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

Two clues in the extract fix its source: the bench that decided it, and the fact that it treats Rajeev Kumar Gupta as a precedent being applied, not as itself.

1. National Federation of the Blind v. Sanjay Kothari: deals with post-identification for the visually disabled, a different question altogether, so it does not match.
2. Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka & Ors: decided by Nariman, Aniruddha Bose and Ramasubramanian, JJ, exactly the bench named at the foot of the passage, and it relies on Rajeev Kumar Gupta while working out horizontal reservation for the disabled, which is exactly what this extract does.
3. Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.: this is the case being quoted (paragraphs 14 to 21) inside the extract, so it cannot also be the extract's own source.
4. Ashok Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.: no such judgment on this theme carries this bench or this content.

Matching the named bench to the passage leaves only one option standing, so the correct answer is Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Answer 2

Article 16(1) guarantees equality of opportunity in public employment to all citizens; Article 16(4) is only one specific tool the State may use for backward classes, and does not exhaust the scope of Article 16(1) itself.

1. Confining reservation to Article 16(4) alone ignores that Article 16(1) is read as an independent source of power for preferential treatment of classes such as the disabled.
2. Saying Article 16(1) cannot support reservation runs directly opposite to this reasoning.
3. Saying the scheme can extend to any class of citizens under Article 16(1), provided the basis is not caste, religion or the other forbidden markers, tracks the ratio exactly.
4. Saying reservation in promotion defeats Articles 16(1) and 15(1) misreads reservation as an exception that harms equality, when it is treated as an application of equality to unequal circumstances.

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

Answer 3

Reservation comes in two structurally different forms: vertical reservation for backward classes under Article 16(4), subject to the Indra Sawhney ceiling, and horizontal reservation for categories like women or the disabled, which cuts across every vertical category rather than adding a separate block on top.

1. Calling it valid merely because Indra Sawhney does not apply skips the actual mechanism and is too thin an explanation on its own.
2. Calling it unconstitutional for not fitting Article 16(4) wrongly assumes 16(4) is the only route to valid reservation, when Article 16(1) independently supports it.
3. Recognising it as horizontal reservation explains both why the ceiling in Indra Sawhney is not breached in substance and why the scheme is valid, since horizontal quotas operate inside, not in addition to, the vertical quotas.

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

Answer 4

Two competing seniority principles exist in Indian service law once a junior reserved candidate is promoted ahead of a senior general candidate: catch-up, and consequential seniority. Telling them apart answers this question.

1. The scenario where the reserved employee moves to a further grade before the senior even reaches the earlier one is not a seniority contest at all, since the two never meet at the same rung together.
2. Under catch-up, once the senior general employee is later promoted to the same grade the reserved promotee had already reached, the general employee overtakes him again in seniority, making the earlier promotee junior once more.
3. Letting the reservation-based promotee keep his seniority permanently is the opposite outcome, associated with consequential seniority under Article 16(4A), not catch-up.

The correct answer is that a reserved category candidate promoted earlier than his senior general category candidate becomes junior again once the senior general candidate is also promoted.

Answer 5

Article 16(4A)'s text reads: reservation in matters of promotion, with consequential seniority, to any class or classes of posts, in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

1. Catch-up does not appear anywhere in this text; it is the pre-existing judicial rule the amendment was designed to displace.
2. Carry-forward addresses unfilled vacancy rollovers, a separate topic from what 16(4A) legislates on.
3. Consequential seniority is the exact phrase used in the provision, tying reservation in promotion to the retention of seniority gained through it.

The correct answer is Consequential seniority.

Answer 6

Comparing the beneficiary clauses of Articles 16(4) and 16(4A) settles this question quickly.

1. Backward classes generally, a category wide enough to include OBCs, is the language of Article 16(4), not 16(4A).
2. Persons with disability are addressed through Article 16(1) in the reasoning discussed earlier, and do not feature in the text of 16(4A) at all.
3. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are the only categories 16(4A) names in favour of whom reservation in promotion with consequential seniority may be made.

The correct answer is Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes.

Answer 7

Three different cases are on offer here, and only one of them actually deals with the original no-reservation-in-promotion policy for Class I and Class II posts.

1. M. Nagraj concerns the post-2001 conditions for exercising the Article 16(4A) power, a later and different question.
2. Jarnail Singh concerns which of the M. Nagraj conditions survive, again a later dispute.
3. C.A. Rajendran is the case that actually tested the original policy, and it sustained the government's discretion under Article 16(4) not to reserve promotions for these posts.

The correct answer is that the policy was upheld in the C.A. Rajendran case.

Answer 8

M. Nagraj set three preconditions for a State exercising the Article 16(4A) power: proof of backwardness, proof of inadequate representation, and regard for administrative efficiency.

1. The representation-data requirement was left standing by Jarnail Singh.
2. The efficiency requirement under Article 335 was also left standing.
3. Only the backwardness-data requirement was found incompatible with Indra Sawhney's presumption that SCs and STs are already a backward class, and that alone was overruled.

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

Answer 9

Creamy layer is a filtering test, not a universal feature of every reservation scheme, so its actual home needs pinning down.

1. It is not applied across every form of reservation without distinction.
2. It is not a settled, general feature of SC and ST reservation, which rests on a different constitutional footing from economic advancement within the class.
3. It is the defining eligibility filter for OBC reservation, screening out the socially and economically advanced members of backward classes.
4. It has nothing to do with horizontal reservation, a separate structural category altogether.

The correct answer is OBC reservation.

Answer 10

Reservation rosters in university teaching appointments can be computed at different levels: the whole university, the faculty, or the individual department, and the outcome changes depending on which level is chosen.

1. Treating the university as one composite unit was the pre-existing approach, not the one fixed in this ruling.
2. Faculties were not adopted as the relevant unit either.
3. The department was held to be the correct unit, meaning each department computes its own reservation roster independently.

The correct answer is Departments of the University.