Extent of Preferential Treatment

__________________________________________________________________

National Law Institute

University
Bhopal

Seminar on Affirmative Action

2017

Topic: Extent of Preferential Treatment

Submitted to: Made by:

0
Affirmative Action Seminar
 Extent of Preferential Treatment

__________________________________________________________________

Dr. Bir Pal Singh Priyamvada

Singh
Assistant Professor 2006B.A.LL.B.
(Hons.)75

1
Affirmative Action Seminar
 Extent of Preferential Treatment

__________________________________________________________________

Index

Subject Page
No.
Introduction 02
Statement of Object
03
Hypothesis 03
Methodology
04
Approach of Study
04
Percentage of Reservation
04
Benefits Other than Reservations
12

2
Affirmative Action Seminar
 Extent of Preferential Treatment

__________________________________________________________________

Critical Appraisal
13
Findings 14
Conclusion 15
Bibliography 15

3
Affirmative Action Seminar
 Extent of Preferential Treatment

__________________________________________________________________

Introduction
India's vast and unparalleled experiment with ' protective' or , compensatory'
discrimination in favour of ' backward' sections of her population betokens a generosity
and farsightedness that are rare among nations. The operation of such apreferential
principle involves formidable burdens of policymaking and administration in a
developing nation. It also places upon the judiciary tasks of great complexity and
delicacy. The courts must guard against abuses of the preferential principle while at the
same time insuring that the government has sufficient leeway to devise effective uses of
the broad powers which the Constitution places at its disposal. In discharging this task,
the Indian courts have gradually been evolving standards designed to insure that the
power to make special provisions for backward classes is confined to the purpose of
advancing the backward and is not permitted to hamper unduly other important national
interests. The criteria for selecting the proper beneficiaries of preferential treatment have
been the subject of considerable judicial and scholarly attention. Only recently has the
problem of the permissible extent of preferences been the subject of explicit judicial
attention.
Article 16(4) permits the State to make reservation of appointments or posts under
the State in favour of backward classes of citizens, who are not adequately represented
therein, but does not say as to how much reservation has been permitted to be made
thereunder. However, one thing must be borne in mind that Article 16(4) cannot and does
not permit unlimited reservation. It is true that the actual words used in Article 16(4) do
not lay down any limit on the quantum of reservation under that clause, but it is one of
the basic principles of interpretation that different parts or provisions of the Constitution
or a statute should be construed harmoniously and none of them should be so interpreted
as to destroy or whittle down the effect of another one. Of the provisions of Article 16(4)
are construed in harmony with Article 16(1), it will be manifestly clear that a balance
must be maintained between the right to equality of opportunity guaranteed to all citizens

4
Affirmative Action Seminar
 Extent of Preferential Treatment

__________________________________________________________________

and the need for provision of reservation in favour of backward classes of citizens. In T.
Devadasan v. The Union of India,1 the Supreme Court observed:

To hold that unlimited reservation of appointments could be made under clause

(4) would in effect efface the guarantee contained in clause (1) or at the best make
it illusory. No provision of the Constitution or of any enactment can be so
construed as to destroy another provision contemporaneously enacted therein . . .
The overriding effect of clause (4) on clauses (1) and (2) could only extend to the
making of a reasonable number of reservations of appointments and posts in
certain circumstances.

Thus, reservation under Article 16(4) cannot be unlimited and must be within
reasonable limits.

Statement of Object
It is proposed to study the limit or extent up to which preferential treatment may be
accorded or to be more specific, reservation of appointments or posts in public service
may be made in favour of backward classes of citizens under Article 16(4). The object of
study is as to what should be the reasonable limit of such reservation in public
employement.

Hypothesis
The consideration of this aspect of preferential treatment in public services assumes
special importance because Article 16(4), while permitting such preferential treatment,

1
AIR 1964 SC 179, 187
5
Affirmative Action Seminar
 Extent of Preferential Treatment

__________________________________________________________________

the constitution does not provide any minimum or maximum limit of reservation so the
task fell on courts to determine the limits of reservation.

Methodology
Various books have been referred both in the university library and the books available on
websites. Also, the study material provided for the course has been referred to and
various articles have been read which are available through internet.

Approach of Study
The approach of the research work and study was doctrinal i.e. various books, articles
and other study material like encyclopaedias have been referred to write this paper.

Percentage of Reservation
The first question to be considered about the permissible limit of reservation is as
to what is the percentage of appointments or posts that can be reserved under Article
16(4). It cannot be so high as to destroy or make illusory the right to equality of
opportunity guaranteed by clause (1). There can be no doubt that the Constitution makers
assumed, as they were entitled to, that while making reservation under Article 16(4), care
would be taken not to provide for unreasonable or excessive reservation because that
would render the main right to equality of opportunity in public services as a mere paper
show. Therefore, instead of themselves laying down the maximum percentage up to
which such reservation may be made, they left it to the wisdom of the State authorities to
determine it according to the circumstances of a particular time and place.

6
Affirmative Action Seminar
 Extent of Preferential Treatment

__________________________________________________________________

However, the question about the quantum of reservation of appointments or posts

in public services was discussed in the Constituent Assembly and the views expressed
therein may be useful in determining the intention of the Constitution makers in this
regard. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, while answering the debate on the question of reservation of
public appointments or posts in favour of backward classes of citizens, stated in the
Constituent Assembly:

Supposing, for instance, reservations were made for a community or collection

of communities, the total posts under the State and only 30 per cent are retained as
unreserved, could anybody say that the reservation of 30 per cent as open to
general competition would be satisfactory from the point of view of giving effect
to the first principle, namely, that there shall be equality of opportunity? It cannot
in my judgment. Therefore, the reservation of seats, if the reservation is to be
consistent with Article 16(1);2 must be confined to minority of seats.3

The view expressed by Dr. Ambedkar suggests in very clear terms that the
maximum or total reservation under Article 16(4) must in all cases be confined to the
minority or less than 50 per cent of seats even though the actual percentage, within such
limit, may depend upon the circumstances existing from time to time and from place to
place. Dr. Ambedkar was so emphatic or firm in his views that he considered the
reservation beyond 50 per cent to be ultra vires the Constitution and contemplated action
in a court of law for enforcement of ones fundamental right to equality of opportunity in
case such excessive reservation was made. In this connection he said in the Constituent
Assembly:

If the local government included in this category of reservation such a large

number of seats. I think we could very well go to the Federal Court and the
Supreme Court and say that reservation is of such a magnitude that the rule
regarding equality of opportunity has been destroyed.4
2
Actual reference was to Article 10 of the draft constitution, which was later numbered as Article 16 of the
Constitution as enacted.
3
Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol. VII, page 701
4
Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol. VII, page 701
7
Affirmative Action Seminar
 Extent of Preferential Treatment

__________________________________________________________________

Thus, according to Dr. Ambedkar, the founding fathers of the Constitution

intended that the total quantum of reservation under Article 16(4) should not exceed 50
per cent of the appointments or posts and if it is made beyond that limit, the court may
strike it down. It may be that the views expressed by Dr. Ambedkar in the Constituent
Assembly cannot be taken as legally recognized mode of interpreting the provisions of
the Constitution. However, the clarification given by the Chief Architect of the
Constitution certainly deserves due respect while we attempt to find out the true meaning
of a provision found in the Constitution.

The view of the Supreme Court has all along been that Article 16(4) does not
permit such an excessive reservation as to make the main right to equality of opportunity
under clause (1) illusory. In M.R. Balaji v. The State of Mysore, the Supreme Court stated
that a special provision contemplated by Article 15(4), like reservation of posts and
appointments contemplated by Article 16(4), must be within reasonable limits. 5 In T.
Devadasan v. The Union of India, the Supreme Court contemplated an action against
excessive reservation saying:

If the reservation is so excessive that it practically denies a reasonable

opportunity for employment to members of other communities . . . it would be
open then for a member of more advanced class to complain that he has been
denied equality by State.6

It means that reservation under Article 16(4) must be within reasonable limits and
excessive reservation is not permissible thereunder. As regards the actual limit of
reservation, which may be said to be reasonable, the Supreme Court observed in Balajis
case:

Speaking generally and in a broad way, a special provision should be less than
50 per cent, how much less than 50 per cent would depend upon the relevant prevailing
circumstances in each case.7
5
AIR 1963 SC 649, 663
6
AIR 1964 SC 179, 185
7
AIR 1963 SC 649, 663
8
Affirmative Action Seminar
 Extent of Preferential Treatment

__________________________________________________________________

In Balajis case, the Supreme Court struck down 68 per cent reservation as
inconsistent with and a fraud on the constitutional power conferred to the State by Article
15(4). This decision of the Supreme Court, made in relation to Article 16(4) in view of
the following observation of the Supreme Court made in that very case:

Like the special provision improperly made under Article 15(4), reservation
made under Article 16(4) beyond permissible and legitimate limits would be
liable to be challenged as fraud on the Constitution.8

The decision of the Supreme Court in Balajis case suggests in very clear terms
that reservation under Article 16(4) should not go beyond 50 per cent and if it is done, the
same is liable to be struck down by the Court as being inconsistent with Article 16(1) and
a fraud on the constitutional power of reservation under the provisions of Article 16(4).
The views similar to those contained in many other cases 9 also by the Supreme Court as
well as various High Courts.

This proposition of case law, with regard to the permissible percentage of

reservation of appointments or posts under Article 16(4) remained uncontested and
continued to hold good until very recently. Even the Commissioner for the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled tribes admitted that reservation in public services can be made
only up to the maximum of 50 per cent of vacancies. 10 However, some of the judges
constituting the bench in the State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas,11 cast a doubt on this
proposition of law even though no direct decision was made by the court as such on the
point under consideration and in the legal sense previous decisions of the Supreme Court
in this regard still hold good. Justice Fazal Ali observed in that case:

Decided cases of this court have no doubt laid down that the percentage of
reservation should not exceed 50 per cent. As I read the authorities, this is,
however, a rule of caution and does not exhaust all categories. Suppose for

8
AIR 1963 SC 649, 664
9
T. Devadasan v. The Union of India, AIR 1964 SC 179
10
22nd Report (1973-74) of the Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, pages 97-98.
11
(1976) 2 SCC 810
9
Affirmative Action Seminar
 Extent of Preferential Treatment

__________________________________________________________________

instance a State has a large number of backward classes of citizens which

continue 80 per cent of the population and the government in order to give them
proper representation reserves 80 per cent of the jobs for them, can it be said that
the percentage of reservation is had and it violates the permissible limits of Article
16(4)? The answer must be in negative.

The views expressed by the learned Judge, as extracted above, appear to be

contrary not only to the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court on the subject but also to
the views expressed by none other than the Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the
Constitution, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who was also one of the most vocal advocates of the
reservation of appointments or posts in public services in favour of backward classes of
citizens. Dr. Ambedkar confined reservation under Article 16(4) to the minority of seats
not only for a community but also for a collection of communities. The use of the words
collection of communities in his speech before the Constituent Assembly, the relevant
portion of which has already been extracted above, clearly suggests that the maximum
limit suggested by him was the total limit irrespective of the number of backward
communities and their total population in a particular State.

If the intention of Dr. Ambedkar had been that reservation could go even up to 80
per cent, if the population of backward classes of citizens in the State is 80 per cent, if the
population of backward classes of citizens in that State is 80 per cent then there was no
point in his laying down the maximum limit of reservation should not go beyond the
percentage of backward classes of citizens in the State concerned. The views expressed
by Dr. Ambedkar may not be having legal efficacy or binding force in interpreting the
provisions of the Constitution but he being the chief architect of our Constitution, his
views do command due regard in finding out the true intention of the Constitution makers
as they are, in a way, the indicator of their mind.

Similarly, the observations made by the Supreme Court in Balajis case, suggest in
very clear terms that in no case can the reservation under Article 16(4) be more than 50
per cent and if there is to be any variation in the percentage of reservation depending on

10
Affirmative Action Seminar
 Extent of Preferential Treatment

__________________________________________________________________

the relevant circumstances prevailing at a given time or place, it can be made only within
the overall maximum limit of 50 per cent. In other words, the question may be as to how
much less than 50 per cent reservation would be permissible. Neither in Balajis case nor
in any subsequent case did the Supreme Court suggest that the rule of reservation being
less than 50 per cent is only a rule of caution and does not apply to all categories of cases,
as presumed by the learned Judge. The Supreme Court struck down 68 per cent
reservation in balajis case as being inconsistent with and a fraud on the Constitution not
because it was disproportionate to the population of the backward classes of citizens for
whom the reservation has been made, to the total population of the State.

On the contrary, it appears from the detailed study of the case that the reservation
was made for a number of backward classes and the percentage of seats allotted to each
of them was almost in proportion to the ratio of its population in the State. Moreover, if
the view taken by the learned Judge had been correct, the Supreme Court could not have
struck down the distribution of posts to give adequate representation to all the
communities on the basis of their population in the State.12

Apart from being contrary to the decisions of the Supreme Court and to the views
expressed by Dr. Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly, there its one more reason for
holding that the views expressed by Justice Fazal Ali are not correct. The provisions of
Article 335 clearly suggest that efficiency of administration is of paramount importance
in public services13 and even the claims of the scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes
for reservation therein are to be considered subject to the maintenance of administrative
efficiency. If it be so in the case of the scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes, who are
admittedly the most backward classes of citizens in India, it would be even more so in the
case of other backward classes of citizens.

Moreover, the Kerala High Court has held in V. Harharan Pillai v. The State of
Kerala,14 that the provisions of Article 335 must with equal force apply to other backward

12
B. Venkataraman v. The State of Madras, AIR 1951 SC 229
13
General Manager, S. Rly. V. Rangachari, AIR 1962 SC 36, 44-45
14
AIR 1968 Ker 42
11
Affirmative Action Seminar
 Extent of Preferential Treatment

__________________________________________________________________

classes also, even though it speaks of the scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes only.
If, as suggested by the learned judge, reservation is permitted even upto 80 per cent in a
State, where 80 per cent of the people are backward, it will be a great blow to the
efficiency of administration which can be maintained only if the best and the most
meritorious persons are appointed in public services. Reservation does mean some loss of
efficiency and 80 per cent reservation would mean not only loss but total disregard of
efficiency.

Perhaps, the learned Judge, while suggesting that even 80 per cent reservation
may be permissible, did not have the factor of efficiency in mind and based his views
only on the consideration of the distribution of benefits of public services between
backward and general classes of citizens. In this connection it may be submitted that the
primary object and purpose of creating posts in public services is not to distribute the
benefits of such posts among various classes of people but to carry on the work of
administration as efficiently as possible. Therefore, while making any reservation in
public services, a reasonable balance must be struck not only between the claims of
backward and other classes of one hand and the efficiency of administration on the other.
The need for maintaining such balance between the claims of backward classes od
citizens on the administrative efficiency has been emphasized from time to time both by
the Supreme Court and various High Court.15 Such a balance cannot be maintained of the
majority of posts are reserved for certain classes and only a minority of them are kept
open to be filled on merits.

If the reservation goes even upto 80 per cent, the result would be that inefficiency
would thrive under the cloak of reservation. In our enthusiasm to provide preferential
treatment to backward classes of citizens, we must not forget the cardinal principle that
excess of everything is bad and excessive reservation in public services may have
colossal adverse effect on the administrative efficiency which may retard the growth of
our developing country and thus be harmful to the nation as a whole.

15
General Manager, S. Rly. v. Rangachari, AIR 1962 SC 36
12
Affirmative Action Seminar
 Extent of Preferential Treatment

__________________________________________________________________

In such an eventuality, the entire community would suffer an irreparable loss and
even the backward classes of citizens will not be any exception thereto even though a few
among them, who are fortunate enough to get government service by virtue of such
reservation, might derive benefit to some extent. The benefit derived by a few individuals
is nothing when compared with the harm to the people may be caused by the inefficient
administration to the nation as a whole including the majority of backward classes of
citizens. Just imagine how much harm to the people may be caused by an inefficient
doctor or engineer and just compare it with the benefit derived by the individual who is
appointed as a doctor or engineer by virtue of reservation in his favour in preference to
more meritorious persons available for such appointment. Therefore, it could never be
and in fact never was the intention of the Constitution makers that a majority of
appointments or posts in public services might be reserved for backward classes in the
event of the majority or population in the State concerned being backward because they
were well aware of the fact that not only in one or two States but in the country as a
whole more than 80 per cent people, particularly those living in villages, are backward
and despite this awareness the chief architect of the Constitution, Dr. Ambedkar had
confined reservation to the minority of seats.

Benefits Other than

Reservations
The Balaji case disposed of the notion that a limitation on the extent of
reservations must rest upon the construction of the word' reservations' in Art. 16 (4) and
established that such limits are applicable to preferences under Art. 15 (4) as well. The

13
Affirmative Action Seminar
 Extent of Preferential Treatment

__________________________________________________________________

question arises. Whether there are similar constitutional limitations on the quantity of
other kinds of preferences. Presumably, reservations would be covered wherever used.

But the national interests which made the limitation imperative in the professional
and technical colleges may not be present to require a similar limitation on the
reservation device in other schemes.

A percentage limitation of the sort applied to reservations would have little

meaning with respect to other kinds of benefits authorized by Article 15 (4). The State is
apparently empowered to provide such things as housing facilities for the exclusive use
of Scheduled Castes.16 Can it not do the same for other backward groups and with other
kinds of facilities or benefits?

Can it not have a health scheme for Scheduled Castes only or an agricultural
programme for Scheduled Tribes only? It presumably can do these things. Is the State
then limited in the percentage of expenditures for, e.g., housing, that it may devote to
such purposes? The Supreme Court's requirement that provisions for the advancement of
the backward be balanced against the national interest could be applied here. However,
any very detailed judicial review would inject the judiciary into an area in which both its
authority and competence are not too clear. If the Devadasan majority's notion that
opportunity must be equalized annually were imported into this area, it would make
impossible large scale diversion of resources to meet the problems of backward groups.

The case for judicial control over such preferences is far less clear than over
reservations. For schemes of reservation involve directly the guaranteed and enforceable
fundamental rights of other citizens. But in the case of expenditures for such matters as
housing and health, there are no tangible rights of others involved and the Courts would
have only a vague national interest to guide them-or at most the non-justiciable rights of
other citizens contained in the Directive Principles of State Policy. It seems clear that in
16
Moosa v. State of Kerala, AIR 1960 Ker. 355
14
Affirmative Action Seminar
 Extent of Preferential Treatment

__________________________________________________________________

making these non-justiciable the purpose was to keep the details of policy involved in
development out of the courts.

Critical Appraisal
It could never be and in fact never was the intention of the Constitution makers
that a majority of appointments or posts in public services might be reserved for
backward classes in the event of the majority or population in the State concerned being
backward because they were well aware of the fact that not only in one or two States but
in the country as a whole more than 80 per cent people, particularly those living in
villages, are backward and despite this awareness the chief architect of the Constitution,
Dr. Ambedkar had confined reservation to the minority of seats.

In public services, the efficiency of administration is of paramount importance

and according to Article 335 even the claims of the members of the Scheduled Castes and
the Scheduled Tribes are to be taken into consideration consistently with the maintenance
of efficiency of administration in making of appointments to services and posts in
connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State. If reservation is made in terms of
the maximum limit beyond which the candidates belonging to backward classes may not
be appointed and some of them, though more meritorious, are ignored while some other
candidates belonging to general classes, though less meritorious, are selected on the
ground that the quota allotted to backward classes has already been filled up, then there is
bound to be loss of efficiency in the administration by reason of the selection of less
meritorious candidates of backward classes. Thus, the reservation of appointments or
posts in favour of backward classes by fixing the maximum limit of posts to be filled by
them would be against the spirit of Article 335.

15
Affirmative Action Seminar
 Extent of Preferential Treatment

__________________________________________________________________

Findings
The total reservation permissible under Article 16(4) is confined to minority or
less than 50 per cent of posts available for appointment in public services and if such
reservation is made in respect of majority of such posts, the same would amount to fraud
on Constitution because it would not only render the right to equality of opportunity in
public services under Article 16(1) to be nugatory or at the most illusory but would also
make the provision of Article 335 regarding paramount of administrative efficiency only
decorative and devoid of any practical importance.

V.V. Giri v. D.S. Dora,17 was a case relating to election to the Lok Sabha, but it has
a direct bearing on the question under consideration. In this case the dispute was
regarding election from a double member Constituency. In this Constituency one seat was
reserved for Scheduled Tribe and the other was general. There were four candidates in the
field. Two of them, say A and D, belonged to general class of citizens and the other two,
say B and C, belonged to the Scheduled Tribes. C, who got the highest votes, was
declared elected for the reserved seat and B, who was next to C, was declared elected for
the general seat. A, who was a general candidate, contended that B and C, who belonged
to the Scheduled Tribes, should both be deemed to have contested for the general seat.
Thus C should be declared elected for the reserved seat while A, who had secured more
votes than D, the other general candidate, should be declared elected for the general seat.

The Supreme Court negative this argument and held that the election for both the
seats was one and in that election one of the seats was reserved for the Scheduled Tribes
and the other one was to go on merit. Since B had secured the largest number of votes
after C, B was rightly declared elected for the general seat.

Conclusion
17
AIR 1959 SC 1318
16
Affirmative Action Seminar
 Extent of Preferential Treatment

__________________________________________________________________

The limit of 50 per cent for the purpose of reservation is the uppermost limit and
not the general limit to be applied as a matter of course.

Reservation under Article 16(4) has to be made so as to ensure certain minimum

number of posts for the candidates of backward classes and the number of reserved posts
is not the maximum limit beyond which such candidates may not be selected even on
their merits.

Bibliography
http://books.google.co.in/books?
id=q_0O8LxsWb8C&pg=PA261&lpg=PA261&dq=extent+preferentia
l+treatment+reservation+india&source=bl&ots=tkIhL3cGPZ&sig=llit
ZRnPCwUshacomZRXORKX6hw&hl=en&ei=A4aoTeODIo2uwO71
4WYCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEQQ
6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservation_in_India

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_Reservation_Bill

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Womens-Reservation
Bill/111437318909018

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/op/2003/07/01/stories/200307010001
0200.htm

http://marcgalanter.net/Documents/equalityandpreferentialtreatment.p
df
17
Affirmative Action Seminar
 Extent of Preferential Treatment

__________________________________________________________________

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/urban-studies-and-planning/11-237-gender-
and-race-work-and-public-policy-
spring2005/assignments/yamicia_polipap2.pdf

http://www.santhoshtv.in/Research_Reservation_Madhura.html

http://shikshasamachar.com/blog/3033-job-reservations-in-india.html

Equality and Preferential Treatment: Constitutional Limits and

Judicial Control Marc Galanter

Preferential Treatment Policies: A perspective into Affirmative Action

in India and the United States Yamicia Connor

Reservations System in India - Gunjan

Sociology of Religion in India, Rowena Robinson, Sage Publications

(2004)

Criterion for determination of backward classes :special refrence to

mandal comission

It can be seen that the words backward classes are included in two
articles.
One by the framers of the Constitution i.e., Article 16 (4) and another by
the First
Amendment, i.e., Article 15 (4). Article 15 (4) provides reservation for
sociallyand educationally backward classes or for the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes,
whereas in Article 16 (4) the reservation is guaranteed to any
backward class
of citizens. Though Article 15(4) is intended for reservation in
educational

18
Affirmative Action Seminar
 Extent of Preferential Treatment

__________________________________________________________________

institutions and Article 16(4) is intended for reservation in public

employment, the
determination of backwardness is synonymously relevant for the two
articles.

kaka Kalelkar Commission: the Pandora's Box Opened

Adhering to Article 340, the First Backward Classes Commission was set up by a
presidential order on January 29, 1953 under the chairmanship of Kaka Kalelkar.

For identifying socially and educationally backward classes, the commission

adopted the following criteria:

Low social position in the traditional caste hierarchy of Hindu society.

Lack of general educational advancement among the major section of a caste or
community.
Inadequate or no representation in government services.
Inadequate representation in the field of trade, commerce and industry

The commission submitted its report on March 30, 1955. It had prepared a list of 2,399
backward castes or communities for the entire country and of which 837 had been
classified as the most backward Some of the most noteworthy recommendations of the
commission were:

Undertaking caste-wise enumeration of population in the census of 1961.

Relating social backwardness of a class to its low position in the traditional caste
hierarchy of Hindu society,
Treating all women as a class as backward;
Reservation of 70 per cent seats in all technical and professional institutions for
qualified students of backward classes.
minimum reservation of vacancies in all government services and local bodies for
other backward classes on the following scale: class I = 25 per cent; class II =
33 per cent; class III and IV = 40 per cen

But this report was not accepted by the Central government on the ground that it had not
applied any objective tests for identifying the Backward Class. Thus, there was a need of
second backward classes of commission
19
Affirmative Action Seminar
 Extent of Preferential Treatment

__________________________________________________________________

MANDAL Commission
The decision of the Janata Party Government with Mr. Morarji Desai as PM to set up a
second backward classes commission was made official by the President on January 1,
1979. The commission popularly known as the Mandal Commission, its chairman being
B. P. Mandal. It submitted the report in December 1980. Terms Of Mandal Commission

The 11 indicators formulated by the commission are

Social

Castes/classes considered as socially backward by others.

Castes/classes which mainly depend on manual labour for their livelihood.
Castes/classes where the percentage of married women below 17 is 25% above
the state average in rural areas and 10% in urban areas; and that of married men is
10% and 5% above the state average in rural and urban areas respectively.
Castes/classes where participation of females in work is at least 25% above the
state average.

Educational

Castes/classes where the number of children in the age group of 5 to 15 years who
never attended school is at least 25% above the state average.
Castes/classes where the rate of student drop-out in the age group of 5-15 years is
at least 25% above the state average.
Castes/classes amongst whom the proportion of matriculates is at least 25% below
the state average

Economic

Castes/classes where the average value of family assets is at least 25% below the
state average.
Castes/classes where the number of families living in kachcha (temporary) houses
is at least 25 % above the state average.
Castes/classes where the source of drinking water is beyond half a kilometer for
more than 50% of the households.

20
Affirmative Action Seminar
 Extent of Preferential Treatment

__________________________________________________________________

Castes/classes where the number of the house-holds having taken a consumption

loan is at least 25% above the state average.

Controversial reccomndation

Candidates belonging to OBC recruited based on merit in an open competition

should not be adjusted against their reservation quota of 27 per cent.
The above reservation should also be made applicable to promotion quota at all
levels.
Reserved quota remaining unfilled should be carried forward for a period of three
years and de-reserved thereafter.
Relaxation in the upper age limit for direct recruitment should be extended to the
candidates of OBC in the same manner as done in the case of SCs and STs.
A roster system for each category of posts should be adopted by the concerned
authorities in the same manner as presently done in respect of SC and ST
candidates.
These recommendations in total are applicable to all recruitment to public sector
undertakings both under the central and state governments, as also to nationalized
banks.
All universities and affiliated colleges should also be covered by the above
scheme of reservation.

21
Affirmative Action Seminar