white black legal international law journal ISSN: 2581-8503

Peer-Reviewed Journal | Indexed at Manupatra, HeinOnline, Google Scholar & ROAD







Aristotle believes: "Foul play emerges when equivalents are dealt with inconsistently, and furthermore when unequal are dealt with similarly." The quintessence of uniformity permeates the Constitution of India, as the primary point was to make a vote-based society wherein equity in all structures, for example, social, monetary, and political equity, won alongside the balance in status and open doors. Governmental policy regarding minorities in society means to advance cultural uniformity through particular treatment of socio-monetarily distraught individuals. One of the most important aspects is the ability to balance. Privileges that the Constitution of India grants to every one of the residents of the country The Constitution agrees with Article 16, which manages the fairness of chance in the questions of public business and orders wide faithfulness among the individuals in contemporary administrations. This paper inspects the relevance of governmental policy regarding minorities in society, including contentions for and against; presents John Rawls' hypothesis of equity; and proposes a system involving Rawls' hypothesis for future governmental policy regarding minorities in society. This paper addresses and investigates issues related to equal opportunity in open work, as well as the global perspective on governmental policy regarding minorities in society. While evaluating the open doors in open work under the Indian Constitution, the accompanying issues emerge and are managed: Are Articles 14 and 16 mutually beneficial? Is reservation in an open appointment a selective caution of the state or an enforceable established right? Do portions reduce effectiveness? Why are there so few women laborers in India, despite the fact that there are many? If there is an equivalent opportunity in public administration, why are transgender people still rejected? This paper presumes that governmental policy regarding minorities in society, when designated towards people who are denied correspondence of chance and have lower social portability, will assist with making a more inclusive society and, furthermore, examine the reception of the plans of reservation through milestone decisions.


Keywords: Equality, Public Work, Opportunities, Reservations, and Constitution.

  1. Introduction

Article 16 of the Constitution of India talks about the right to equal opportunity in matters of public employment. Article 16 ensures the fairness of chance in public business. The initial two clauses of the article explain that no residents of India will confront segregation in regard to employment. These two provisions established the groundwork for equal employment opportunity and wiped-out compartmentalization for the sake of religion, race, position, sex, place of birth, or some other. As one of the significant sacred arrangements for the denied segment, Article 16 empowers Parliament to make any regulation recommending the necessities "for a class or classes of employment or appointment to an office under the central government or any local authority." Clause 4 of the article refers to a rule for public authorities to follow when making any provision for the reservation of appointment in favor of any backward classes of residents who are "not sufficiently addressed in that frame of mind under the state." Like Articles 14, 15, and 17, this article and its provisions show the public authority's obligation to safeguard the interests of the SCs and STs.

Elements of Article 16: There are different components of Article 16, which are as follows:

  1. Article 16 (1)

This proviso of Article 16 expresses that there will be equality of chances for every one of the residents of the country in the issue of public work or public administration. It is critical to note that this arrangement is simply discussions about the administrations that fall under the category of "state". Overall, it will only apply to state-run workplaces. This agreement also requires the state to establish capability models for enlistment in order to ensure that the best and most reasonable candidates are named for public authority positions. Furthermore, the state can impose any appropriate state of work with the goal of ensuring discipline. The rules of capabilities may include least instructive capability, actual wellness, mental security, moral respectability, a sense of dependability towards the state, and so on. The expression "matters connecting with business" includes every one of the issues at the time of work. It essentially allows the state to make such agreements that may be appropriate even after the time of work has passed. This proviso is pertinent to the underlying work, advancement, and even the end of the period of business. Further, every one of the issues corresponding to pay, leave, fortunate assets, tip, and so forth are likewise represented under this part.



  1. Equialent Compensation for Equialent Work

Article 16(1) cherishes the rule of equivalent compensation for equivalent work because it commits the state to ensure fairness in all business matters. Mackinnon Mackenzie's example from 1987 was the first to recognize the concept. All things considered, there was a distinction in compensation for the male and female transcribers. The court held that this training is against the right to uniformity and violates Article 16(1) of the Constitution.


  • Case: Randhir Singh v. Union of India[2]

This is one of the milestone cases in which the court unequivocally set out the precept of "equivalent compensation for equivalent work." The court held that the spirit of Article 16 guarantees that there will be no separation in the quantum of the compensation, assuming the work is something very similar.


  • Markandeya v. State of Andhra Pradesh[3]

For this situation, there was a distinction in the compensation scale for alumni and non-graduate bosses. Nonetheless, the work performed by the two individuals was somewhat similar. It was tested under the steady gaze of the court on grounds of disregarding the right to equity. The court ruled that Article 16(1) is not absolute and that the state can make a reasonable arrangement based on some judicious or significant difference between two people. In this situation, the thing that mattered depended on the capability of both parties; consequently, the court held that it was substantial.


  1. Article 16(2)

This provision of Article 16 puts a commitment on the state to guarantee that there will be no separation between two people or classes based on their standing, religion, sex, birth, variety, and so forth in the question of public work. This section is also only applicable to workplaces that fall under the purview of state workplaces.


Assume State X advertised 10,000 government jobs in the rail route area, with the caveat that only male applicants are eligible to apply because the work entails extraordinary actual work. This condition will be violative of Article 16(2) of the Constitution, and this warning will be struck off.


  1. Article 16 (3)

This article empowers the association parliament and the state governing body to make any public work regulations for a specific class in their respective wards. All in all, they can make any regulation for an office falling under the state, neighborhood, or association domain.

Notwithstanding, while at the same time making regulations, the states need to maintain the arrangement of the Constitution especially Article 16. The state must guarantee that there will be no segregation, and if the reservation is to be granted, it must be based on some reasonable differential. Further, the quantum of the booking will not exceed half anyway.


  1. Article 16 (4)

This provision is the core of the whole article. This agreement expresses that the state may make arrangements for booking in reverse ranks if they are not adequately addressed in public administrations. The fundamental standard behind making the booking is the backwardness of a specific class or position. Through friendly, instructive, and financial variables, it very well may not be set in stone.


A plain perusal of Article 16(4) gives the impression that this is an exemption for the whole article. Notwithstanding, the court on account of State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas[4] believed that this article isn't a special case of Articles 16(1) and 16(2), but it gives them genuine soul and positive help. It also has the same goal of achieving fairness in the public eye.


The extent of Article 16(4) was first examined by the Hon'ble High Court in Devadasan v. Union of India[5]. For this situation, the convey-forward rule was referred to. This "convey forward" decision states that if any year has some openings that cannot be filled, they can convey forward to the following year. The High Court ruled that this standard is unconstitutional because it violates the rule of a balance of chances for open segments of society. The court stated that the booking will not be used to create an intimidating business model for a specific segment of society in public administrations Notwithstanding, this judgment was overruled on account of Indira Sawhney versus Union of India, wherein it held that the convey forward rule is reasonable on the off chance that the total reservation doesn't surpass the sign of half.


 Further, this "conveys forward" rule was arranged subsequent to consolidating Article 16(4B) of the Constitution.

  1. Article 16(4A)

This article allows the state to reserve a position in the advancement debate. In straightforward words, that's what this article expresses: assuming the state feels that the planned classes or the booked clans are not satisfactorily addressed, then, at that point, it can make arrangements for reservations in their advancement based on position. For several decades, there was a negligible portrayal of people from the SC and ST classes in the public sphere. Further, on the off chance that they get delegated, they scarcely get advanced. In this way, to eliminate that build-up, the middle proclaimed the 77th and 81st Amendments.


In any case, The High Court ruled in Indira Sawhney v. Union of India[6] that booking is only applicable to initial arrangements and not in the context of advancement. Thus, in order to nullify the effect of the judgment, this section 16(4A) was consolidated through the 85th Amendment in 1995, which provides reservation in advancement.


The protected legitimateness of Article 16(4A) was tested on account of M. Nagaraj versus the Union of India[7]. The court maintained its legitimacy by stating that this arrangement is in accordance with Article 16(4) and guarantees satisfactory portrayal and development of these individuals, who languished in double-dealing over an extremely significant stretch. In any case, to safeguard against the abuse of this article, the court advanced the teaching of "confirmation of a convincing explanation." This teaching states that each time the state needs to reserve a spot in the question of advancement, it should show that the SCs and STs are not sufficiently addressed and there are major areas of strength for a booking.


The 117th Amendment, which expresses that all SCs and STs will be considered in reverse with the end goal of this Article, further clarifies the scope of Article 16(4A).The 117th Constitution Correction Bill was passed to explain that all SCs and STs are considered to be in reverse.


  1. Article 16(4B)

This article was integrated through the 81st Amendment. The lawmaking body advanced the lawfulness of the convey forward rule with this revision. This segment expresses that the unfilled opening can be carried forward to the following year. The significant highlight is that these conveyed forward opportunities will be treated as an alternate class of opening, and they will make little difference to the booking ceiling of 50%. As such, these openings won't be thought about while registering the entirety of the half-reservation limit. The legitimacy of this condition was maintained in the landmark case of M. Nagaraj v. Union of India[8].


  1. Article 16(5)

This statement is the non-obstante arrangement that supersedes any remaining arrangements cherished under Article 16 of the Constitution. This arrangement expresses that no regulation will influence the arrangement in an office that is associated with some strict or denominational foundation. It is used to identify anyone who proclaims that specific religion or is associated with that strict category.

On account of T.M.A. Pai Establishment v. State of Karnataka[9], the Hon'ble High Court decided that the arrangement of Article 16 can't be authorized for confidential independent instructional organizations and other strict minority foundations.


  1. Article 16(6)

The association parliament, through the 103rd Amendment, consolidated Article 16(6) into the Constitution. This section allows for a 10% booking limit in open business for the financially more vulnerable segment.

An NGO named Youth for Balance tested this arrangement on the grounds of abusing the half-reservation rule as given in the Indira Sawhney case. The court refused to stay this booking and held that it will be made regardless of the current quantum of a half reservation and an extra post will be made for it. Hence, it doesn't disregard something very similar.


  • 27% Reservation to the Next in Reverse Rank (OBC)

The subject of reservations has also been a hot topic at the OBC since the concept of reservations was developed. Other in reserved class (OBC) is a term used by the government to describe positions that are instructively and socially in reverse. They are in addition to the scheduled ranks and clans (SCs and STs).


In the Achill Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh[10] case, it has been underscored that, separated from the SC and ST classifications, there are different ranks or classes that are essentially in reverse, and there will be an arrangement of their portrayal in the issue of public work. The Mandal Commission for Investigating the Booking of Others in Reverse Standings (OBC) was the public authority.


On the suggestion of the Mandal Commission, the public authority of India made regulations accommodating 27% of bookings for the Other Backward Classes (OBC) in India. The models utilized by the commission to decide the retrogressive stations were social, instructive, and financial. The social models were given three focuses, instructive measures were assigned two focuses, and monetary rules were given one point. Every single position was evaluated on the aforementioned premise, out of which a few essentially denied stations or classes were chosen to receive the booking.


The declaration of this booking prompted a far-reaching fight in the nation, and it was tested under the watchful eye of the Hon'ble Court on grounds of abusing the standard of correspondence. The High Court in a landmark judgment in Indira Sawhney & Ors. v. The Union of India maintains the legitimacy of this booking given to OBC. Nonetheless, the court prohibited smooth-layer individuals to partake in the advantage of this booking. Further, it limited the total reservation under the sign of "half" for each situation.



Article 16 of the constitution ensures each resident the right to uniformity in open work. This expresses that there will be no segregation based on position, sex, orientation, and so forth. In any case, it also enabled the state to make positive moves as the booking to ensure the adequate portrayal of society's reverse classes. Further, Article 16(4) enabled the public authority to reserve a spot with a most extreme restriction of half. The lawmaking body has likewise made arrangements for the advance booking and reservation of the monetarily inferior class of the general public.








[1] Deepshikha Yadav, BALLB, 2nd year student from Maharishi University Of Information Technology, Noida, Uttar Pradesh

[2] 1982 AIR 879, 1982 SCR (3) 298

[3] 1989 AIR 1308, 1989 SCR (2) 422

[4] 1976 AIR 490, 1976 SCR (1) 906

[5] 1964 AIR 179, 1964 SCR (4) 680

[6] AIR 1993 SC 477, 1992 Supp 2 SCR 454

[7] (2006) 8 SCC 212

[8] (2006) 8 SCC 212

[9] 1994 AIR 2372, 1994 SCC (2) 734

[10] 1981 AIR 298, 1981 SCR (2) 185


Let's Start With Publication