
towards the eventual
ing equalisation strategies geared construed exception
as an
ity. Before the decision in Thomas, Article 164) was
construction was an accepted
norm for working Out the
tO Article 16(1) and this
It was in the majority opinion (including Krisnna
extent and scope of Article 16(1). was construed as an aspect of Article 1o0)an
yer) in Thomas that Article 16(4) Following the majority op
a dynamic interpretation. not in the nature
5n altogether that Article 16(4) is
emphasised and furthering
Os, Chinnappa Reddy , it is a facet of Article 16(1) fostering
and
rurti and
underprivileged
an Article 16(1);
htheexception to
idea of equality of opportunity with special
to
reference

depri case", the

deprived class of citizens.* he did in
the
Thomas
the classification
as
InABSK emphasised,

Sanghs6, Krishna Iyer , class on the basis

of whien
tu
6 a t i o n of the SCs and
STs as a

2.AIR 1963 SC649: 196; Supp (1) SCR 439

5. (1976) 2 SCC 310: AIR 1976 SC 490.
4.(1981) 1 SCC 246: AIR 1981 SC 298.
55. Ibid,
(SCC) 310.
6. (1981)SCOah. AIR 108 SC 298.
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

could be justified as just and reasonable within the

PART I
16(1) because these classes stand on a meaning of Articles .
substantially different footine fdnd ) and
rest of the Indian
community our Constitution. Other weaker
in footing from the
context, in his
opinion, would mean not sectionss inin this
other "backward class"
depressed categories
comparable but
but dism
STs. In other words, in his economícally and
educationally
to the SCs a
opinion,
category could be justified within the
classification of the SCs and and
STs as a specia
of weaker sections on meaning
of Articles a
classification
conform to the
the basis of backward
15(1) and 16(1),
wher
requirements of Articles classes may have to
not make any 15(4) and 16(4).
Union of
such distinction between the two Chinnappa
classes. The IndraReddy J, did
India (Mandal Commission case)
classes into backward and more backward approves the classification ofSawhney v.

backward
classes must be so
situated as the SCs and but disapproves that the backward
The Thomas STs.
case view on the
Artice 16 that the
has been latter is not an relationship
between clauses (1) and of
(4)
confirmed in the Mandal exception
to but complementary
of the tormer
case has also
held that clause Commission case. But the Mandal
classes and no favour (4) exhausts all Commisswn
has admitted can be special provisions
granted to them under clause for the backward
that clause
made under it for (1) permits (1). However, the cour
ward classes. handicapped or
classification
and
special provisions a
Artice 161)
disadvantaged groups other than the b
confined to
is

employment in service "employment" by the State and has

Supply goods not rather than
of
is
as
contractors. retere to
has been
used in the contract of
article.
a
Accordingly,
employment in the sense contra nd a
employees of Independent in
The
the State
and cannot contractors cannot whien
claim
the right
d
call tne selves

of requirement
equality has been
of
reasonableness conferred under this
tion to service applied to Article discussed under the
matters have been 16(1) also and expanding
unreasonable nla
rizons

invalidated52 actionsin
" rela
Clause (2) lays
down CLAUSE (2)
discriminated againstspecific
the State. grounds on the basis of
each other
The
because scope of clause (1) of in respect of any which citizens are are notto
Article 16discrimination on Article 16 is wider or
o
nde
appointment
laid down has to be
weighedgrounds other than than the cope of clau se
sco
in
clause and those
Tace, caste, sex, (u) "The judged in the mentioned
in
e (a) of

descent, place prohibited light ofthe general claciples

pri
58.
1992
of birth, grounds of
residence, or anydiscrimin
ge
ination arereligion
59. Supp (3) SCC of them The words, "any
60. (1976) SCC 217. AIR
2
For
details 31o. AlR 1993 SC
of the 19776 477
Mandal SC 490.
61. C.K.
Achutan v. State
of Commission
62. A.L.
Kalra v.
63.
Project and Kerala, AlR case, see,
Sukhnandan Thakur 1959 SC 490. comments under Art
y St Equipment Car 1il
cl