
Article 16(4) reservations vs Article 335 efficiency — UPSC Prelims PYQ 2023
Consider the following statements:
- Statement-I: The Supreme Court of India has held in some judgements that the reservation policies made under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India would be limited by Article 335 for maintenance of efficiency of administration.
- Statement-II: Article 335 of the Constitution of India defines the term ‘efficiency of administration’.
Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?
- Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II is the correct explanation for Statement-I
- Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II is not the correct explanation for Statement-1
- Statement-I is correct but Statement-II is incorrect
- Statement-I is incorrect but Statement-II is correct
Explanation
Statement-I is correct but Statement-II is incorrect
- The Supreme Court of India has consistently referred to the notions of “efficiency” and “merit,” while adjudicating the validity of various reservation policies.
- The Court has held in several judgments — Indra Sawhney v Union of India 1993; M Nagaraj v Union of India 2006 — that the reservation policies made under Article 16(4) of the Constitution would be limited by Article 335, which provides for “maintenance of efficiency of administration,” while considering the claims of the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and the Scheduled Tribes (STs) in the making of appointments to public services and posts. This was done while the Constitution does not define the term “efficiency of administration.”This gap in interpretation was filled by a two-judge bench in the B K Pavitra (II) v Union of India (2019), as it held that “efficiency of administration in the affairs of the union or of a state must be defined in an inclusive sense, where diverse segments of society find representation as a true aspiration of governance by and for the people.”
PMF Concept Hack
|
Additional Information: Article 16 (Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment)
Indra Sawhney & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (1992)
M. Nagaraj & Others vs. Union of India & Others (2006)
|












