The Madhya Pradesh government’s recent decision to reserve all government jobs for “children of the state” raises constitutional questions relating to the fundamental right to equality.

Try this PYQ:

One of the implications of equality in society is the absence of- (CSP 2018)

(a) Privileges

(b) Restraints

(c) Competition

(d) Ideology

Constitutional provision for Equal Treatment

• Article 16 of the Constitution guarantees equal treatment under the law in matters of public employment. It prohibits the state from discriminating on grounds of place of birth or residence.
• Article 16(2) states that “no citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any employment or office under the State”.
• The provision is supplemented by the other clauses in the Constitution that guarantee equality.
• However, Article 16(3) of the Constitution provides an exception by saying that Parliament may make a law “prescribing” a requirement of residence for jobs in a particular state.
• This power vests solely in the Parliament, not state legislatures.

Why does the Constitution prohibit reservation based on domicile?

• When the Constitution came into force, India turned itself into one nation from a geographical unit of individual principalities and the idea of the universality of Indian citizenship took root.
• India has single citizenship, and it gives citizens the liberty to move around freely in any part of the country.
• Hence the requirement of a place of birth or residence cannot be qualifications for granting public employment in any state.

But are reservations not granted on other grounds such as caste?

• Equality enshrined in the Constitution is not mathematical equality and does not mean all citizens will be treated alike without any distinction.
• To this effect, the Constitution underlines two distinct aspects which together form the essence of equality law:

1. Non-discrimination among equals, and
2. Affirmative action to equalize the unequal

Supreme Court rulings on quota for locals

• The Supreme Court has ruled against reservation based on place of birth or residence.
• In 1984, ruling in Dr Pradeep Jain v Union of India, the issue of legislation for “sons of the soil” was discussed.
• The court expressed an opinion that such policies would be unconstitutional but did not expressly rule on it as the case was on different aspects of the right to equality.
• In a subsequent ruling in Sunanda Reddy v State of Andhra Pradesh (1995), the Supreme Court affirmed the observation in 1984 ruling to strike down a state government policy that gave 5% extra weightage to candidates.
• In 2002, the Supreme Court invalidated appointment of government teachers in Rajasthan in which the state selection board gave preference to “applicants belonging to the district or the rural areas of the district concerned”.
• In 2019, the Allahabad HC struck down a recruitment notification by the UP PSC which prescribed preference for women who are “original residents” of the UP alone.

What about securing jobs for locals in the private sector?

• Such a law will be difficult to implement even if allowed.
• Private employers do not go on an annual recruitment drive to fill vacancies identified in advance but hire as and when required.
• The state can recommend a preference to locals but ensuring that it is followed would be difficult.
• In 2017, Karnataka mulled similar legislation but it was dropped after the state’s Advocate General raised questions on its legality.
• In 2019, the state government once again issued a notification asking private employers to “prefer” Kannadigas for blue-collar jobs.

How do some states then have laws that reserve jobs for locals?

• Exercising the powers it has under Article 16(3), Parliament enacted the Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Act.
• The act aimed at abolishing all existing residence requirements in the states and enacting exceptions only in the case of the special instances of Andhra Pradesh, Manipur, Tripura and Himachal Pradesh.
• Constitutionally, some states also have special protections under Article 371. AP under Section 371(d) has powers to have “direct recruitment of local cadre” in specified areas.
• Some states have gone around the mandate of Article 16(2) by using language. States that conduct official business in their regional languages prescribe knowledge of the language as a criterion.
• This ensures that local citizens are preferred for jobs. For example, states including Maharashtra, West Bengal and Tamil Nadu require a language test.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now