Constitution Project 2019

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would sincerely like to put forward my heartfelt appreciation to our respected Constitution
Assistant Professor Mr. A.Nageswara Rao for giving me a golden opportunity to take up this
project regarding Article 16 of the Indian Constitution. I have tried my best to collect
information about the project in various possible ways to depict clear picture about the given
project topic.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Part III of the Constitution of India, titled as “Fundamental Rights” (Articles 12 to 36),
secures to the people of India, certain basic, natural and inalienable rights. The inclusion of a
chapter on Fundamental Rights, in the Constitution, is in accord with the trend of modern
democratic thought. These rights are basic to a democratic polity. The guarantee of certain
basic human rights is an indispensable requirement of a free society.
RIGHT TO EQUALITY (Article 14 to Article 18)
The first Fundamental Right secured to the people of India is the “Right to Equality”. It has
the following provisions:
1. Equality before Law or Equal Protection of Laws (Article 14)
2. Prohibition of Discrimination Against Citizens (Article 15)
3. Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment (Article 16)
4. Abolition of “Untouchability” (Article 17)
5. Abolition of Titles (Article 18)
EQUALITY OF OPPURTUNITY IN MATTERS OF PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT

(Article16)
Another particular application of the general principal of equality or protection clause
enshrined in Article 14 is contained in Article 16. Clause (1) of Article 16 guarantees to all
citizens, equality of opportunity, matters relating to employment or appointment to any office
under the State. (2) further strengthens the guarantee contained in Clause (1) by declaring 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 of, any
employment or office under the State”. Clauses (3), (4) and (5) of Article 16 contain
exceptions to the rule of equality opportunity, embodied in Clauses (1) and (2).
ARTICLE 16 vs. ARTICLE 15

Article 16 is applicable only in case of employment or appointment to an official under the
State. Article 16 is similar to Article 15 in one respect, i.e., both these provisions prohibit
discrimination against citizens on specified grounds. However, Article is wider in operation
than Article 16. While, Article 16 prohibits discrimination only in respect to one particular
matter, i.e., relating to employment or appointment to posts under the State, Article 15 lays
down a general rule and prohibits discrimination in respect to all or any matters. In respect,
Article 16 is wider than Article 15, i.e., the grounds on the basis which discrimination is
prohibited. While, Article 15 prohibits discrimination on any of the five grounds, i.e.,
religion, race, caste, sex or place birth, Article 16 contains seven prohibited grounds, i.e.,
religion, race, caste, descent, place of birth or residence. Article 15 does not contain
“descent” “residence” as the prohibited grounds of discrimination. However, both Articles
can be invoked by citizens only.
EQUALITY OF OPPURTUNITY- STATE MAY LAYDOWN QUALIFICATIONS OR
CONDITIONS [Article16(1)].
Article 16 does not prevent the State from prescribing the requisite qualifications and the
selection procedure for recruitment or appointment. It is further open to the appointing
authority to lay down such pre-requisite conditions of appointment as would be conducive to
the maintenance of proper discipline amongst government servants. The qualifications
prescribed may, therefore, besides mental excellence, include physical fitness, sense of
discipline, moral integrity, and loyalty to the State.
However, the qualifications or the selective test must not be arbitrary. These be based on
reasonable ground and must have nexus with the efficient performance of the duties and
obligations of the particular office or post. Also, the qualifications cannot be altered and
applied with retrospective effect. In Pandurangarao v. Andhra Pradesh Public Service
Commission, the rule relating to qualifications for the appointment to the posts of District
Munsiffs, by direct recruitment prescribed that “the applicant must have been practising as an
Advocate in the High Court and he must have been actually practising in the Courts of Civil
or Criminal jurisdiction in India for a period less than three years.” The High Court in this
context meant Andhra Pradesh High Court. The object was that the persons to be appointed to
the posts of District Munsiffs must be having knowledge of local laws as well as knowledge
of the regional language and adequate experience at the bar. The application of the petitioner,
qualified in all other respects except that he was not at that time, practicing as an Advocate in
the Andhra High Court but in Mysore High Court, was rejected.
The Supreme Court held that the Rule which requires that only a lawyer practicing in the
Andhra Pradesh High Court, had introduced a classification between one class of Advocates
and the rest and the said classification was irrational inasmuch as there was no nexus between
the basis of the said classification and the object intended to be achieved by the relevant Rule,
i.e., “knowledge of local laws as well as regional language and adequate experience at the
bar.’ The Rule was struck down as unconstitutional and ultra vires.
MEMBERS OF SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT CLASSES OF SERVICE

There can be no rule of equality between members of separate and independent classes of
services.
In All India Station Masters Association. v. General Manager, Central Railway, a Rule
which provided for the promotion of Guards to the posts of Station Masters while ignoring
the Road-Side Station Masters, was held to be valid, since, the Guards and Roadside Station
Masters were recruited separately and trained separately and had separate avenues of
promotions. They, thus. formed two distinct and separate classes and for that reason there
was no scope for predicating equality or inequality of opportunity in the matters of
promotion.
EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS AS BASIS OF QUALIFICATION

Constitution Project 2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Constitution Project 2019

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Constitution Project 2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

EQUALITY OF OPPURTUNITY IN MATTERS OF PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT

ARTICLE 16 vs. ARTICLE 15

MEMBERS OF SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT CLASSES OF SERVICE

You might also like