S. Ratnavael Pandian. J.[1]
“158. A programme of reservation may sacrifice merit but does not in any way sacrifice competence because the beneficiaries under Article 16(4) have to possess the requisite basic qualifications and eligibility and have to compete among themselves though not with the mainstream candidates.
159. As Chinnappa Reddy, J. in Vasanth Kumar (AIR 1985 Supreme Court 1495) has rightly observed, “Always one hears the word ‘efficiency’ as if it is sacrosanct and the sanctorum has to be fiercely guarded. ‘Efficiency’ is not a mantra which is whispered by the Guru in the Sishya’s ear.”
160. In yet another context, in the same decision, the learned Judge, 1985 Supp (1) SCR 352 at p. 394: AIR 1985 Supreme Court 1495 has firmly and irrefutably put the merit argument at rest stating thus:
“The real conflict is between the class of people, who have never been in or who have already moved out of the desert of poverty, illiteracy and backwardness and are entrenched in the oasis of convenient living and those who are still in the desert and want to reach the oasis. There is no enough fruit in the garden and so those who are in. want to keep out those who are out. The disastrous consequences of the so-called meritarian principle to the vast majority of the under-nourished, poverty-stricken, barely literate and vulnerable people of our country are too obvious to be stated, And, what is merit ? There is 110 merit in a system which brings about such consequences.”
161. Be that as it may, the intelligence, merit, ability, competence, meritocracy. administrative efficiency and achievement cannot be measured by skin-pigmentation by the surname of an individual indicating his caste.
162. In this regard. the observation of Subba Rao, J. in Devadasan (1964) 4 SCR 680 at p. 706 : AIR 1964 Supreme Court 179 may be recapitulated, which to some extent answers the doubt raised by a section of anti-reservationists that reservation will result in deterioration in the standard of service. The said observation reads as follows :
“If the provision deals with reservation which I hold it does- I do not see how it will be bad because there will be some deterioration in the standard of service. It is inevitable in the nature of reservation that there will be lowering of standards to some extent but on that account the provision cannot be said to be bad. Indeed, the State laid down the minimum qualifications and all the appointments were made from those who had the said qualifications. How far the efficiency of the administrations suffers by this provision is not for me to say, but it is for the State, which is certainly interested in the maintenance of standards of its administration.”
[1] This article is an excerpt from the judgment of Indira Sawhney v Union of India 1993 (1) SCT 448