INTERVIEW FOR CSE 2019 All ForumIAS members selected for CSE 2019 Personality Test must submit their details and DAF and register below to receive further instructions and guidance from ForumIAS. Click here to register now
INTERVIEW 2020 CHANNEL ForumIAS Channel for Interview Preparation is now Active! Please join the channel by clicking here
Article 16 of the Constitution of India provides Equality of Opportunity in Matters of Public Employment. In the first part of the Article, the general rule is laid down that "There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State". In the next section, the general principle is explained in detail which says that "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 or, any employment or office under the State".
The subsequent clauses (3), (4), (4A), (4B) and 5 however provide for the situations where departures can be made from the general rule laid down in clauses 1 and 2. The fundamental right under Article 16 is conferred only by clauses 1 and 2. The subsequent clauses don't confer rights. They are just enabling provisions. For example, clause 3 says that "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". Similarly, Clause 4 says that "Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favor of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State". These enabling provisions give special powers to Parliament and state where under they may frame rules/policies for expanding or supplementing the general principles laid down in clauses 1 and 2.
In many cases upto Devadasan v. U.O.I. the Supreme Court considered clause 4 as an exception to the general rule laid down in clauses 1 and 2. But subsequently in N.M.Thomas case and Indra Sawhney v. U.O.I. case (popularly known as Mandal Commission Case), the Supreme Court held that Clause 4 was actually expansion and emphatic assertion of the general rule prescribed by clauses 1 and 2.
In many cases upto Devadasan v. U.O.I. the Supreme Court considered clause 4 as an exception to the general rule laid down in clauses 1 and 2. But subsequently in N.M.Thomas case and Indra Sawhney v. U.O.I. case (popularly known as Mandal Commission Case), the Supreme Court held that Clause 4 was actually expansion and emphatic assertion of the general rule prescribed by clauses 1 and 2.
Very lucid explanation. Thanks. But explain the significance of the change of position of clause 4 from an exception to expansion.
In many cases upto Devadasan v. U.O.I. the Supreme Court considered clause 4 as an exception to the general rule laid down in clauses 1 and 2. But subsequently in N.M.Thomas case and Indra Sawhney v. U.O.I. case (popularly known as Mandal Commission Case), the Supreme Court held that Clause 4 was actually expansion and emphatic assertion of the general rule prescribed by clauses 1 and 2.
Very lucid explanation. Thanks. But explain the significance of the change of position of clause 4 from an exception to expansion.
Very nice question of yours!
See, the significance lies in the fact that now it is in consonance with the general principles laid down in the clauses 1 and 2. Earlier, where the general rule provided for equality of opportunity in public employment, clause 4, for example, provided for reservation in favour of backward classes of citizens which in the opinion of state have not been fairly represented in the services under the state. There two aspects were mutually contradictory! The need was to reconcile these two differences. Thus, when the Supreme Court treated clause 4 as an emphatic statement of equality of opportunity, the purpose was achieved which was greatly sought after, and consequently, now clause 4 was in keeping with the provisions laid down in clauses 1 and 2. The Supreme Court reasoned that equality means equality between members of same class and not between members of separate and independent classes! The backward classes of citizens can't be put in the same class as the rest of the citizens as they were victim of historical wrongs and they have right to be compensated for that. But at the same time contested that there are limits to the extent they would be compensated at the cost of the present generation. The limit to the extent being that the reservation should not go to the extent of denying the reasonable equality of opportunities to the members of the classes other than backward (set a threshold of 50% reservation in a single year), that while considering the reservatons, maintenance of efficiency of administration should be kept in mind and that reservation was limited to initial employment alone, i.e., not applicable to promotions. This last aspect was the reason the Parliament added article 16 (4A) by the 77th Constitutional Amendment Act to provide for reservation in the matters of promotion in services under the state.
In many cases upto Devadasan v. U.O.I. the Supreme Court considered clause 4 as an exception to the general rule laid down in clauses 1 and 2. But subsequently in N.M.Thomas case and Indra Sawhney v. U.O.I. case (popularly known as Mandal Commission Case), the Supreme Court held that Clause 4 was actually expansion and emphatic assertion of the general rule prescribed by clauses 1 and 2.
Very lucid explanation. Thanks. But explain the significance of the change of position of clause 4 from an exception to expansion.
Very nice question of yours!
See, the significance lies in the fact that now it is in consonance with the general principles laid down in the clauses 1 and 2. Earlier, where the general rule provided for equality of opportunity in public employment, clause 4, for example, provided for reservation in favour of backward classes of citizens which in the opinion of state have not been fairly represented in the services under the state. There two aspects were mutually contradictory! The need was to reconcile these two differences. Thus, when the Supreme Court treated clause 4 as an emphatic statement of equality of opportunity, the purpose was achieved which was greatly sought after, and consequently, now clause 4 was in keeping with the provisions laid down in clauses 1 and 2. The Supreme Court reasoned that equality means equality between members of same class and not between members of separate and independent classes! The backward classes of citizens can't be put in the same class as the rest of the citizens as they were victim of historical wrongs and they have right to be compensated for that. But at the same time contested that there are limits to the extent they would be compensated at the cost of the present generation. The limit to the extent being that the reservation should not go to the extent of denying the reasonable equality of opportunities to the members of the classes other than backward (set a threshold of 50% reservation in a single year), that while considering the reservatons, maintenance of efficiency of administration should be kept in mind and that reservation was limited to initial employment alone, i.e., not applicable to promotions. This last aspect was the reason the Parliament added article 16 (4A) by the 77th Constitutional Amendment Act to provide for reservation in the matters of promotion in services under the state.
We are a secret self-moderated community for Civil Services preparation. Feel free to join, start a discussion, answer a question or just to say Thank you.Just dont spread the word ;)Sign in or join with Facebook or Google
ForumIAS is India’s leading Online website for UPSC IAS Exam Online Preparation and guidance. At ForumIAS, we have a dream. Our dream is to make its members achieve their IAS dream. Today thousands of aspirants have joined the elite services such as IAS, IPS, IFS, IRS and other central and state services with the right inputs provided by ForumIAS. Take a look at our IAS Toppers
Free IAS Online Preparation Initiatives by ForumIAS
Current affairs is the most important part of UPSC IAS exam. ForumIAS provides a detailed analysis of important news articles through its 9PM brief. In current affairs reading Editorials Online needs an in-depth focus and hence we provide a separate analysis of daily editorials which is not found in any other website. Click the following link to access these free preparation initiatives in Portal . ForumIAS also provides compilations and Free downloads for UPSC IAS preparation
Knowing is never enough for IAS exam. An IAS aspirant must be engaged in answer writing practice to do well in UPSC IAS Mains Exam. ForumIAS has launched a Mains Marathon initiative for IAS mains Online answer writing. Click here to access UPSC Mains Marathon initiative . For Daily Must Read Newspaper articles, Visit Must Read Newspaper page here. Must Read Newspaper is an Initiative by Team ForumIAS to provide Current Affairs links to the Must Read Articles of The Day from Newspaper.
UPSC Syllabus
The most important part of UPSC IAS exam is its syllabus and there is a need to take an in-depth look at it. Click here to view the UPSC IAS Prelims syllabus. Visit UPSC IAS syllabus page here
UPSC IAS Study Material
ForumIAS is the repository of many toppers’ Online study materials for GS Mains and Optional subjects. The most unique thing about it is that they are handwritten by toppers themselves. Click here for UPSC sample notes
Interview Preparation for IAS
Interview is the last and crucial stage for becoming an IAS officer. How to prepare for it? We provide a solution. ForumIAS is the only online website where quality IAS interview preparations happen. Online Current affairs from an interview perspective are extensively discussed and specific preparation based on candidate’s profile and hobbies can be done. Please visit this link for UPSC Interview Preparation
At ForumIAS we have an exclusive Online page to read the UPSC Interview Transcripts
Indian Forest Service (IFoS)
IFoS is one of the most sought after All India Service. ForumIAS provides the right approach to excel in this exam through their toppers who have shared their success mantras and their study materials in an elaborate manner.
About Indian Administrative Service (IAS)
IAS is considered as one of the best jobs on earth. IAS officers hold the most important positions in Central and State Governments and in Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs). They also represent India in international organizations. They take the most important decisions in the administration of Government policies and development programs.
About Indian Police Service (IPS)
IPS officers occupy higher positions in the State Police Departments, Central Armed Police Forces and Intelligence Agencies. Their most important responsibilities are maintenance of Law and Order and internal security.
About Indian Foreign Service (IFS)
IFS officers serve as diplomats in international missions and embassies of India around the world and in prominent international organizations like United Nations (UN), World Bank, and IMF. They work to promote India’s interests from a bilateral and a global perspective.
The Study portal is a single point of online IAS preparation through its several initiatives like the Must Read News Articles, the 9 PM Brief, the Mains Marathon. If you are preparing for IAS exam online, ForumIAS is the place to go. ForumIAS is proud of ForumIAS Alumni in UPSC Service who have secured top Ranks in past 5 years.
Visit Us At
ForumIAS - Offline Guidance Centre
ForumIAS Academy, 1st Floor, IAPL House, 19, Pusa Road, Opposite Metro Pillar 95-96, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005,
View Google Map Location
Comments
The subsequent clauses (3), (4), (4A), (4B) and 5 however provide for the situations where departures can be made from the general rule laid down in clauses 1 and 2. The fundamental right under Article 16 is conferred only by clauses 1 and 2. The subsequent clauses don't confer rights. They are just enabling provisions. For example, clause 3 says that "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". Similarly, Clause 4 says that "Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favor of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State". These enabling provisions give special powers to Parliament and state where under they may frame rules/policies for expanding or supplementing the general principles laid down in clauses 1 and 2.
In many cases upto Devadasan v. U.O.I. the Supreme Court considered clause 4 as an exception to the general rule laid down in clauses 1 and 2. But subsequently in N.M.Thomas case and Indra Sawhney v. U.O.I. case (popularly known as Mandal Commission Case), the Supreme Court held that Clause 4 was actually expansion and emphatic assertion of the general rule prescribed by clauses 1 and 2.
Hope you must have got the concept by now.
But explain the significance of the change of position of clause 4 from an exception to expansion.
See, the significance lies in the fact that now it is in consonance with the general principles laid down in the clauses 1 and 2. Earlier, where the general rule provided for equality of opportunity in public employment, clause 4, for example, provided for reservation in favour of backward classes of citizens which in the opinion of state have not been fairly represented in the services under the state. There two aspects were mutually contradictory! The need was to reconcile these two differences. Thus, when the Supreme Court treated clause 4 as an emphatic statement of equality of opportunity, the purpose was achieved which was greatly sought after, and consequently, now clause 4 was in keeping with the provisions laid down in clauses 1 and 2. The Supreme Court reasoned that equality means equality between members of same class and not between members of separate and independent classes! The backward classes of citizens can't be put in the same class as the rest of the citizens as they were victim of historical wrongs and they have right to be compensated for that. But at the same time contested that there are limits to the extent they would be compensated at the cost of the present generation. The limit to the extent being that the reservation should not go to the extent of denying the reasonable equality of opportunities to the members of the classes other than backward (set a threshold of 50% reservation in a single year), that while considering the reservatons, maintenance of efficiency of administration should be kept in mind and that reservation was limited to initial employment alone, i.e., not applicable to promotions. This last aspect was the reason the Parliament added article 16 (4A) by the 77th Constitutional Amendment Act to provide for reservation in the matters of promotion in services under the state.
Hope you must have got it by now.