LPA No.236/2009 Page 1 of 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 236/2009 & CM Nos. 7276-77/2009 ADITYA KUMAR ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rahul Shukla, Advocate. versus UPSC & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Naresh Kaushik and Ms. Amita Kalkal, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL O R D E R % 19.05.2009 1. The present appeal arises out of the impugned order dated 24th April, 2009. 2. The grievance of the appellant (original petitioner in the writ petition) is that though SC/ST and OBC candidates are given much larger number of attempts at passing the UPSC examination for Indian Civil Services, the General category candidates are not entitled to more than four attempts. This, as per the appellant, is without any basis. 3. The learned single Judge after noticing judgments of the Supreme Court has rightly held that vide Article 16(4) of the LPA No.236/2009 Page 2 of 3 Constitution of India, affirmative action can be taken with respect to backward classes. The policy of the Union of India, therefore, giving more than four attempts to candidates of SC/ST and OBC categories to clear the examination, does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness and is based on intelligible differentia and a nexus with the object sought to be achieved that is of promoting the backward sections of the society. 4. As held by the Supreme Court in C.A. Rajendran vs. Union of India, AIR 1968 SC 507, that Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India, like Article 14 of the Constitution of India permits of reasonable classification. It was also held in the same judgment that clause (4) of Article 16 of the Constitution of India is an instance and elaboration of the principle of classification which is inherent in clause(1) of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. 5. As held by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India, Supp (3) SCC 217, that clause (4) of Article 16 is exhaustive of the concept of reservation in favour of backward classes. The very object of Article 16(4) is to ensure equality of opportunity in matters of public employment and give adequate representation to those who have been placed in a very discontent position from time immemorial on account of sociological reasons. To put it differently, the purpose of clause (4) is to ensure the benefits flowing from the fountain of this clause on the beneficiaries – namely the Backward Classes – who in the opinion of the Constitution makers, would have otherwise found LPA No.236/2009 Page 3 of 3 it difficult to enter into public services, competing with advanced classes and who could not be kept in limbo until they are benefited by the positive action schemes and who have suffered and are still suffering from historic disabilities arising from past discrimination or disadvantage or both. However, unfortunately all of them had been kept at bay on account of various factors, operating against them inclusive of poverty. They continue to be deprived of enjoyment of equal opportunity in matters of public employment despite there being sufficient statistical evidence in proof of manifest imbalance in Government jobs which evidence is sufficient to support an affirmative action plan. 6. We see no infirmity in the policy of the Union of India giving more than four attempts to candidates from SC/ST and OBC categories to clear the UPSC examination for the Indian Civil Services. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The pending applications stand disposed of as well. CHIEF JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL, J. MAY 19, 2009 sb