(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Battu Devanand)
The Constitution of India, as envisioned by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar and the
framers of our constitutional framework, does not confine itself to the notion of
mere formal equality. The constitutional philosophy seeks to secure
substantive equality by addressing historical disadvantages and structural
inequalities faced by socially marginalized sections of society. Recognizing
that identical treatment among unequal may itself result in injustice, the
constitutional scheme permits affirmative measures to ensure meaningful
equality of opportunity, including provisions relating to reservation in public
employment.
2. The constitutional commitment towards social justice subsequently
evolved through judicial interpretation and constitutional amendments,
particularly in matters concerning representation of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes in public services. Reservation in promotion emerged as
one of the instruments intended to remedy continuing under-representation
and institutional barriers faced by historically disadvantaged communities. The
constitutional amendments introducing Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B) signify the
recognition by Parliament that equality of opportunity under Article 16 may, in
appropriate circumstances, require protective measures extending beyond
initial appointment and into promotional avenues. The present case, therefore,
calls upon this Court to examine the delicate balance between the
constitutional guarantee of equality and the enabling provisions designed to
achieve substantive justice, particularly in the context of reservation in
promotions and consequential seniority.
