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

Citation: [1967] 2 S.C.R. 265 · Decided: 15-12-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Directions issued

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
TRILOKI NATH TIKU & ANR. 
·v. 
STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR & ORS. 
December I 5, I 966 
[K. St:BBA RAO, C.J., J.C. SHAH, S. M. SiKRI, V. RA~JASWAMI 
AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.} 
Co11stitutio11 of btdia, Ar•. 16(4)-Resen•ation in favour of backward 
classes-Require111·:?nts of Article-BackH'<ird class, what is. 
The petitioners were school teachers in the service of the State of 
Jammu & Kashmir. Persons below them in the seniority list were promot-
ed to the higher grade because the State Govemment in making the pr<>' 
1110tions gave 50% of the higher posts to Muslims, 60% of the remain-
ing 50% to Jammu Hindus and the rest to Kashmiri Pandits and Sikhs. 
This method of reservation was justified under Art. 16 of the Constitution 
on the ground that Muslims all over the State and Hindus in Jammu 
were ~ckward communities. 
The petitioners were Kashmiri Pandi1>1. 
They came to this Court under Art. 32. 
HELD : The predominant concept underlying Art. 16 is equality of 
opportunity in the matter of employment; and without detriment to that 
concept, the State is enabled to make reservations in i'avoJr of backward 
classes to give a p·ractical content to the concept of equality, It is impli-
cit in the article that the doctrine of equality of opportunity shall be 
reconciled with that of reservation in favour of backward classes in such 
a way that the latter while serving the cause of backward classes shall not 
U'.'reasonably encroach upon. the field of equality. [268 G-H] 
The power under cl. 4 of Art. 16 can only be exercised in favour of 
backward classes of citizens. 
While the State has necessarily to ascertain 
whether a particular class of citizens arc backward or not, having regard 
to acceptable crit·z.ria, its is not the finJl word on the question, it is a 
justiciable issue. 
The power under cl. ( 4) is also conditioned by the 
fact that in regard to any backward classes of citizens thrre is no ade-
quate representation in the services of the State. [269 A-Bl 
A class cannot be accepted as backward merely because it is not 
adequately represented in the services under the State. Such a contention 
if accepted would exclude the really backward cla>Ses from the benefit of 
the provisior~ and confer the benefit only on a class of citiz~ilS \vho, though 
rich and cultured have taken to other avocation in life [270 B-C] 
[On the material before it the Court found it impossible to say whether 
the Muslims of the entire State of Jammu and Kashmir and the Hindllll 
of Jammu Province were backward communities within the meaning of 
Art. 16. 
The High Court wa.• therefore asked to Mllect the relevant 
material and to sent a report.] [270 E-G] 
M. R. Ba/aji v. State of Mysore, [1963] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 439 and 
R. Clutra/ekha v. State of Mysore, [1964] 6 S.C.R. 368, referred to. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 107 of 1965. 
Writ Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for 
enforcement of fundamental rights. 
Naunit Lai and Vineet Kumar for the petitioner~. 
~66 
SUPJl.EME COURT REPORTS 
(I ~7] 2 S.C.ll. 
S. V. Gupte, Solicitur-Ge11cral of India, I«ija Jasll'alll Si11glt, 
Adl'orate-Ge11cra/ for the State c!f' /011111111 a11d Ka.</imir. and R. H. 
Dhehar, for respondents Nos. I and 2. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Subba Rao. C.J. This petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution 
,,f India has been filed by two teachers for the issue of an appro-
rriate writ to quash the or<lers of promotion of respondents 3 
to 83 and to direct the State of Jammu & Kashmir, the Jst res-
pondent, and the Director of Education, Jammu & Kashmir State, 
Srinagar, the 2nd respondent, to promote them to the cadre of 
gazetted teachers \vith retrospective effect. 
The facts arc simple. The 1st petitioner entered government 
senice of the erstwhile State of Jammu & Kashmir on May 16, 
1943, as a teacher in the Government S.:hool, Trehgam. He is 
an M.A., B.T .. and is at present working as a teacher in the Gover~ 
ment Higher Secondary School, Sopore. The 2nd petitioner was 
likewise appointed as a teacher on February 26, 1952, in the Govern-
ment Middle School, Nigam, Kashmir. 
He is a rl.A., B.T., and 
is at present working as a teacher in the Government High School. 
Batamallo. In the year 1957, the !st respondent prepared a 
seniority list of teachers of grade Rs. 80-8-200. 
From time to time 
the !st respondent prepared the seniority lists of teachers of the 
said grade and the last of 

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