AJIT SINGH AND ORS.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

                         AJIT SINGH AND ORS.                                     A
                                  v.
                     ST A TE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

                           DECEMBER 8, 1999

  [DR. A.S. ANAND, CJ., S.B. MAJMUDAR, G.B. PATTANAIK S.P.                       B
          KURDUKAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.]


      Constitution of India, I950 :

      Article I6(4)-Public employment-Power of State to make provision           C
for reservation for backward class of citizens-Held, Article I 6(4) is only an
enabling provision.

      Ajit Singh II v. State of Punjab, [1997) 7 SCC 209, reiterated.

       Indira Sawhney v. Union ofIndia, (1992) Suppl. 2 SCR 454; MR. Balaji D
v. State of Mysore, (1963) Suppl. 1SCR439; C.A. Rajendran v. Union ofIndia,
(1968) 1 SCR ·721; P& T Scheduled Caste/Tribe Employees Welfare
Association (Regd.) v. Union of India, (1998) 4 SCC 147 and State Bank of
India v. Scheduled Caste/Tribe Employees Welfare Association, 1996 4 SCC
119, relied on.                                                             E
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Review Petition (Civil) Nos.
1504-1506of1999.

                                      IN

      I.A. Nos. 1-3 of 1997.
                                                                                 F

                                      IN

      Civil Appeal Nos. 3792-3794 of 1989.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 23.8. l 989 of the Punjab and Haryana     G
High Court in C.W.P. Nos. 2190/88, 7860-7861of1987.

      The following Order of the Court was delivered :

      Delay condoned.
                                      195                                        H
    196                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) SUPP. 5 S.C.R:

A         We are of the view that there are no merits in the review applications.

          In Ajit Singh II v. State of Punjab, [1997] 7 SCC 209, It was stated (at
    PP. 229-230) relying upon earlier judgments starting from 1963, that Article
    16(4) was only an enabling provision and did not impose any constitutional
    duty nor confer any fundamental right for reservations. The observations at
B   page 691 by Jeevan Reddy, J. in Indira Sawhney relied upon in the review
    applications do not deal with the above issue. It was the view of two
    Constitution Bench Judgments of this Court one of 1963 in M.R. Ba/aji v.
    State ofMysore, [1963] Supp. 1 SCR439 and another in 1968 in C.A. Rajendran
    v. Union ofIndia, [1968] 1 SCR 721 and also two three judgments of this Court
C   in P& T Scheduled Caste/Tribe Employees Welfare Association (Regd) v.
    Union of India, [1998] 4 SCC 147 and State Bank of India v. Scheduled Castel
    Tribes Employees Welfare Association, [ 1996] 4 SCC 1191, that Article 16 (4)
    was only an enabling provision. The view was nowhere dissented in Indira
    Sawhney much less at page 691 by Jeevan Reddy, J.

D         It appears to us that all the nine Judges in Indira Sawhney were of the
    same view that Article 16 (4) was not in the nature of a fundamental right and
    was only an enabling provision. In this connection, reference may be made
    with advantage to the view of the Jeevan Reddy, J. (at pages 667-735) referring
    to Subba Rao, J. That Article 16 (4) was a provision conferring a 'power' and
    referring to Article 16 (1) alone as a guarantee and not to Article 16 (4); to
E   the view of Sawant, J. (at page 517, para 43 (4), Pandian J. (at page 407, para
    168). Thommen, J. (at page 449, para 284), Sahai, J. (at page 580) with whom
    Kuldip Singh, J. agreed, - all expressly stating that Article 16 (4) was only an
    enabling provision. Thus, majority of the learned Judges expressly stated that
    Article 16 (4) was an "enabling provision". Merely because the reservation
F   for backward classes was created as reasonable classification and justified at
    page 691, that does not detract from the view that Article 16 (4) was only an
    enabling provision.

           For the aforesaid reasons; we find there is no merit in these review
    petitions which are dismissed.
G
    RP.                                               Review Petitions dismissed.



                                                                                       ..
                                                                                       '