1999 INSC 0963
                                        SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                              Ajit Singh and others-III

                                                         Versus

                                             State of Punjab and others

(Dr. A.S. Anand, CJ, S.B. Majmudar and G.B. Pattanaikm S.P. Kurdhukar and M. Jagannadha Rao,
                                                           JJ)

                   Review Petitions (C) Nos. 1504-06 of 1999 in IAs Nos. 1-3 of 1997

                                      in Civil Appeal Nos. 3792-94 of 1989

                                                      08.12.1999

JUDGMENT

    1. Delay condoned

         .

    2. We are of the view that there are no merits in the review applications.
    3. In Ajit Singh II v. State of Punjab it was stated (at pp. 229-30) relying upon earlier

         judgments starting from 1963, that Article 16(4) was sonly sin enabling provision and did
         not impose any constitutional duty nor confer any fundamental right for reservation. The
         observations at p. 691 by Jeevan Reddy. J. in Indra Sawhney relied upon in the review
         applications do not deal with the above issue. It was the view of two constitution Bench
         Judgments of this Court, on eof 1963 in M.R. Balaji. v. State of Mysore and another in 1968
         in C.A. Rajendran v. Union of India and also two three judgmetns of this Corut in P&T
         Scheduled Caste/Tribe Employees Welfare Assn. (Regd.) v.Union of India and State Bank of
         India Scheduled Caste/Tribe Employees Welfare Assn. Vs. State Bank of India that Article
         16(4) was only an enabling provision. The view was nowhere dissented in Indra Sawhney
         much less at p. 691 by Jeevan Reddy,J.
    4. It appears to us that all the nine Judges in Indra Sawhney were of the same view that Article
         16(4) was not in the nature of a fundamental right and was only an enabling provision. In
         this connection, reference may be made with advantage to the view of Jeevan Reddy J. (at
         pp. 667-735) referring to Subba Rao,. J. That Article 16(4) was a provision conferring a
         "power" and referring to Article 16(1) alone as a guarantee and not to Article 16(4); to the
         view of Sawant, J. (at p. 517, para 43)], Pandian, J. (at p. 407, para 168), Thmmen, J. (at p.
         449, para 284,), Sahai, J. (at p. 580) with whom Kuldip Singh J. agreed., -- all expressly
         stating that Article 16(4) was only an enabling provision. Thus, the majority of the learned
         Judges expressly stated that Article 16(4) was an "enabling provision". Merely because the
         reservation for backward classes was created as a reasonable classification and justified at p.
         691, that does not detract from the view that Article 16(4) was only an enabling provision.
    5. For the aforesaid reasons, we find there is no merit in these review petitions which are
dismissed.