Balaji v.

State of mysore, the Mysore Government issued an order under Article

15(4) reserving seats in the Medical and Engineering collages in the State as
Follows: Backward classes 28%, more Backward classes 20%, Scheduled castes
and Tribes 18%. Thus 68% of the seats available in the Collages were reserved
and only 32% was made available to the merit pool. The validity of the order was
challenged by candidates who had secured more marks than those admitted
under the order. Though qualified on merit they had failed to get admission only
be reason of the Government order. The Court held that the sub-classification
made by the order between backward classes and more backward classes was
not justified under Article 15(4). Backwardness as envisaged by Article 15(4)
must be both social and educational and not either social or educational. Though
caste may be a relevant factor but it cannot be the sole test for ascertaining
whether a particular class is a backward class or not. Poverty, occupation, place
of habitation may all be relevant factors to be taken into consideration. Article
15(4) does not speak of castes, but only speaks classes, and caste and class
are not synonymous. The impugned order, however, proceeds only on the basis
of caste without regard to other relevant factors and that is sufficient to render
the order invalid. The Court said that the State was not justified in including in
the list of backward classes all those castes or communities whose average of
student population per thousand was slightly above or very near or just below
the State average. Only those which were well below the average can be
regarded backward. Thus the main defect of the system adopted by the State
was that under it 90% of the population of the State was backward. It was held
that this was inconsistent with Article 15(4). Reservation of 68% per cent of seats
in technical institution, such as Engineering and Medical Collages to the
exclusion of all other candidates if a single candidate from the Scheduled Tribes
was available, would amount to fraud upon the constitution. Clause (4) of Article
15 only enables the State to make special and not exclusive provision for the
backward classes. The State would not be justified ignoring altogether
advancement of the rest of the society I its zeal to promote the welfare of
backward classes. National interest would suffer if qualified and competent
students were excluded from admission in institution of higher education.
Speaking generally, the Court said, the special provision should be less than 50%
how much less than 50% would depend upon the relevant prevailing
circumstances in each case.

In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India well known as Mandal Commission case the
Supreme Court by 6:3 majority has held that the sub-classification of
backward classes into more backward and backward classes as a result of
sub-classification the reservation cannot exceed more than 50 per cent.
The distinction should be on the basis of degrees of social backwardness.
Infact, such a classification would be necessary to help the more backward
classes otherwise those of the Backward classes who are little more
advanced than more backward classes might take away all the seats. This
interpretation is equally applicable to Article 15(4), as the words
Backward classes of citizen in Article 16(4) are wider and includes the

SCs and STs and other socially and educationally backward classes also.
On this point the decision in Balajis case has been disapproved and State
of A.P. v.U.S.V. Balram and K.C Vasanth Kumar v. State of Karnataka have
been followed by the Court. As regards the limit of reservation the majority
has held that the total reservation shall not exceed 50%. This general rule
can be relaxed in extraordinary situations for population living in far flung
areas of the country as it may be desirable to treat them differently. On
this point, the Court affirmed the Balaji and Devadasam casas and
overruled the State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas and K.C Vasanth Kumar v.
State of Karnataka cases.

In a Periakaruppam v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court held that

classification of backward classes on basis of castes is well within the
purview of Article 15(4) provided those castes are shown to be socially and
educationally backward. But the Court advised that the Government
should not proceed on the basis that once a class is considered as
backward it should continue as backward class for all the times. Such an
approach, the Court said, would defeat the very purpose of the
reservation. The Government should always keep under review the
question of reservation of seats and only the classes which are really,
socially and educationally backward should be allowed to have the benefit
of reservation. Reservation of seats should not be allowed to become
vested interest. The Government decision in this regard is open to judicial
review.