Introduction 

Article 16 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) is given under Part III of the Constitution. Article 16 is a fundamental Right which guarantees equal opportunity in public employments of state to all the citizens of India. It prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence, or any of them in respect of any employment or office under the State. 

• Article 16 ensures that all citizens have equal access to opportunities in government employment and prohibits unfair treatment based on certain characteristics. 
• Additionally, Article 16 allows for reservations to be made in public employment for disadvantaged groups, such as Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes, to address historical and social inequalities. 

What is Article 16 of the COI? 

• Article 16 briefly states the provisions guaranteeing equal opportunity to all the citizens in public employment without any discrimination as a general rule but subject to certain exceptions. 

General Rule 

• Clause (1) states the provision for Equal Opportunity as: 
  • equality of opportunity to all the citizens in matters of public employment under the State. 
  • It is only applicable to offices under the Central and the State Governments. 
• Clause (2) states the provisions for Equal Access to Public Employment as: 
  • It prohibits the State from conferring any discrimination against citizens in the matter of public employment on the grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence, or any of them. 

Exceptions to the General Rule 

• Clause (3) states the provisions for parliament to enact laws as: 
  • It empowers the parliament to enact laws any legislation requiring residence in a state or union territory as a pre-condition for particular employment or appointments in the respective state or union territory or in local authorities or other authorities within that state or union territory. 
• Clause (4) states the provisions for Reservations as: 
  •  It empowers the State to make provisions 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. 
• Clause (4A) states the provisions for Special Provisions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as: 
  • It provides for the reservation of posts in favor of any Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in public employment. 
  • It was added by the 77th Constitutional Amendment 1995. 
• Clause (4B) states the provisions for Reservations in Promotion as: 
  • It allows the State to provide reservation in matters of promotion to any class or classes of posts in the services under the State in favor of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. 
  • It was added by the 81st Constitutional Amendment, 2000. 
• Clause (5) states the provisions for enactment of laws where Clause (1) and Clause (2) shall not be applicable as: 
  •  It allows incumbents of any office to be religiously qualified for appointment of a person professing a particular religion or belonging to a particular denomination. 
• Clause (6) states the provisions for Reservation in Promotions as: 
  • It allows the State to reserve appointments or posts in favor of any economically weaker section of citizen other than the class mentioned in clause (4), in addition to the existing reservation and subject to a maximum of 10% of the post in each category. 

Opportunities 

• This article talks about two opportunities i.e., 
  • Equality of Opportunity 
  • Substantive Equality of Opportunity 

Equality of Opportunity: 

• Article 16 aims to ensure that all citizens have an equal chance to be employed in government services, regardless of their background. 
• The purpose of Articles 15(4) and 16(4) is to ensure equality of opportunity of the socially backward classes, the criterion for sub-classification within a class (be it the Other Backward Classes or the Scheduled Castes or Tribes) must be an indicator of social backwardness 
• Equality of opportunity was framed in the language of equal representation subject to these two caveats. 

Substantive Equality of Opportunity: 

• The concept of substantive equality goes beyond formal equality by recognizing that treating everyone the same may not result in true equality due to historical disadvantages and social inequalities. 
• The same has been explained under Article 16, Clause 4, 4A and 4B of COI.

Evolution of Article 16 of the COI 

• The State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951): 
  • The Supreme Court initially took a formal approach, viewing reservations as an exception to equal opportunity. 
  • It held that reservation of seats in educational institutions was unconstitutional without express provision. 
• Venkataramana v. The State of Madras (1951): 
  • The court ruled that only Harijans and backward Hindus could be considered as "backward classes" for reservation in public jobs. 
• M R Balaji v. State of Mysore (1962): 
  • The Supreme Court prescribed a 50% ceiling for reservations for the first time. 
• State of Kerala v. N M Thomas (1975) 
  • The court made an "expansive and substantive reading of the equality code," upholding a Kerala law that relaxed qualifying criteria for SC and ST candidates in government jobs. 
• Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) (Mandal judgment): 
  • The court observed that Articles 15(4) and 16(4) are special provisions, exceptions to the principle of equality. It also held that reservations in promotions would dilute efficiency in administration. 
• Constitution (Seventy-seventh) Amendment Act (1995): 
  • Inserted Article 16(4A) to allow reservations in promotions and to undo the "catch-up rule." 
• E.V. Chinnaiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors (2004): 
  • The law on consequential seniority was upheld, stating that the efficiency of administration was only relaxed, not "obliterated," by the rule. 
• State Of Punjab and Ors. v Davinder Singh and Ors (2020): 
  • In this case the Court reframed the quota-versus-efficiency question, arguing that reservation reflects the mandate of substantive equality in the Constitution, not an exception to the equality rule. 
  • CJI Chandrachud's opinion on efficiency: Argued that securing higher marks in an examination does not necessarily contribute to higher efficiency, and that meeting minimum qualifications is sufficient to maintain efficient administration. 
  • Reservation is seen as a means to ensure substantive equality, despite potential impacts on traditional notions of efficiency. 
  • The binary of reservation versus merit is rejected, with constitutional amendments viewed as "an emphatic repudiation" of this binary. 

What are the Landmark Judgements Based Under Article 16 of the COI? 

• T. Devadasan v. Union of India (1964): Case of Carry Forward Rule 
  • The Supreme Court also added that the idea of equal opportunity should not be violated by applying unproportionate reservations otherwise the same would affect Article 14 of the COI. 
  • It was also clearly held by the Supreme court that the carry forward rule will stop working if the reservation exceeds 50%. 
• Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India (1993): The Mandal Commission Case 
  • Article 16(4) does not grant reservation in promotion, according to a nine-judge bench, because it only applies to reservations in appointments. All promotion reservations provided to SCs/STs in government employment are now in jeopardy because of the ruling. 
  • After the 16th of November 1992, the court’s decision permitted reservation in promotion to continue for another five years. 
• Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab (1999): Case of Catch-Up Rule and Consequential Seniority 
  • Supreme Court laying emphasis on Article 14 and Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India held that if a person satisfies the eligibility and the criteria for promotion but still is not considered for promotion, then there will be a clear violation of his/her's fundamental right. 
• M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006): 
  • The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of all the impugned amendments related to reservation in promotions for SCs and STs. 
  • The court ruled that the amendments did not violate the basic structure of equality under Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution. 
  • The court held that the amendments are enabling provisions, allowing but not forcing the States to provide reservation in promotions if they identify backwardness, inadequate representation, and maintain overall efficiency. 
• Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta case (2018): 
  • The Supreme Court held that reservation in promotions does not require the State to collect quantifiable data on the backwardness of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. 
  • The Court held that creamy layer exclusion extends to SC/STs and, hence the State cannot grant reservations in the promotion to SC/ST individuals who belong to the creamy layer of their community. 
• Ajay Kumar Shukla and Ors. v. Arvind Rai and Ors. (2021) 
  • Gauhati High Court held in this case that there is no fundamental right to promotion, but an employee has only the right to be considered for promotion, when it arises, by relevant rules. 
• Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022): 
  • Constitutional validity of 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019 was challenged. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of 103rd Constitutional Amendment. 
  • The Court introduced 10% EWS reservation under the 103rd Constitution (Amendment) Act, 2019 by amending Articles 15 and 16. 
  • It inserted Article 15 (6) and Article 16 (6).

Conclusion 

The right to equality is considered as the most important fundamental right. It guarantees equal opportunity and upliftment of people belonging to economically and socially weaker sectors of society. This also brought in the concept of equal pay and equal work under public employment. This provision was important for the overall growth of the nation and for the allocation of equal opportunities to all.