Article 16 of the Indian Constitution ensures equality of opportunity in public employment, prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, or place of birth. It provides the state with the power to implement reservations for underrepresented groups, including Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes, while also allowing for special provisions in certain cases such as promotions. Judicial interpretations and constitutional amendments have further shaped the application of this article, addressing challenges related to reservations and equality in employment.

Article 16: Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment

Article 16 ensures equality of opportunity for all citizens concerning employment or appointment to any State office. It states that no citizen can be discriminated against or considered ineligible for any employment or office under the State solely based on religion, race, caste, sex, descent, or place of birth or residence. 

• Applicability: Equality of opportunity in public employment applies only to citizens
• No obligation for private institutions: The provisions of this article are ‘only’ applicable when it comes to public employment. Citizens cannot expect equality of opportunity from a private company or corporation i.e. if a private company does not comply with the provisions of this article, the person cannot claim that their fundamental rights are being violated.
• Interpretation: Discrimination is prohibited solely based on religion, race, caste, sex, lineage, or place of birth or residence. Nevertheless, the state may use other criteria such as language and physical or intellectual capabilities to filter candidates in public employment matters. Discrimination on such grounds cannot be claimed to be a violation of fundamental rights under Article 16. For example-

• In the State Services Examinations, the examination includes paper to test knowledge of the local language of the state like Gujarati, Marathi, Tamil, etc.  Those who do not have knowledge of this language will not be able to give the exam. But one can’t claim that they are not getting equality in the opportunities, as the ground of language is not included in this article. 
• The recruitment in the police or the army is based on physical abilities and requires certain body dimensions like height, weight, etc. An individual not possessing these cannot complain that their right of equal opportunity is being violated.

Exceptions to equality of opportunity in public employment

There exist four exceptions to the general principle of equal opportunity in public employment: 

1. Article 16(3) allows Parliament to stipulate residency as a requirement for certain jobs or appointments in a state, union territory, local authority, or other authorities. As a result, Parliament enacted the Public Employment (Residence Requirements) Act, 1957, which made residency a prerequisite for public employment in states such as Andhra Pradesh, Manipur, Tripura, and Himachal Pradesh. Currently, no state has such a provision other than Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. 
2. Article 16(4) allows the State to implement reservations for appointments or positions favoring any backward classes that are underrepresented in state services.
   1. According to Article 16(4A), there is a provision for reserving seats in promotion matters with resulting seniority for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. 
   2. Article 16(4B) allows for the carryover of unfilled vacancies designated for SC/ST to future years, commonly known as the “carry forward rule.” 
3. Article 16(5) states that legislation can require that individuals holding offices associated with a religious or denominational institution or members of its governing body must adhere to a specific religion or denomination. 

1. In simpler terms, a temple can establish a rule that only individuals of the Hindu faith may serve as priests or a mosque can insist that its Imam be a practitioner of Islam. Such regulations set by these institutions will not be seen as violations of Article 16. 
2. It is evident that Article 16(5) serves as an exception prioritizing the ‘Freedom to manage religious affairs’ outlined in Article 26 over the ‘Equality of opportunity in public employment’ mentioned in Article 16.

1. Article 16(6) allows the state to allocate up to 10% of appointments or posts as reserved for economically weaker sections of the population. This 10% reservation would be in addition to the existing provisions. The state will periodically identify the economically weaker sections based on family income and various indicators of economic disadvantage for this purpose. This clause was established by the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act. 

Important Judgements

Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 

In the Indra Sawhney case popularly known as the Mandal case, the scope and extent of reservation in favour of OBCs was examined by the Supreme court. While the Court declined to approve an additional 10% reservation for economically weaker sections of higher castes, it affirmed the constitutional legitimacy of 27% reservation for OBCs under specific conditions.  

• Exclusion of the creamy layer: The more advanced groups within the OBCs (the creamy layer) must not be considered for the benefits of reservation. 
• Not applicable to promotions: Reservations should be limited to initial appointments only, and there must be no reservations for promotions. Any current reservations in promotions can remain in place for a maximum of five years (i.e., until 1997). 
• Reserved quota: The overall reserved quota should not surpass 50%, except in exceptional circumstances. This guideline must be enforced annually. 
• Carry forward rule: The ‘carry forward rule’ for unfilled (backlog) vacancies is permissible. However, it should not contravene the 50% limit. 
• Statutory body: A permanent statutory body is to be established for reviewing complaints related to over-inclusion and under-inclusion of individuals in the OBC list.  

Government Response

To nullify the judgment with regards to reservation in promotions the government came up with the 77th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1995 which added Article 16(4A) which provided for reservation in promotions to schedule caste and scheduled tribes. Later, the 85th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2002 was brought in for also giving consequential seniority to SCs and STs in matters of reservation in promotion. The 81st Amendment Act, of 2000 provided Article 16(4B) which provided for carrying over of unfilled vacancies reserved for SC/ST to subsequent years. This is commonly referred to as the “carry forward rule”. 

M. Nagaraj v. Union of India 2006 case

• Case: The constitutional validity of Article 16 (4A), which pertains to reservations in promotions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, as well as Article 16 (4B), concerning the carry forward rule, was examined by the court. 
• Judgment: The SC upheld the constitutional validity of Article 16 (4A) and 16 (4B). However, the SC laid down three strict requirements which needed to be followed to grant reservation in promotions: 

1. Demonstrate backwardness: Collect quantifiable data for the purpose of demonstrating backwardness of a particular backward class. 
2. Prove Inadequate representation: Show beyond doubt that the SCs/STs are inadequately represented in public services. 
3. Efficiency in administration: Comply with overall efficiency of administration. 

Jarnail Singh vs Lachhmi Narain Gupta 2018 case

• Case: A number of States along with the Central Government disputed the Court’s 2006 Nagaraj ruling. The petitioners contended that the Nagaraj judgment had made it unreasonably challenging to provide reservations in promotions. Specifically, they argued that the Court should reconsider the three guiding conditions presented in the Nagaraj case. 

Furthermore, the assessment of inadequate representation should relate to specific posts rather than being based on the proportion of the SC/ST population within the State. 

• Judgment:

1. Struck down backwardness criteria: The Supreme Court held that reservation in promotions does not require the state to collect ‘quantifiable data’ on the backwardness of the SCs and the STs. It was held that the criteria of demonstrating backwardness is contrary to the decision held in the Indra Sawhney Judgment.  
2. Need to prove Inadequate representation: The Bench clarified that the condition which requires states to collect quantifiable data with respect to inadequate representation still stands. Also the inadequacy of representation has to be in relation to specific cadres and not in proportion to SC/ST population in the State.
3. Extended creamy layer exclusion to SCs/STs: The court determined that the creamy layer exclusion also applies to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the context of promotions. As a result, the State is not permitted to offer reservations in promotion to SC/ST members who fall within the creamy layer of their respective communities.

Government Response to Reservation in Promotions

The Government has requested the court to reconsider its Judgment in the M Nagaraj case and Jarnail singh case. Both the central and state governments have complained that the mandate laid down by the judgments i.e., to show inadequacy in the representation of SC/ST at different levels of public employment, assess the impact of reservation on overall administrative efficiency and excluding the ‘’creamy layer’’ before providing reservation in promotions has made implementation complicated and hard. This has led to creation of a huge backlog. The Supreme Court has clarified that it would not entertain any request to reconsider the judgments laid down in M Nagaraj (2006) and Jarnail Singh (2018) case. The SC reiterated that the states have to figure out how the principles of Nagaraj case would be followed in the context of adequacy of representation and overall efficiency.