TRILOKI NATH & ANR. versus STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR & ORS.

Citation: [1969] 1 S.C.R. 103 · Decided: 23-04-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
-
• 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
TRILOKI NATH & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR & ORS. 
April 23, 1968 
(M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J., J. C. :iHAH, S. M. S!KRI, 
V. RAMASWAM! AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.] 
Co11sri1111ion of India, 1950 Art. 
16--Backward 
cla.~s-Reservation 
of posts 011 the basis of religion and place of residence-When protected 
by Art. 16(4). 
The pe.titioncrs filed a \Vriit petition in this Court claiming that the 
respondent Staitc had discriminated against them in the matter of promo· 
tion to the gazetted cadre of the Education Department on grounds of 
religion and place of reside.nee and thus 
violated Art. 
16(2) of the 
Constitution. The. case that junior officers were pron1oted to the gazetted 
cadre 
over officers senior to them on the ground solely that they-the 
junior members-belonged to the Muslim community or that they were 
Hindus belonging to the Jan1mu province of the State, was not denied by the 
State, but, was sought to be justified on the ground that the State had 
acted in consonance with the. principles of Art. 16(4) on 1the basis that 
Yluslims as a community formed a backward class in the State, and 
similarly, Hin.dus from the Jammu province formed a backward com~ 
munit)\ and that they were not adequately represented in the services. of 
the State. 
HELD : The expression 'backward class' is not used as synonymous 
\\·ith 'back\vard caste' or 'back\vard community'. 
The expression 'class' 
in its ordinary connotation may mean a homogcnous section of the people 
grouped together because of certain likenesses or common traits, and 
\Vho arc identifiable by some common attributes such as 
status, 
rank, 
occupation_. residence in a locality. race, religion and the like; but, 
for 
purposes of Art. 16(4) in determining whether a section forms a class, 
a test solelv based on caste. community, 
race, 
relh?ion, 
sex, 
descent 
place of birth or residence cannot be ·adopted. because it \vould directlv 
offend the Constitution. The members of an entire caste, or community 
may, in the social, economic and educational scale of values at a given 
time, be backward and may, on that ·account be treated as a backward 
class. blllt that is not because they are members of a caste or community, 
but because they form a clas.<. [105 F-H] 
In the present case, the State has not produced any evidence to show 
that any provision \Vas made for reservation of appointments or posts 
in. favour of any backward class of citizens. On the other hand, selec-
.::ion of candidates seems to have been made merely to secure adequate 
representation of such elements as were not adequately represented in 
the services. 
Therefore, when the State proceeded not to make reser-
vations in. favour of any backward class, but to distribute ithc total . num~ 
be·r of posts or appointments on the basis of community or place of 
residence. no reservation. permitted by Art. 16(4). can be said to have 
been made. and the implementaition of such a policy would be contrary 
to' the constitutional guarantee under Art. 16(1) and (2). [106 A-B. 
F--G: 107 A-Cl 
H 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 107 of 1965. 
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constittuion of India for the 
enforcement of fundamental rights. 
• 
104 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1969] I S.C.R. 
M. C. Setalvad, Na1111i1 I.al ;u1d R. Gopalakris/111a11, for the 
petitioners. 
C. K. Daphtary, Attorney-General, M. S. K. Saw·i, R. If. 
Dlzebar and R. N. Sachtiley, for respondents Nos. I and 2. 
The Judgment of the C<mrt wa> delivered by 
Shah, J.-By order dated December 15, 1966, this 
Court 
called upon the High Court of J ammu & Kashmir to '"gather the 
necessary material, such as, the total population of the entir.: 
State, the breakup tigurcs of the two provinces, the strength of 
d1ffcrem communities and the extent of their social and economic 
backwardness and the criteria applied by the State in that regard ... 
and to make a report in that behalf. The report has now been 
submitted to this Court together with copies of the evidence oral 
and documentary produced by the parties. It is unfortunate that 
the learned Judge who heard the matter did not record his opinion 
on the evidence. We do not, however, on the view we take, deem 
it necessary to send back the papers for recording lhc opinion 
of the High Court on the evidence led by the parties pur;uant to 
the previous order. 
The petitioners had by the writ petition claimed lhat in dec-
lining to promote them and ot

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