AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In WP No. 603 of 1994, the learned advocate on record is discharged since the petitioner-in-person wants to argue the matter himself.
The provisions for reservation in the services under the State made in Article 16(4 of the Constitution is enabling. It is not obligatory on the government to keep reserved posts in its services. To what extent within the constitutional limits spelt out by this court, in what manner and in which of the services, the reservation should be kept is a matter for the government to decide, taking into consideration all the relevant factors. The court cannot give direction to the government to keep reservation or the manner in which and the extent to which it should keep it.
The Constitution itself recognises the distinction between the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and the Other Backward Classes in the matter of reservation. Merely because reservations are kept or concessions are given to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes which are not extended to the OBCs, the reservations and the concessions do not become discriminatory.
In the present case, the respondent-Union of India has filed an affidavit in which it is pointed out that the number of candidates belonging to OBCs who have qualified to appear for the preliminary examination is ten times the number of posts. If in the circumstances, the government has not thought it necessary to relax the upper age-limit for the OBCs, it cannot be said that the government has not applied its mind.
Hence the petitions are dismissed. court Master