# STATE OF PUNJAB v. IDRALAL & ORS

- **Citation:** [1971] 3 S.C.R. 267
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1970-12-18
- **Case number:** CIVIL APPELLATE J'-IRISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1218 of 1968
- **Bench:** J. c. SHAH, K. s. HEGDE, A. N. 6Rover
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-punjab-v-idralal-ors-5177
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

c
D
E
F
Constitution of India, Art. 16(1) & (4)-Reservation for backward
classes made applicable -~o initial appointments as well as promotionsValidity 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.
Respondents 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<iuld be open to judicial review; but the burden of establishing that a
particular reservation is offensive to Art, 16(1) is on the person who·
takes the plea. [271 C, E, 272 D-0, 273 D-FJ
In the present case, there was no material from which it could be
concluded that the impugned Order violated Art. i 6( I). The reserva·
tion could not be struck down on hypothetical grounds or on imaginary
possibilities. [273 H]
General Manager, Southern Railway v. Ran11achari, [1962] 2 S.C.R.
586 and A. Peeriakaruppan etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu, [1971] 2 S.C.R.
G
430, followed.
H
CIVIL APPELLATE J'-IRISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1218 of
1968.
Appeal from the judgment a11d order dated November 29,'
1966 of the Punjab High Court in Civil Writ No. 271 of 1966.
M. C. Setalvad and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant.
The respondent did not appear.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1971] 3 S.C.R.

## 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 promotionsValidity 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.
Respondents 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<iuld be open to judicial review; but the burden of establishing that a
particular reservation is offensive to Art, 16(1) is on the person who·
takes the plea. [271 C, E, 272 D-0, 273 D-FJ
In the present case, there was no material from which it could be
concluded that the impugned Order violated Art. i 6( I). The reserva·
tion could not be struck down on hypothetical grounds or on imaginary
possibilities. [273 H]
General Manager, Southern Railway v. Ran11achari, [1962] 2 S.C.R.
586 and A. Peeriakaruppan etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu, [1971] 2 S.C.R.
G
430, followed.
H
CIVIL APPELLATE J'-IRISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1218 of
1968.
Appeal from the judgment a11d order dated November 29,'
1966 of the Punjab High Court in Civil Writ No. 271 of 1966.
M. C. Setalvad and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant.
The respondent did not appear.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1971] 3 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A
Hegde, J.-On September 12, 1963, the Government of
.Punjab passed the following order :
"Subject :-Reservation for the members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes
in promotion cases.
B
Sir,
I am directed to refer you to the subject noted
above and to say that at present .reservation for. Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward
Classes is appiicable to new appointments and not to
promotions which are governed by consideration
of
merit and seniority alone.
Since those castes/cla.Sses
are poorly represented in various services in the upper
grades under the State Govt. it has been under the active
consideration of Government that some reservation in
higher grade posts as well should be made for them.
It has now been decided that except in the case of All
India Servic~s 10 per cent of the higher posts to be filled
by promotion should be reserved for the members of
Schedt• led Castes,
Scheduled Tribes and
Backward
Classes
(9 per rent for the members of Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes and 1 per cent for the
Backward Classes) subject to the following conditions :
(a) the persons to be considered must possess the
Minimum necessary qualification; and
(b) tl1ey should have at least a 'satisfactory rer.ord
of service."
Up till that date reservation for Scheduled Castes. Scheduled
Tribes and Backward Classes was confined to initial recruitment.
The first out of r-very five initial recruitments was reserved for
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or other Backward Classes.
On fanuary 14, 1964, the Government clarified its order
dated September 12, 1963. In this case we are not concerned
with the first paragraph of that clarification. The second paragraph of that clarification reads thus· :
"Government have si nee been receiving references
from several quarters seeking clarification in regard
to the
implementation of the said
decision.
After
careful consideration of the matter; it has now been
de~ided that :-
(a) The said decision should be applied to all promotion posts already vacant on 12th September,
1963, or falling vacant thereafter.
c
D
E
F
G
H
,_
A
B
c
E
F
G
H
PUNJAB v. HIRALAL (Hegde, !.)
269'
(b) The reservation should not imply that 10 per
cent of the total posts reserved for promotion
in any cadre have to be filled by Scheduled
Castes personnel in the sense that all existing/
future vacancies will be filled up by Scheduled
Castes/Tribes and other Backward Classes
candidates until their share in higher services
comes up to 10 per cent.
( c) This provision of reservation applies to all State
services including Class I, II, III, and IV posts,
the only exception being All India Services.
( d) This reservation should apply even in the case of
short term leave vacancies unless it is likely to
involve unnecessary dislocation of work in different offices and avoidable expenditure and inconvenience due to mid-year transfers etc.
( e) So far as Scheduled Castes/Tribes are concerned, the very first vacancy existing on/ arising
after the
12th September, 1963,
should be
treated as reserved for them and only if no such
official is available for promotion against the
vacancy reserved for them in the first block of
10 vacancies, a candidate belonging to other
,Backward Classes may be selected in preference
to the remaining officiali against one such post
only out of one hundred, since the reservation
for other Backward Classes may not exceed l
per
cent.
However, if
Scheduled
Castes/
Tribes candidates are available to fill one out of
every ten vacancies, the specific reservation in
favour of other Backward Classes should be the
Slst vacancy.
( f) One reserved vacancy should be carried over !Et
the next block of ten vacancies in case it cannot
be filled up within any block of ten posts. Thus
if no Scheduled Castes/Tribes/Backward Classes
candidate is promoted against any of the first
10 vacancies the number of vacancies available
to ~uch candidates in the following block will be
two.
(g) In case an out of turn promotion has already
heen given to a candidate belonging to Scheduled Castes/Tribes or Backward Classes against a
reserved vacancy and then in the same block it
happens to be the turn of a candidate belonging
270
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1971] 3 S.C.R.
.
to the said castes/ classes for promotion, such
candidate should not be ignored on the ground
that 10 per cent reservation has already been
exhau~ted."
Thereafter by another letter of March 18, 1964, the Government issued further clarification of their aforementioned communications. That clarification reads :
"To illustrate the above point if there is an official
of the Scheduled Castes placed at a position say 73rd
in a list prepared for promotion to. the higher parts and
a vacancy arises therein, he would have precedence
over the other 72 officials to benefit out of the first
vacancy that occurs on or after 12th September, 1963.
His tum would not be withheld merely for the fact that
his number on the select list is not in the first ten."
Respondents Nos. 1 and 3 to this appeal were both working
in the Forest Department of the Government as Head Assistan~.
Respondent No. I was senior to Respondent No. 3 Respondent
No. 3 belonged to a Scheduled Caste.
Hence in view of the
order of the Government, ~espondent No. 3 was promoted temporarily as Superintendent ignoring the claim of Respondent
No. I. Aggrieved by that order Respondent No. I moved the
High Court of Punjab to quash the promotion of Respondent
No. 3 and direct the Government to promote him as Superintendent in the place of Respondent No. 3. The High Court has
quashed the promotion of Respondent No. 3.
The
State of
Punjab (now substituted by the State of Haryana) has brought
this appeal after obtaining a certificate from the High Court under
Art. 133(l)(e) of the Constitution.
In the opinion of the High Court reservation made for the
Scheduled Castes, Schedule,P Tribes and Barckward Classes is
not impermissible under the Constitution in view of Art. 16(4)
of the Constitution as interpreted by this Court in The Gmeral
Manager, Southern Railway v. Rangachari.( 1 )
But the Government has violated Art. 16( I) by reserving the first out of a group
of IO posts for the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes. The High Court was persuaded by the Counsel
for the first respondent to visualise various hypothetical
cases
under which reservation of the type impugned in the present case
could lead to various artomalies such as the person getting the
benefit of the reservation may jump over the heads of several of
his Seniors not only in his own grade but even in the higher
grades. They visualised the possibility of IJead Assistant leaping
over the heads of several seniors of his in the grade of Head
(1) [1962] 2. S.C.R. 586.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
8
c
E
F
G
;H
PUNJAB v. H!RALAL (Hegde, J.)
271
Assistants and thereafter in the grade of Superintendent; subsequently in the grade of Under-Secretaries, Deputy Secretaries and
so on and so forth. It is not the finding of the High Court that
in any of the grades to which the impugned ·Orders apply, the
possibilities visualised by the High Court are imminent or even
likely.
Art. 16(1) is an extension of Art. 14. It provides :
"There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment
to any office under the State."
But the equality contemplated by this clause is not an embodied equality. It is subject to several exceptions and one of the
exceptions is that provided in Art. 16 ( 4) which says :
"Nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from
making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State is not adequa'.ely
represented in the services under the State."
In Rangachari's case(') this Court ruled that the reservation
contemplated by Art. 16 ( 4) can ~ made not merely to initial
recruitment but also to . posts to which the promotions are to be
made. This is what Gaje'1dragadkar J. (as he then was) speaking for the majority observed (at pp. 604 & 605) :
"We must in this connection consider an alternative
argument that the word posts must refer not to selection
posts but to posts filled by initial appointments. On
this argument reseryation of appointments means reservation of certain percentage in the initial appointments and reservation of posts means reservation of
initial posts which may be adopted in order to expedite
and make more effective the reservation of appointments
themselves.
On this construction the use of the word
posts appears to be wholly redundant. In our opinion,
having regard to the fact that we are construing the
relevant expression 'reservation of appointments' in a
constitutional provision it would be unreasonable
to
assume that the reservation of appointments would not
include both the methods of reservation, namely, reservation of appointments by fixing a certain percentage
in that behalf as well as reservation of certain initial
posts in order to make the reservation of appointments
more effective.
That being so, this alternative argument which confines the word 'posts' to initial posts
---
(I) [1962] 2 S.C.R. 586.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1971 J 3 S.C.R.
.seems to us to be entirely unreasonable. On the other.
hand under the construction by which the word 'posts'
includes selection posts the use of the word 'posts; is
not superfluous. but serves a very important purpose.
It shows that reservation can be made not only in regard to appointments which are initial appointments
but also in regard to selection posts which may fall to
be nued by employees after their employment.
This
construction ha:s the merit of interpreting the words
'appointments' and 'posts' in their broad and liberal
sense and giving. effect to the policy which is obviously ·
the basis of the provisions of Art. 16 ( 4). Therefore,
we are disposed to take the view that the power of reservation which is conferred on the State under Art. 16 ( 4)
can be exercised by the State in a proper case not only by
providing for reservation of appointments but also by
providing for reservation of selection posts. This cons-
. !ruction, in our opinion, would serve to give effect to
the intention i<>f the Constitution-markers 'to make adequate 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 reservation must be only for the purpose of giving adequate representation 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) meaningless. Bur the burden of establishing that a particular reservation 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 qualitative 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-vation of such posts may make the representation of backward 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 introduce an element of discrimination particularlv when the question. 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 displca'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•ionas 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 forwar<l and talce their olace in line with the advanced
sections of the people."
There w~s no ma1erial 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 reservation 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
-