Delhi High Court
Aditya Kumar vs Upsc & Anr. on 19 May, 2009
Author: Ajit Prakash Shah
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 236/2009 & CM Nos. 7276-77/2009
ADITYA KUMAR ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Rahul Shukla, Advocate.
versus
UPSC & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Naresh Kaushik and
Ms. Amita Kalkal, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL
ORDER
% 19.05.2009
1. The present appeal arises out of the impugned order dated 24th
April, 2009.
2. The grievance of the appellant (original petitioner in the writ
petition) is that though SC/ST and OBC candidates are given much
larger number of attempts at passing the UPSC examination for
Indian Civil Services, the General category candidates are not entitled
to more than four attempts. This, as per the appellant, is without
any basis.
3. The learned single Judge after noticing judgments of the
Supreme Court has rightly held that vide Article 16(4) of the
Constitution of India, affirmative action can be taken with respect to
backward classes. The policy of the Union of India, therefore, giving
more than four attempts to candidates of SC/ST and OBC categories
to clear the examination, does not suffer from the vice of
arbitrariness and is based on intelligible differentia and a nexus with
the object sought to be achieved that is of promoting the backward
sections of the society.
4. As held by the Supreme Court in C.A. Rajendran vs. Union of
India, AIR 1968 SC 507, that Article 16(4) of the Constitution of
India, like Article 14 of the Constitution of India permits of
reasonable classification. It was also held in the same judgment that
clause (4) of Article 16 of the Constitution of India is an instance and
elaboration of the principle of classification which is inherent in
clause(1) of Article 16 of the Constitution of India.
5. As held by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney vs. Union of
India, Supp (3) SCC 217, that clause (4) of Article 16 is exhaustive
of the concept of reservation in favour of backward classes. The very
object of Article 16(4) is to ensure equality of opportunity in matters
of public employment and give adequate representation to those who
have been placed in a very discontent position from time immemorial
on account of sociological reasons. To put it differently, the purpose
of clause (4) is to ensure the benefits flowing from the fountain of this
clause on the beneficiaries - namely the Backward Classes - who in
the opinion of the Constitution makers, would have otherwise found
it difficult to enter into public services, competing with advanced
classes and who could not be kept in limbo until they are benefited
by the positive action schemes and who have suffered and are still
suffering from historic disabilities arising from past discrimination or
disadvantage or both. However, unfortunately all of them had been
kept at bay on account of various factors, operating against them
inclusive of poverty. They continue to be deprived of enjoyment of
equal opportunity in matters of public employment despite there
being sufficient statistical evidence in proof of manifest imbalance in
Government jobs which evidence is sufficient to support an
affirmative action plan.
6. We see no infirmity in the policy of the Union of India giving
more than four attempts to candidates from SC/ST and OBC
categories to clear the UPSC examination for the Indian Civil
Services. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The pending
applications stand disposed of as well.
CHIEF JUSTICE
NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL, J.
MAY 19, 2009
sb
