K.C. VASANTH KUMAR & ANOTHER. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [1985] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 352 · Decided: 08-05-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 14 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
352 
K.C. VASANTH KUMAR & ANOTHER. 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
May 8, 1985 
(Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, C. J., D.A. DESAI, 0. CH!NNAPPA REDDY, 
A.P. SEN AND E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ,J 
Constitution of India, 1950, Artie/es 15(4), 16(4), 29(2), 338(3) and 340-
Vafidi'tyofthe Means test a1optedin State of Karnataka order dated 22.2.1977 
as modified by the Government Order dated March!, 1979 and June 27, 1979-
Guidelines for mllking special provision for the advancement of any socially and 
educationafly backward clasJes of citizens and provision for the reservation of 
appointments or posts in favour of any backward clarses of citizens which in to 
opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services of the State-
Conflict between ''the menitoriam principle and" the ''compensatory principle" 
of discrimination'• in the matter of admissions into institutions imparting higher 
educatian and of entry into Government service. how to be solved-Statutory 
construction of the word ~'Backward classes" ejusdem qenesis Rule or Rule 
Noscitur a sociir, explained-Construction of Articles 338(3) and 340 of the 
Constitutions-Government's power to make rerervaaons under Articles 15(4) 
and 16(4) and the extent of reservation that can be made, explained-Words and 
Phrases-Meaning of "backwardness'' 
"backward classes", "socially and 
educationally backward classes". 
In the pre~independant period, the former princely State of Mysore 
which now forms part of the State of Karnataka is one of the earliest States 
in the country in which the system of reservation for backward classes in public 
services was introduced. In 1918, the Government of His Highness the Maha· 
raja of Mysore appointed a committe under the chairmanship of Sir Leslie C. 
MilJer, Chief, Justice of the Chief Court of Mysore to investigate and report 
on the problem of backward classes. The questions referred to that Committee 
were (i) changes needed in the then existing rules of recruitment to the public 
services; (ii) special facilities to encourage higher and professional education 
among the members of backward classes and (iii) any other special measures 
which might be taken to increase the representation oF backward communities 
in the public service without materially affecting the efficiency, due regard 
being paid also to the general good accruing to the State by a wjder diffusion 
of education and feeling of increased status which will thereby be produced in 
the backward communities. The expressions 'backward classes' and 'backward 
communities, were used almost interchangeably and that the contained in 
Article 335 of the Constitution that any re~ervation made should not impair 
efficiency was anticipated more than three decades before the < onstitution was 
enacted. The committee submitted its report in 1921 containing its opinion 
that all communities in the State other than Brahmins should be understood as 
b~ckward communities regarding whom it n1ade certain recommendations. The 
' 
t. 
• 
~. 
K.c.v. KUMAR v. KARNATAKA 
353 
Government orders issued on the basis of that Report continued to be in force 
till 1956 i.e. there organisation of ~tates which brought together five integrating 
A 
units-the former State of Mysore (including Bellary District), Coorg, four dis~ 
tricts of Bombay, certain portions of the State of Hyderabad and the district 
of Sough Kanara and the Ko!legal Taluk which formerly formed part of the 
State of Madras. There were different lists of backward communities in the 
five integrating units and they were a11owed to continue for sometime even after 
the reorganisation of States. 
B 
In order to bring about uniformity the State Government issued a noti-
fication containing the list of backward classes for the purpose of Article 15(4) 
of the Constitution at the beginning of 1959. The validity of that notification 
and of another notification issued thereafter on the same topic which accord-
ing to the State Government had treated all persons except Brahmins, Banias 
and Kayasthas as backward communities was challenged before the High Court 
of Mysore in Rama Krishna Singh v. State of Afysure, AlR 1950 Mysore 338. 
The two notifications \\ere struck down by the High Court holding (al in as 
much as the impugned notifications contained list of backward classes includ· 
ing SS per cent of the pop,Jation of the State and all Hindu communities other 
than Brahmins, Banias and Kayasthas and all other non-H

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.