V NARAYANA RAO Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ever since 1963 when the Supreme Court rendered the decision in what has come to be popularly known as "Balaji's Case" AIR 1963 SC 649 which is referred to as the locus Classicus of learning on Backward Classes, volumes have been written on the question of reservation in educational institutions and services in favour of Backward Classes. High learning has flown into the views expressed by the Supreme Court in a number of judgements rendered subsequently on the subject. Even so, the problems arising in this regard still defy solution. It is unfortunate that developments over a quarter of a century have not given a quietus to this problem. It is well to refer to the following observations of Venkataramiah J., in K.C.Vasanthkumar v. State of Karnataka AIR 1985 SC 1495 at P.1532 (Para 91).

(2.) In January 1953 the President of India appointed a Backward Classes Commission under Art.340 of the Constitution known as "Kalelkar Commission", to determine the criteria to be adopted for treating any Section of people other than Scheduled Castes and Schedules-Tribes as socially and educationally backward-Classes. The report submitted by this Commission was, however, found to be defective and vague in several respects. One of the difficult questions upon which the Government of India could not make up its mind was whether, and when to treat a caste as a class for the purpose of Arts.15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution. In May 1961 the Central Cabinet decided that one national list of Backward Classes should be drawn up: The States were asked to prepare their own lists; at the same time the Central Government expressed its view that "in the view of the Government of India it was better to apply economic tests than to go by castes".

(3.) The Government of Andhra Pradesh specified 139 castes as socially and educationally backward in G.O. No. 1886 dated 21-6-1963. This list was prepared for the purpose of selecting candidates to seats reserved for backward communities in Medical Colleges in the State; 25% of seats were reserved for them. The validity of this list was challenged in a writ Petition, and the same was quashed by a learned single Judge of this Court, in Sukhdev v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, 1966 1 AWR 294. The main basis of the decision was that the enumeration of Backward Classes has been made almost exclusively an the basis of Caste.