Question

The above passage has been taken from which of the following recent judgments, relating to the question of reservation in promotions for the disabled persons?

• A. National Federation of the Blind v. Sanjay Kothari, Secy. Deptt. of Personnel and Training.
• B. Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka & Ors
• C. Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
• D. Ashok Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.
• A. Reservation in promotion can only be granted to the class of citizens mentioned under Article 16 (4).
• B. Reservation in promotion cannot be granted to a class of citizen provided by the virtue of Article 16 (1).
• C. The scheme of reservation in promotion can be extended to any class of citizens under the scheme of Article 16 (1)
• D. Reservation in promotion defeats the scheme of Article 16 (1) and Article 15 (1).
• A. The reservation provided to persons with disability is constitutionally valid as it falls within the horizontal scheme of reservation.
• B. The judgment in Indira Sawhney is not applicable to the persons with disability and hence such reservation is valid.
• C. The reservation to PWD does not fall under the scheme of Article 16 (4) and hence unconstitutional.
• D. The reservation to PWD does not fall under the scheme of Article 16 (4) and hence unconstitutional.
• A. If the junior candidate promoted on the basis of reservation gets promoted to further grade by the time senior general category candidate is promoted to earlier grade, the question of seniority does not arise.
• B. A reserved category candidate promoted on the basis of reservation earlier than his senior general category candidates in the feeder category, shall become junior when general category senior candidate too gets promoted
• C. The candidate promoted to higher grade on the basis of reservation remains senior even if his senior is promoted to the same grade.
• D. None of the above.
• A. Catch-up rule.
• B. Carry forward rule.
• C. Consequential seniority.
• D. All of the above.
• A. Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes.
• B. Backward class of citizens.
• C. PWD candidates.
• D. All of the above.
• A. Struck down in C.A. Rajendra case.
• B. Struck down in M. Nagraj case.
• C. Upheld in Jarnail Singh case.
• D. Upheld in C.A. Rajendra case.
• A. Collection of quantifiable data to determine inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs.
• B. Collection of quantifiable data to determine the backwardness.
• C. Collection of data on efficiency of administration
• D. All the above.
• A. All reservations
• B. SC ST reservations
• C. OBC reservation
• D. Only horizontal reservation
• A. University as a whole
• B. Faculties of the University
• C. Departments of the University
• D. (a) and (b)

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

The correct Option is (B):Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka & Ors

Answer 2

The passage is a lengthy extract from a judgment discussing the earlier Division Bench ruling in Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Others v. Union of India & Others, (2016) 13 SCC 153, and the question asks which case the passage itself is excerpted from, not which case is being discussed inside it.

1. National Federation of the Blind v. Sanjay Kothari: This case concerns identification of posts for persons with visual disability under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, and does not carry the discussion on the interplay between Article 16(4) and the nine-Judge ruling in Indra Sawhney that appears here, so it is not the source.
2. Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka & Ors: This is a three-Judge Bench ruling of R.F. Nariman, Aniruddha Bose and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. (the exact composition named at the end of the extract), delivered while examining horizontal reservation for persons with disabilities in the Karnataka judicial service. In arriving at its conclusion, the Bench revisits and applies the earlier Rajeev Kumar Gupta ruling, which is precisely the passage reproduced above.
3. Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.: This is the 2016 Division Bench ruling the extract is describing and quoting from (paragraphs 14 to 21 of that judgment appear inside the passage), so it is the judgment being discussed, not the judgment the passage is taken from.
4. Ashok Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.: There is no service-law ruling of that title dealing with reservation for the disabled that fits the bench composition or the content reproduced here.

Since the extract carries the exact three-Judge signature of Nariman, Aniruddha Bose and Ramasubramanian, JJ., and treats Rajeev Kumar Gupta as an earlier authority being applied rather than being that authority itself, the source has to be the later ruling that cites it.

Hence, the correct answer is Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Answer 3

The correct Option is (C):The scheme of reservation in promotion can be extended to any class of citizens under the scheme of Article 16 (1)

Answer 4

The question tests the constitutional principle that emerges from the reasoning reproduced in the passage regarding reservation in promotion.

1. Option A: This states that promotional reservation is confined to classes named in Article 16(4), i.e. backward classes. The reasoning in the passage expressly rejects this limitation, holding that Article 16(1) independently supports preferential treatment for classes such as persons with disabilities who fall outside 16(4), so this option is too narrow.
2. Option B: This claims the opposite of what the passage holds. Far from barring reservation under Article 16(1), the passage affirms that the State can extend differential treatment to a class of citizens under Article 16(1) even without resorting to 16(4), provided the classification is not built on the forbidden grounds of caste, religion, sex, place of birth or descent.
3. Option C: This mirrors the actual holding: Article 16(1), being the general equality guarantee in public employment, can itself support reservation or preferential treatment for any class of citizens deserving such treatment, so long as the basis chosen is not one of the criteria barred to the State, with 16(4) being only one specific, non-exhaustive instance of this wider power.
4. Option D: This treats reservation in promotion as inherently destructive of equality. The passage's reasoning is to the contrary, treating properly grounded preferential treatment as compatible with, not a violation of, Articles 16(1) and 15(1).

The reasoning traced in the extract is built precisely to establish that the reservation scheme is not confined to Article 16(4) alone but can rest on Article 16(1) for any deserving class, which is what Option C states.

Hence, the correct answer is the scheme of reservation in promotion can be extended to any class of citizens under the scheme of Article 16(1).

Answer 5

The correct Option is (A):The reservation provided to persons with disability is constitutionally valid as it falls within the horizontal scheme of reservation.

Answer 6

The question requires distinguishing horizontal reservation (cutting across every vertical category, such as reservation for women or the disabled) from vertical, caste-based reservation under Article 16(4), to which the 50 per cent ceiling fixed in Indra Sawhney applies.

1. Option A: Horizontal reservation for persons with disability is not layered on top of the vertical quotas as an additional block; it is applied within each vertical category (general, OBC, SC, ST) as a cross-cutting entitlement, so the nominal arithmetic total of 51 per cent does not translate into an actual breach of the ceiling fixed for vertical reservation.
2. Option B: Saying Indra Sawhney simply “is not applicable” to persons with disability is directionally right but analytically incomplete: it skips over the horizontal-versus-vertical distinction that actually resolves the apparent conflict with the 50 per cent figure.
3. Option C: This claims the disability quota is unconstitutional because it does not fit within Article 16(4). That premise is unnecessary, since preferential treatment for the disabled draws its validity from Article 16(1), not from 16(4), so nothing about it is unconstitutional for falling outside 16(4).
4. Option D: This is a verbatim repeat of Option C and fails for the identical reason.

Because horizontal reservation operates by intersecting with, rather than stacking onto, vertical reservation, the arithmetic total exceeding 50 per cent does not offend Indra Sawhney, and the constitutional basis in Article 16(1) makes the scheme valid.

Hence, the correct answer is the reservation provided to persons with disability is constitutionally valid as it falls within the horizontal scheme of reservation.

Answer 7

The correct Option is (B):A reserved category candidate promoted on the basis of reservation earlier than his senior general category candidates in the feeder category, shall become junior when general category senior candidate too gets promoted

Answer 8

The catch-up rule is a judicially evolved principle about how seniority is recalculated once a general category employee, who was superseded earlier because a junior reserved category employee got promoted first under reservation, himself reaches the same higher grade.

1. Option A: This describes a scenario where the reserved candidate has already moved to a further, third grade before the senior general candidate is promoted even to the earlier grade. That is not the catch-up rule; it is simply a case where the two employees never occupy the same grade at the same time, so no seniority contest arises.
2. Option B: This captures the catch-up rule precisely: a reserved category employee promoted earlier than his senior, general category colleague purely because of reservation, does not retain that seniority permanently. The moment the senior general candidate is later promoted to the very same grade, he “catches up” and reclaims his seniority, pushing the reserved candidate back to a junior position in that grade.
3. Option C: This is the reverse of the catch-up rule. Letting the reservation-based promotee stay senior even after the general candidate is promoted describes consequential seniority, the principle later introduced by Article 16(4A) to override catch-up, not the catch-up rule itself.
4. Option D: Since Option B accurately states the rule, this is incorrect.

The catch-up rule is specifically about the general category senior regaining his seniority once he reaches the same grade, which makes the reserved promotee junior again at that point.

Hence, the correct answer is a reserved category candidate promoted on the basis of reservation earlier than his senior general category candidates in the feeder category, shall become junior when general category senior candidate too gets promoted.

Answer 9

The correct Option is (C):Consequential seniority.

Answer 10

Article 16(4A) was inserted by the Constitution (Eighty-Fifth Amendment) Act, 2001, and its language needs to be read closely to answer this question correctly.

1. Option A: Catch-up is the judge-made rule that Article 16(4A) was specifically enacted to overcome, so it is the opposite of what the provision grants.
2. Option B: Carry-forward is a distinct concept, dealing with unfilled reserved vacancies of one year being carried over to subsequent recruitment years; it belongs to the jurisprudence around Article 16(4), not to the text of 16(4A).
3. Option C: Article 16(4A) expressly empowers the State to make provision for reservation “in matters of promotion, with consequential seniority,” in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. “Consequential seniority” appears in the text itself, making this the accurate answer.
4. Option D: Since Options A and B are not part of what 16(4A) provides, “all of the above” cannot be correct.

Reading the actual words of Article 16(4A) shows it grants reservation in promotion together with consequential seniority, and nothing about catch-up or carry-forward.

Hence, the correct answer is Consequential seniority.

Answer 11

The correct Option is (A):Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes.

Answer 12

This question turns on which class of citizens Article 16(4A) names as its beneficiaries, as distinct from the wider language used in Article 16(4).

1. Option A: Article 16(4A) opens with the words “in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes”, naming only these two categories, so the provision's textual scope is limited to SCs and STs.
2. Option B: “Backward class of citizens” is the broader phrase used in Article 16(4), which covers OBCs as well as SCs and STs; that wider phrase does not appear in 16(4A), so this option describes the wrong provision.
3. Option C: Persons with disability are not mentioned in Article 16(4A) at all; their entitlement to preferential treatment is instead traced to Article 16(1), independent of 16(4A).
4. Option D: Since only SCs and STs are named in the text, an “all of the above” answer overstates the provision's reach.

The plain words of Article 16(4A) confine its promotion-with-seniority benefit specifically to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

Hence, the correct answer is Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes.

Answer 13

The correct Option is (D):Upheld in C.A. Rajendra case.

Answer 14

The question asks about the fate of the government's original policy of not extending promotional reservation to Class I and Class II posts, at the point in time when that policy was first tested before the Supreme Court.

1. Option A: This states the policy was struck down in the C.A. Rajendran case. In fact, in C.A. Rajendran v. Union of India (1968), the Supreme Court took the opposite view, treating Article 16(4) as an enabling, not a mandatory, provision, and upholding the government's discretion not to extend reservation to promotions in these higher posts.
2. Option B: M. Nagraj v. Union of India (2006) dealt with the conditions the State must satisfy before exercising the Article 16(4A) power, such as quantifiable data on backwardness and inadequate representation; it did not concern, and could not have struck down, a much earlier policy decision predating that provision.
3. Option C: Jarnail Singh v. Union of India (2018) revisited and narrowed the conditions laid down in M. Nagraj; it also does not address the original Class I/II no-reservation-in-promotion policy from the 1960s.
4. Option D: This matches the actual outcome: the C.A. Rajendran ruling upheld the government's policy of withholding reservation in promotion for Class I and Class II posts, treating Article 16(4) as conferring a discretionary power rather than imposing a duty.

Since the earliest and directly relevant precedent on this specific policy is C.A. Rajendran v. Union of India, and that ruling sustained rather than invalidated the policy, the outcome was one of upholding it.

Hence, the correct answer is Upheld in C.A. Rajendra case.

Answer 15

The correct Option is (B):Collection of quantifiable data to determine the backwardness.

Answer 16

M. Nagraj v. Union of India (2006) had conditioned the exercise of the Article 16(4A) power on the State collecting quantifiable data on three fronts, and Jarnail Singh v. Union of India (2018) revisited each of them individually.

1. Option A: The requirement to collect quantifiable data on inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs in the relevant cadre was retained by Jarnail Singh; it was not the condition that was overruled.
2. Option B: Jarnail Singh held that requiring the State to additionally prove the backwardness of SCs and STs before granting promotional reservation was inconsistent with the nine-Judge ruling in Indra Sawhney, which had already treated SCs and STs as constitutionally presumed to be backward. This specific requirement from M. Nagraj was therefore overruled.
3. Option C: The requirement to keep overall administrative efficiency in mind, tied to Article 335, was left undisturbed by Jarnail Singh; it continues to apply.
4. Option D: Since only the backwardness-data requirement was overruled while the other two conditions survived, “all of the above” overstates the holding.

Jarnail Singh's central correction to M. Nagraj was to remove the extra burden of proving backwardness for SC/ST candidates, while keeping the representation and efficiency requirements in place.

Hence, the correct answer is Collection of quantifiable data to determine the backwardness.

Answer 17

The correct Option is (C):OBC reservation

Answer 18

The creamy layer doctrine excludes the socially and economically advanced members of a backward class from availing reservation meant for that class, and its origin and primary field of operation need to be identified here.

1. Option A: Saying it applies to “all reservations” overstates the doctrine; SC and ST reservation, for instance, has historically not carried a creamy layer exclusion in the way OBC reservation does, since SC/ST status was treated by Indra Sawhney as a matter of social stigma rather than purely economic backwardness.
2. Option B: Blanket application to “SC ST reservations” is not accurate either; the creamy layer concept as laid down in Indra Sawhney was developed specifically in the context of the “backward class of citizens” under Article 16(4), understood as the OBC category, and its later, narrower extension to SC/ST promotions remained a promotion-specific development rather than the doctrine's general field.
3. Option C: Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, the case discussed at length earlier in this set, laid down the creamy layer test as a condition for OBC reservation, to ensure that reservation benefits reach the genuinely disadvantaged within that class rather than its already-advanced members. This is the doctrine's settled, primary application.
4. Option D: Horizontal reservation, such as for women or the disabled, is a structurally different concept from the vertical, class-based reservation to which creamy layer exclusion applies, so this option misidentifies the field entirely.

The creamy layer test was fashioned by Indra Sawhney precisely to filter out the advanced sections from within backward classes claiming reservation, which is the OBC category.

Hence, the correct answer is OBC reservation.

Answer 19

The correct Option is (C):Departments of the University

Answer 20

This question is about the correct “unit” against which teaching-post reservation rosters in universities are computed, an issue that produced considerable controversy because the choice of unit directly affects how many reserved posts actually get created.

1. Option A: Treating the university as a single, composite unit spreads reserved posts across the institution as a whole; this was the older roster method, but it was not the position adopted in the Vivekanand Tiwari ruling.
2. Option B: Faculties are broader academic groupings above individual subject departments; the ruling did not fix the unit at this intermediate level either.
3. Option C: The unit was fixed at the level of the individual department, meaning the roster for reservation is drawn up separately for each department's own teaching posts rather than pooling posts across the whole university. This narrower unit is what the ruling settled on.
4. Option D: Since the correct unit is the department alone, and not a combination of the university as a whole together with faculties, this composite option is incorrect.

The department-wise computation was the specific holding on this point, even though it later drew criticism for shrinking the effective number of reserved posts in departments with few vacancies.

Hence, the correct answer is Departments of the University.