Article 16 of the Indian Constitution 

Article 16 : Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment 

Article 16 of the Indian Constitution enshrined under part III of the Constitution ensures the equality in public employment ensuring the spirit of 'Equality of Status and opportunity 'mentioned in Preamble of the Constitution. The right under Article 16 is available only to citizens of India. 

Article 16 (1) -  There shall equality of opportunity for all citizen in matters relating to emploment or appointment to any office under the State. 

Article 16 (2) -No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any employment or office under the State.

 Article 16 (3)- Nothing in this article shall prevent Parliament from making any law prescribing, in regard to a class or classes of employment or appointment to an office under 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. Subs. by the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956.

Case : Narsimha Rao 🆚 State of Andhra pradesh, 1970 SC 

Held - SC held that the word 'State' signifies the whole of State not the part(s) of the State. 

Article 16 (4) - 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 adequately represented in the services under the State.

Case : Mohan Kumar Singhania 🆚 Union of India, 1964 SC

Held - SC held that Article 16 (4) is merely an enabling provision which confers discretionary power on the State on making any provision for reservation. 

Case : P Sudhakar Rao 🆚 U Govinda Rao, 2013 SC

Held - SC held that to give weightage of past service rendered by an employee is not illegal if it is not arbitrary. 

Case : CB Muthamma 🆚 Union of India, 1979 SC

Held- SC held that a provision in service rules requiring a female employee to obtain the permission of Government in writing before her marriage is solemnize and denying her the right to be promoted on the ground that the candidate was married woman was held to be discriminatory against women, hence unconstitutional. 

Case: Balaji 🆚 State of Mysore, 1963 SC

Held - SC held that the caste of a person can't be the sole test for ascertaining whether a perticular class is a backward class or not. Poverty, occupation, place of habitation may all be relevant factors to be taken into consideration. 

Carry-forward rule :-

Case : Devdasan  🆚 Union of India, 1964 SC 

Carry forward rule was challenged. 

Held - The SC by a majority of 4:1 struck down the "carry forward rule' as unconstitutional on the ground that the power vested in Government under Article 16 (4) could not be exercised so as to deny reasonable equality of opportunity in matters of public employment for mambers of classes other than backward. 

Preferential treatment to SCs & STs- 

Case : State of Kerala 🆚 NM Thomas, 1976 SC 

Held- SC held that the classification of employees belonging to SCs & STs for allowing them an extended period of two years for passing tests for promotion other classes of employees was a just and reasonable classification having rational nexus to the object of providing equal opportunities for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to public office. 

Case : Indra Sawhney 🆚 Union of India, 1993 SC

                             Or 

           Mandal commission case 

Held - 9 Judges bench with a majority of 6:3 gave the following points in their judgement:-

(1) Backward class of citizen in Article 16(4) can be identify on the basis of caste and not only on economic basis but the caste alone can't be the basis for consideration. 

(2) Article 16(4) is not an exception to Article 16 (1) . It is an instance of classification. Reservation can be made under Article 16(1). 

(3) Backward classes in Article 16(4) are not similar to as socially and educationally backward as in Article 15(4).

(4) Creamy layer must be excluded from backward classes. 

(5) Article 16(4) permits classification of backward classes into backward and more backward classes . 

(6) Reservation must not exceed 50%.

(7) No reservation in promotion. 

(8) No opinion was expressed regarding Mandal Commission Report. 

Article 16 (4A) :(Inserted by The Constitution (77th Amendment) Act, 1995)

Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for reservation [in matters of promotion, with consequential seniority, to any class] (Inserted by Constitution (85th Amendment) Act, 2001) or classes of posts in the services under the State in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes which, in the opinion of the State, are not adequately represented in the services under the State.

Case: Ashok Kumar thakur 🆚 State of Bihar, 1995 SC

Held - SC quashed the economic criteria laid down for identifying the affluent sections of backward classes (creamy layer) and exclude them for the purpose of job reservation and held that the criteria for identification of creamy layer is violation of Article 16(4) & Article 14 and against the law laid down by this court in 'mandal case'. 

[Article 16(4B) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from considering any unfilled vacancies of a year which are reserved for being filled up in that year in accordance with any provision for reservation made under clause (4) or clause (4A) as a separate class of vacancies to be filled up in any succeeding year or years and such class of vacancies shall not be considered together with the vacancies of the year in which they are being filled up for determining the ceiling of fifty per cent. reservation on total number of vacancies of that year.](Inserted by the Constitution (81st Amendment) Act, 2000).

Case: M Nagraj 🆚 Union of India, 2006 SC

The petitioner challenge the 77th , 81st, 82nd & 85th Amendment of the Constitution. 

Held :SC held that the provision of Article 16(4A) & 16 (4B) flow from Article 16 (4) which do not alter the basic structure of Article 16 (4) and are valid. 

Article 16(5) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any law which provides that the incumbent of an office in connection with the affairs of any religious or denominational institution or any member of the governing body thereof shall be a person professing a particular religion or belonging to a particular denomination.

[Article 16(6) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any economically weaker sections of citizens other than the classes mentioned in clause (4), in addition to the existing reservation and subject to a maximum of ten per cent. of the posts in each category.](Inserted by Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act, 2019).

                         - Deepak Kumar                                                   - Anjali singh                                                (University of Allahabad)