Holding

The amendment rules and the limited departmental competitive examination for SC/ST candidates are constitutionally valid and may be applied to fill the reserved vacancies, and the petitions are dismissed.

Summary

The petitioners, senior officers of the Central Secretariat Service, challenged the Central Secretariat Service (Amendment) Rules, 1979 and the regulations that introduced a limited departmental competitive examination exclusively for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates to fill 27 reserved Grade‑I promotion vacancies for the year 1977. They argued that the reservation itself was invalid, that the government should have de‑reserved the vacancies when suitable SC/ST candidates were unavailable, and that the new sub‑rule (2a) of Rule 12 could not be applied retrospectively. The Court held that the reservation of posts for SC/ST under the Office Memorandum and the amendment rules were within the constitutional power of the State, that Article 16(4) permits such reservations in selection posts, and that the limited examination was a permissible alternative when the original process failed to fill the reserved vacancies. The Court also rejected the contention that the amendment operated only prospectively and affirmed the validity of the relaxed eligibility criteria for SC/ST candidates. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed.

Issues considered

The validity of the Central Secretariat Service (Amendment) Rules, 1979 and the related regulations for a limited departmental competitive examination for SC/ST candidates.
Whether reservation of promotion vacancies for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes under the Office Memorandum is constitutionally permissible under Articles 14, 15, 16(4) and 46.
Whether the Government was obliged to de‑reserve the 27 vacancies when no suitable SC/ST candidates were found.
Whether sub‑rule (2a) of Rule 12 could be applied retrospectively to affect the 1977 select list.
Whether the lower eligibility standards for SC/ST candidates are permissible.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 15, s. Article 16(4), s. Article 46

Subjects

reservationScheduled CastesScheduled TribespromotionCentral Secretariat ServiceRule 12limited departmental competitive examinationArticle 16(4)de‑reservationadministrative discretionconstitutional equality

Judgment

ll.184

A S. S. SHARMA & ORS.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Norembcr 10, 1980
B [V. R. KRISHNAIYER, R. S. PATHAK & (). CHINNAPPA REDDY,, JJ]
Central Secretariat Service Rules--Rule 12 sub-rule 2(a) and Central Secre-
tariat Service Grade 1 (Limited Department Competitive Examination for filling
vacancies reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regu/ario11 1979-
Whether via/ate~ A1'ticle~ 14, 15 and 1i5 of the Constitution.
The Central Secretariat Service (Amendment) Rules 1979 which inserted
sub-rule (2a) below sub-rule (2) of Rule 12 of the Rules provided for the hold-
ing of a limited departmental competitive examination, including a st~tement
of the conditions of eligibility .and indicating how the selection would take
place on such examination.
The next higher category in the Central Secretariat Servi~e above ·<he Sec-
tion Officers' Grade consists of Grade I posts. Recruitment to the Grade I
posts are made under Rule 12 of the Central Secretariat Service Rules. For
D the purpose of such promotion a sefect list is prepared. Pursuant to a:-i office
Memorandum issued by the Department on 20th July, 1974, 15% and 7;·% of
the promotion posts stand reserved for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe
candidates respectively.
The petitioners were permanent Section Officers in the Central Secretariat
Service and officiating as Under Secretaries in different Ministrfos. They along-
with several other officials were included in the field of selection for the purpose
E of drawing up the select list for the year 1977 for promotion :o Grade I posts.
Twenty-seven vacancies reserved for members of the Scheduled Castes and'
Scheduled Tribes, remained unfilled because no candidate.-belnnging to those
categories was found suitable. For the purpose of filling those reserved vacan-
des, the Government of India decided to hold a limited departmental competi-
tive examination confined to members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes.
F
The petitioners argued that (i) the reservation of vacancies fer member• of'
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes by the office Memorandum dated·
20th July, 1974 was invalid (i:i) the newly enacted sub-rule (2a) of Rule 12, ht.
the Central Secretariat Service Rules and the related regulations were invalid
and the rule operated prospectively only and could not affect the 27. vacancies
to be filled in the select list of 1977. The Respondents took a preliminary
G objection that it was not a contention raised in the writ petitions and should·
not be allowed io be raised for, the first time by way of oral submission.
...
Dismissing the petition,
HELD : I. The entire scope of the petitions is limited to challenging the
validity and application of the Central Secretariat Service (Amendment) Rules,
1979 and the consequent regulations for holding a limited departmental compe-'
H titive examination. No relief has been sought for quashing the Office :Merna-•
randum dated 20th July, 1974. No ground has been taken in ,\he writ peti-
tions assailing the validity of the Office Memorandum. The Courts should
S: S. SHARMA V. UNION 1185

ordinarily insist on the parties being confined to their specific written pleadings A
and should not be permitted to deviate from them by way of modifica.tion or
supplementation except through the well-known process of forwally applying
for amendment. It is not that justice should be available to only those who
approach the court confined in a straight jacket; but there is a pro~edure known
to the law, and long established by codified practice and good reason, for seek·
ing amendment of the pleadil}gs. [1189 D-F]
If undue laxity and a too easy informality is permitted to enter the pro-
ceedings of a court, it will not be Jong before a contemptuous familiarity assails
its institutional dignity and ushers in chaos and confusion undermining its
effectiveness. [1189 F-G]
Oral submission raising new points for the first time tend to do grave injury
to a contesting party by depriving it of the opportunity, to which the principles
of natural justice held it entitled. of adequately ' preparing its response.
[1189 G-H] c
Whether or not reserved vacancies should be dereserved is a matter falling
primarily "~thin the administrative discretion of the Government There is
no ~ight in candidates seeking to fill vacancies belonging to the general category
to insist on dereservation of reserved vacancies so long as it is possible ln law
to fill the reserved vacancies. If at all, a claim in that behalf ean arise only
if no vali.d arrangement can be made for filling the reserved vacancies and de-
reservation is called for by reason of the prohibition, in clause (v) of p~ragraph D
2 of the -office memorandum dated 20th July, 1974, against the carry forward
of reservations from year to year in the event of an adequate number of Sche-
duled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates not being availab!C in any parti-
cular year. Before reaching this extremity, the Government acts wholly with-
in its power in adopting an alternative arrangement for filling the r~served
vacancies. Dereservation as a process should be resorted to only wb.en' it is
not reasonably possible, within the contemplation of law, to fill the reserved E
vacancies. The process of dereservation would otherwise -be <tntagonistic to
the principle embodied in Article 16(4) and Article 46 of the Constitution.
[1190 G-FJ
3. Once a decision has been taken to reserve vacancies for a backward
class of citizens, the programming effected to that end should not be disturbed
unless the avenues for fulfilling it have been explored and have failed It fa
only reasonable that the Government should dereserve the vacancies in view F
of the. prohibition against carrying them forward to the next year. (1190
G-H, 1191 B]
4. The question of holding the exarrii~ation arises only, as sub-rule (2a) of
rule 12 declares that when the reserved vacancies cannot be filled because eligible
officers from the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes ,are not availablo
through the original process. Resort to the further process arises because of
the cons~tutional mandate in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes G
because reserved vacancies must be filled if that is possible. It has not been
shown that the general category vacancies have remained unfilled for want of
suitable candidates. No need has arisen of being compelled to resort to a
further process of selection in regard to such vacancies. There is no require-
ment in law that the select list pertaining to n particular year must be finalized
within that year, [1191 E-G, 1192 BJ
H
It is open to the Government to complete the process of s~lection and fina-
lise it after the expiry of that year. It seems that when the Government found
that suitable candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
'1186 SUPRE.ME COURT REPORTS [1981] 1 S.C.R.

A were not available for inclusion in the field of selection, it decided to consider
the advisability of adopting some other mode of filling the reserved .vacancies.
:Yhe select list for 1977,' which inclujled already ninety-one names of officers
appointed to the general category vacancies, was held in abeyance for the pur-
pose of filling the twenty-seven reserved vacancies. After discussion with the
Chairman of the Union Public Service Commission and consideration of the
alternatives before it the Government decided on, holding a limited depart-
B mental competitive examination. As Jong as the sefect list was not declared
final, no officer could claim any right. [1192 B-E]
6. It is now well accepted, and has been affirmed by successive decisions
of this Court, that relaxed eligibility criteria would be justified in the case of
candidates of backward classes. The principle find~ expression also in the
original rule 12 of the Central Secretariat Service Rules. The record indicates
c that the lower eligibility standard was decided on after consultation with the
Chairman of the Union Public Service Commission. [1192-GH, 1193 A].
General Manager, Southern Railway v. Rangachari, [1962] 2 S.C.R. 586.
M. R. Balaji v. State o•f Mysore [1963] Supply. 1 S.C.R. 434, State of Kera/a
v. N. M. Thomas, [1967] I S.C.R. 9-06, affirmed.

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition Nos. 626-630 of 1979.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution)
Raghubir Malhotra, Yash Pal, N. D. Garg and S. K. Bisaria
for the Petitioners.
Mi<S'S. A Subhashini for Respondent No. 1.
S. 'f. Desai, Miss Bina Gupta and Praveen Kumar for other
E Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PATHAK, J.-The petitioners have filed ,these writ petitions
under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the
Central Secretariat Servk:e (Amendment) Rules, 1979 and of the
F Regulations made consequent thereto by the Union of India for the
purpose of holding a departmental competitive examination limited to
candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
for filling up vacancies. reserved for those categories in Grade I of
the Central Secretariat Service. :
G The petitioners are permanent Section Officers in the Central
Secretariat Service and almost all of them are presently officiating as
Under Secretaries in different Ministries•. The next higher category
in the Central Secretariat Service above the Section Officers' Grade
consists of Grade I posts. Recruiti;nent to the Grade I posts are
made under Rule 12 of the Central Secretariat Service Rules; vacan-
H cies are filled by the promotion of, inter aUa, permanent officers of
the Section officers' Grade who satisfy certain prescribed qualifica~
tions. For the purpose of such promotron a select list is prepared.
s. s. SHARMA v. UNION (Pathak, !.) 1187

The preparation of the select list is governed by the Central Secre- A
tariat Service (Promotion to Grade I & Selection Grade) Regulations,
1964. The select list is to be prepared once every year. The names
-of eligible officers are arranged in a single list by the Department of
Personnel & Administrative Reforms in the Cabinet Secretariat in
accordance with the field of selection determined by the Selection
Committee. Pursuant to an Office Memorandum issued by the B
Department on 20th July, 1974, 15% and 7t% of the promotion
posts stand reserVed for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candi:-
-dates respectively.
The petitioners along with several other officials were included
in the field of selection for the purpose of drawing up the select list c
for the year 1977 for promotion to the Grade I posts. After an
interview by the Selection Committee, ninety-one unreserved vacan-
ci:es' were filled from the first ninety-one candidates in the general
category. Twenty-seven vacancies, reserved for members of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, remained unfilled because no
candidate belonging to those categories was found suitable for includ-
n-
ing in the field of selection. For the purpose of filling those reserved
vacancies, the Government of India decided to hold a limited depart-
mental competitive .examination.confined to members of the Scheduled
Castes' and Scheduled Tribes. Accordingly, the President enacted the
Central Secretariat Service (Amendment) Rules, 1979 ·whereby sub-
E
rule (2a) was inserted below sub-rule (2) of Rule 12 of the Central
Secretariat Service Rules. Regulations, described as the Central
Secretariat Service Grade I (Limited Departmental Competitive
Examinatron for filling the vacancies reserved for Scheduled Castes
and S~heduled Tribes) Regulations, 1979 were promulgated providing
.for the holding of a .limited departmental competitive examination, F
including a statement of the conditions of eligi:bility and indicating
how the selection would take place on such examination. The first
·such examination was scheduled for July, 1979.

The case of the petitioners in the writ petitions is that the
Government ~f Indra was not empowered to fill up the reserved G
vacancies by recourse to a departmental competitive examination for
candidates from the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and that
instead the Government should have dereserved the vacancies and
made them available to candidates falling under the general category.
Had that been done; the petitioners say, !hey would · have been
considered for promotion and, having regard to thei:r position in the H
select list, they allege that they stood a probable chance of being
promoted. to Grade I. _The petitioners pray that the amendment of
1188 SUPRE~IE COURT REPORTS (1981] 1 S.C.R.

A Rule 12, Central Secretariat Service Rules and the framing of regula-
tions pursuant to the amendment should be declared u~tra vires, and
alternatively the amendment of the rules and the framing of the relat-
ed regulations be regarded as prospective only and not affecting the
twenty-seven reserved vacancies pertaining to the year 1977. It is
also prayed that the Union of India should be directed to take imme-
B diate steps for de-reserving the twenty-seven vacancies for the year
1977 and upon such de-reservation t11e petitioners be. considered for
filling those twenty-seven vacancies.
The· reservation of vacancies for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes in promoti:on posts from class II to class I of Government ser-
c vices flows from the Department of Personnel & Administrative Re-
forms Office Memorandum No. 10/41/73-Estt. (SCT), dated 20th
.July, 1974. Paragraph 2 of the Office Memorandum spells out how
the vacancies should be filled up. The selection is made from among
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe officers who are. within _th~
D normal zone of consideration. If candidates qualifying on the basi:s
of merit with due regard to seniority do not fill up all the reserved
vacancies, those remaining unfilled are to be filled by selecting candi-
dates of the two' communities who are in the zone of consi:deration
irrespective of merit but subject to their being considered fit for
E promotion.' A select list is then prepared of all the selected officers,
general as well as those belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes, arranged in the order of· merit and seniori:ty according to
priniciples laid down by the Ministry of Home Affairs. For deter-
mining the number of vacancies to be reserved for Scheduled Castes
F and Scheduled Tribes in a' select list, a separate roster prescribed by
an Office Memorandum dated 22nd April, 1970 is followed. Then,
· the relevant provision declares :
"If, owing to non-availability of suitable candidates belonging to
Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, as the case may be, it
G becomes necessary to de-reserve a reserved vacancy, a reference
for de-reservation should be made to thi:s Department indicating . . ._
whether the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes candidates eligi-
ble for promotion il1l reserved vacancies have been considered in
the manner indicated in this Office Memorandum."
A further provision prohibits the carrying forward of reservations from
H year to year in the event of an adequate number of Scheduled Caste
and Scheduled Tribe candidates not being available in any particular
year.
s. s. SHARMA v. UNION (Pathak, /.) 1189

Shri Raghubir ·Malhotra, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, A
opened with the contention that the reservation of vacancie8 for
members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes by the Office
Memorandum dated 20th July, 1974 was invalid. It was urged that
the Office Memorandum possessed at best the status of departmental
instructions and could not amend the Central Secretariat Service
Rules. It is not, it was said, a case of administrative instructions B
fillfng any gap or area left uncovered by that body of rules but, on
the contrary, it is a case where administrative instructions have been
made inconsistently with the rules. At the outset an objection was
taken by the respondents to our entertaining the contention because,
they point out, it is not a contention raised in the writ petitions and
should not be allowed to be raised for the first time by way of oral c
submission in the course of arguments during the final hearing of the
writ petitions. It is not denied by learned counsel for the petitioners
th at the point has not been specifically and clearly raised in the writ
petitions, but he asks- us to consider it by reason of what he describes
as "its fundamental importance". We have carefully perused the D
writ petitions, and it is plain that the entire scope of the petitions is
limited to challenging the validity and application of the Central.
Secretariat Service (Amendment) Rules, 1979 and the consequent
regulations for holding a limited departmental competitive examina-
tion. No relief has been sought for quashing the Office Memoran-
dum dated 20th July, 1974. No ground has been taken i.n the writ E
petitions assailing the validity of the Office Memorandum on the basis
now pressed before us. We are of opinion that the courts should
ordinarily insist on the parties being confined to their specific written
pleadings and should not be permitted to deviate from them by way
of modification or supplementation except through the well-known
process of formally applying for amendment. We do not mean that F
justice should be available to only those who approach the court
confine!! in a straight jacket. But there is a procedure known to the
law, and long established by codified practice and good reason, for
seeking amendment of the pleadings. If undue laxity and a too easy
informality is permitted to enter the proceedings of a court it will not
G
be long before a contemptuous familiarity assails its institutional
dignity and u~hers in chaos and confusion undermining its effective-
ness. Like every public institution, the courts functron in the security
of pabli c confidence, and public confidence resides most where institu-
tional discipline prevails. Besides this, oral submissions raising new
points for the first time tend to do grave in jury to a contesting party H
by depriving it of the opportunity, to whrch the principles of natural
justice hold it entitled, of adequately preparing its' response.
15-6 S. C. Jndia/ND/81
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 1 S.C.R.

~ We must, therefore, decline to entertain the point now raised
concerning the validity of the Office Memorandum.

We shall now proceed directly to the principal contentions raised
in the writ petitions. It is first contended that sub-rule (2a) of
B Rule 12, newly enacted in the Central Secretariat Service Rules, and
the . related Regulations, providing for a limited departmental com-
petitive examination for members of the Scheduled Castes aJ?.d Sche-
ouled Tribes are invalid because the Central Government should have
dereserved the twenty-sev1;:n vacancies when it was found that suitable
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates were not available
for inclusion within the field of selection. There is .no merit infuls
contention. Whether or not reserved vacancies should be de-reserved
is a matter falling primarily within the administrative discretion of
the Government. There is no right in candidates seeking to fill
vacancies· belonging to the general category to insist on dereservation
of reserved vacancies so long as it is possible in law to fill the reserv-
It ed vacancies. If at all, a claim in that behalf can arise only if no
valid arrangement can be made for filling the reserved vacancies, and
dereservation is called for by reason of the prohibition, in clause (v)
of paragraph 2 of the Office Memorandum dated 20th July, 1974,
·against the carry forward of reservations from year to year in the
event of an adequate number of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe
E candidates not being available in any particular year. Before reach-
ing this extremity, the Government acts wholly within its power in
adopting an alternative arrangement for filling the reserved. vacancies.
Dereservatron as a process should be resorted to only when it is not
reasonably possible, within the contemplation of law, to fill the
i:eserved vacancies. The process of dereservation would otherwise
F
be antagonistic to the principle embodied in Article 16(4) and Arti-
cle 46 of the Constitution. Paragraph 10.4 in the Brochure on Reser-
vation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the Services,
·prepared by the Government of India, provides that dereservation
should be proposed only when such a course becomes inevitable due
to non-availability of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candi-
dates for appointment against the reserved vacancies after having
.fully observed the procedure prescribed in this behalf and after
-applying relaxed standards in the case of such candidates. Once a
decision has been taken to reserve vacancies for a backward class of
.citizens, the programming effected to that end should not be disturbed
unles8 the avenues for fulfilling it have been explored and have failed .
.If the petitioners can succeed in showing that the provisions in the
Central Secretariat Service Rules, and the consequent Regulations,
s. s. SHARMA v. UNION (Pathak, J.) ·H91

providing for holding the limi:ted departmental competitive examina- A
tion are ultra vires and void and there is no evidence of any other
appropriate arrangement for filling the reserved vacancies they may
have a case for contending that as there is no prospect of finding
suitable Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates for ap-
pointment to the reserved vacancies it is only reasonable that the
Government should dereserve the vacancies in view of the prohibi- B
tion against carrying them forward to the next year.

That takes us then to the validity of sub-rule (2a) of rule 12 of
the Central Secretariat Service Rules and the Regulations of 1979..
Their validity is challenged by the petitioners· on the ground that they
violate Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution inasmuch as they
result in two avenues of promotion for Government servants belonging
to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, while a single avenue
only of promotion is available to other Government servants..
Ex facie, the contention must fail. The two avenues of promotion
pointed out by. learned counsel for ·the petitioners' consist in, one, the
D
preparation of a· list of officers falling within the field of selection,
:both of the general category as well as members of Scheduled Castes
·and Scheduled Tribes and their selection on the basis of the princi-
ples laid down and, two, the .select.ion of candidates of Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes consequent upon the limited depart~
'mental competitive examination. While consrdering this submission',
E
we must remember that resort to the limited departmental competi-
tive examination is not simultaneous with the preparation of the list
embodying the field of selection. The question of holding the exa~
mination arises only, as &ub-rule (2a) of rule 12 declares, when the
reserved vacancies cannot be filled because eligible officers from the
:Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are not available through the
-original process. Resort . .to the further process arises because of the
constitutional mandate in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes, because reserved vacancies must be filled n that is possible.
_The petitioners could complain if such a need arose in respect · of
general category vacancies and was not supplied. It has not been
shown that the general category vacancies have remained unfilled for G
want of suitable candidates. No need has arisen of being compelled
to resort to a further process of selection in regard to such vacan~
des. In the circumstances, it is not possible to see how a legitimate
complaint can be laid by the petitioners on the basis· alleged before
us. It has been urged that the decision of the Government not to
dereserve the twenty-seven. vacancies is vitiated by legal malice. H
Having regard to the considerations t9 which we have adverted, we
:see no substance in that subi:nrssion. ' ' '
1192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS f1981] 1 S.C.R.

.A The next contention on behalf of the petitioners is that sub-
rule (2a) of rnle 12 enacted in 1979 operates prospectively only and
cannot effect the twenty-s1;ven vacancies to be filled in the Select
List of 1977. The argument proceeds on the assumption that the
Select List of 1977 must be completed during the year 1977. The
submission is founded in fallacy. There rs no requirement in law
B that the Select List pertaining to a particular year must be finafaed
within that year. It is ope:n to the Government to complete the pro-
cess of selection and finalise it after the expiry of that year. It seems
that when the Government found that suitable candidates belonging
to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were not available for
inclusion in the field of selection, it decided to consider the advisabi-
lity of adopting some other mode of filling the reserved vacancies. It
appears that on 10th August, 1978 the Government stated in
Parliament that as no Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe officers
could be included in the field of consideration proposals for filling the
vacancies through some special method had been taken up with the
Union Public Service Commission. The Select List for 1977, which
D
included already ninety-one names of officers appointed to the gene-
ral category vacancies, was' held in abeyance for the purpose of filling
the twenty-seven reserved! vacancies. After discussion with the
Chairman of the Union Public Service Commission and consideration
of the alternatives beforn it the Government decided on holding a
E limited departmental competitive examination. As long as the Select
List was not declared final, no officer could claim any right. In the
aforesaid circumstances, it is not pos·sible to say that in holding the
departmental competitrve examination the· Government was applying •
sub-rule (2a) of rule 12, and the Regulations, retrospectively.

F A grievance has also been made of the circumstance that the
qualifying standard for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candi-
dates appearing at the limited departmentai competitive examination
is as low as four years approved and contrnuous service in the Sec"
tion Officer's Grade, while a period of ten years is insisted on in the
case of officers who do not belong to either class and are considered
G for vacancies in the general category. The definition of "crucial
date" in clause (a) of Regulation 2 of the Regulatrons of 1979 as a
point of reference qualifying the eligibility standard, it is urged,
permits an even lower eligibility standard for Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribe candidates. It is now well accepted, and has been
affirmed by successive decisions of this Court, that relaxed eligibility
H criteria would be justified in the case of candidates of backward
classes. The principle finds expression also in the original rule 12
of the Central Secretariat Service Rules. The record before us
s. s. SHARMA v. UNION (Pathak, J.) 1193

indicates that the lower eligibility standard was decided on after con- A
sultation with the Chairman of the Union Public Service Commis-
sion. As regards the number of years of approved service considered
sufficient for eligibility, we find that even if we consider ourselves
entitled to go into that question the paucity of relevant material does
not permit us to express any opinion in the matter.
B
Learned counsel for the petitioners has also challenged the
reservation of the twenty-seven vacancies on the ,ground that · the
vacancies pertain to selection posts. On this point, we find ourselves
bound by the decision of this Court in General Manager, Southern
Railway v. Rarigachari( 1 ) where it has been held that Article 16 ( 4)
of the Constitution extends to selection posts. c
Finally, learned counsel for the petiti:oners challenges the
reservation of vacancies on the ground that they are irrational, in-
hibiting and do not provide for healthy growth of the services besides
offending the equality provisions of Part III of the Constitution.
Having regard to the percentage of vacancies reserved under the Office D
Memorandum dated 20th July, 1974, we consider that the case falls
within the principles laid down in M. R. Balaji v. State of Mysore.(2)
The majority view in State of Kera/a v. N. M. Thomas(3) supports
the validity of the reservation.
Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed, but without any
order as to costs. E

N.K.A. Petitions dismissed.

(I) [1962] 2 S.C.R. 586.
(2) [1963] Suppl. 1 S.C.R. 439.
(3) [l 976] 1 S.C.R. 906.