C. A. RAJENDRAN versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

C. A. RAJENDRAN versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Article 16(4) of the Constitution is an enabling provision conferring discretionary power upon the State to make reservation for backward classes where deemed necessary. The impugned government orders denying reservation in promotions to Class I and II services are not constitutionally mandated to be discriminatory. The classifications between classes, and between direct recruits and promotees, are reasonable and permissible. No enforceable fundamental right to reservation arises from Article 16(4), and the State is not obligated to continue or restore previous policies of reservation.

Parties
Petitioner: C. A. Rajendran; Respondents: Union of India & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
29 September 1967
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India / Original Jurisdiction; Final Decision
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Reservation in Promotions, Fundamental Rights Under Article 14 and 16, Discrimination, Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Service Law Reservation in Promotions Fundamental Rights Under Article 14 and 16 Discrimination Backward Classes Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C. A. Rajendran

Petitioner

Union of India & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India / Original Jurisdiction; Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Article 16(4) confers a right on Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes or is only an enabling provision
  2. 2 Whether the government memorandum providing no reservation in Class I and II services is discriminatory
  3. 3 Whether distinction between classes of employees or between direct recruits and promotees in reservation policy is violative of Article 14

Ratio Decidendi

Article 16(4) of the Constitution is an enabling provision conferring discretionary power upon the State to make reservation for backward classes where deemed necessary. The impugned government orders denying reservation in promotions to Class I and II services are not constitutionally mandated to be discriminatory. The classifications between classes, and between direct recruits and promotees, are reasonable and permissible. No enforceable fundamental right to reservation arises from Article 16(4), and the State is not obligated to continue or restore previous policies of reservation.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

  • No writ under Article 32 issued
  • No order as to costs