1965 (3) TMI 102 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
Interpretation of Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution of India, validity of Government Orders (G.O.) affecting backward classes, criteria for determining backward classes, authority of the Governor to issue G.O., and issuance of a writ of Mandamus.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Articles 15(4) and 16(4):
The core issue revolves around the interpretation of Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution of India. Article 15(4) allows the State to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes, while Article 16(4) permits reservation of appointments or posts in favor of any backward class of citizens not adequately represented in the services under the State.

The court emphasized that the Constitution aims to create an egalitarian society by providing equal opportunities to all citizens, regardless of caste, creed, or economic status. The principle of equality enshrined in the Constitution is not absolute but aims to eliminate social and economic disparities.

2. Validity of Government Orders (G.O.):
The petitioners challenged several G.O.s, including G.O. Ms. 913 dated 11-8-1964, which amended rules to withdraw privileges extended to backward classes. The court found that the State Government's action in cancelling the list of backward classes and withdrawing the concessions was in consonance with Articles 15(4) and 16(4) and supported by the Supreme Court's decisions.

3. Criteria for Determining Backward Classes:
The petitioners contended that caste should be the sole criterion for determining backward classes. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that the term "backward classes" is not confined to Hindu backward classes and does not mean castes among Hindus only. The court cited Supreme Court decisions, including M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore and Chitralekha v. State of Mysore, which held that caste cannot be the sole or dominant basis for determining backwardness.

The court noted that the economic condition of a family could be a relevant criterion for extending facilities under Article 15(4). The Andhra Pradesh Government's decision to adopt economic criteria for educational facilities and withdraw reservations based on caste was deemed equitable and socially just.

4. Authority of the Governor to Issue G.O.:
The petitioners questioned the Governor's authority to issue G.O. 913. The court upheld the Governor's power under Article 309 of the Constitution to make rules regulating recruitment and conditions of service until the legislature enacts provisions in that regard. The Governor's action in issuing the impugned G.O. was found to be within his constitutional authority.

5. Issuance of a Writ of Mandamus:
The petitioners sought a writ of Mandamus to compel the State Government to continue the list of backward classes and the associated concessions. The court held that Articles 15(4) and 16(4) are enabling provisions and not mandatory. The State Government has the discretion to make or withdraw provisions for backward classes. Mandamus cannot be issued to compel the State to exercise its discretion in a particular manner.

The court concluded that the State Government acted within its discretion in cancelling the lists and withdrawing concessions, and there was no violation of the petitioners' fundamental rights.

Conclusion:
The writ appeal and writ petition were dismissed, with the court affirming that the State Government's actions were in accordance with the Constitution and Supreme Court precedents. The criteria for determining backward classes should not be based solely on caste, and the State has the discretion to adopt economic criteria for extending educational facilities. The Governor's authority to issue G.O. was upheld, and the issuance of a writ of Mandamus was deemed inappropriate in this case.