CLAT PG 2020 Question Paper with Answer Key | CLAT PG Mock Test Series 2025 PDF Download

 Page 1


Page 1 of 35 
 
                       COMMON LAW ADMISSION TEST -2020-PG 
 
?9. We now come to the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as Rajeev Kumar 
Gupta & Others v. Union of India & Others – (2016) 13 SCC 153. In this judgment, the posts 
in Prasar Bharati were classified into four Groups–A to D. The precise question that arose 
before the Court is set out in para 5 thereof in which it is stated that the statutory benefit of 3 
per cent reservation in favour of those who are disabled is denied insofar as identified posts in 
Groups A and B are concerned, since these posts are to be filled through direct recruitment. 
After noticing the arguments based on the nine-Judge bench in Indra Sawhney vs. Union of 
India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217, this Court held:  
14. We now examine the applicability of the prohibition on reservation in promotions as 
propounded by Indra Sawhney. Prior to Indra Sawhney, reservation in promotions were 
permitted under law as interpreted by this Court in Southern Railway v. Rangachari, AIR 
1962 SC 36. Indra Sawhney specifically overruled Rangachari to the extent that reservations 
in promotions were held in Rangachari to be permitted under Article 16(4) of the 
Constitution. Indra Sawhney specifically addressed the question whether reservations could 
be permitted in matters of promotion under Article 16(4). The majority held that reservations 
in promotion are not permitted under our constitutional scheme.  
15. The respondent argued that the answer to Question 7 in Indra Sawhney squarely covers 
the situation on hand and the reasons outlined by the majority opinion in Indra Sawhney at… 
must also apply to bar reservation in promotions to identified posts of Group A and Group B.  
16. We do not agree with the respondent?s submission. Indra Sawhney ruling arose in the 
context of reservations in favour of backward classes of citizens falling within the sweep of 
Article 16(4).  
21. The principle laid down in Indra Sawhney is applicable only when the State seeks to give 
preferential treatment in the matter of employment under the State to certain classes of 
citizens identified to be a backward class. Article 16(4) does not disable the State from 
providing differential treatment (reservations) to other classes of citizens under Article 16(1) 
if they otherwise deserve such treatment. However, for creating such preferential treatment 
under law, consistent with the mandate of Article 16(1), the State cannot choose any one of 
the factors such as caste, religion, etc. mentioned in Article 16(1) as the basis. The basis for 
providing reservation for PWD is physical disability and not any of the criteria forbidden 
under Article 16(1). Therefore, the rule of no reservation in promotions as laid down in Indra 
Sawhney has clearly and normatively no application to PWD.? 
Source: Excerpt taken from a Judgment of three judge bench comprising of R.F. Nariman, 
Aniruddha Bose & V. Ramasubramaniyam., JJ. 
1. 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. 
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION B 
Page 2


Page 1 of 35 
 
                       COMMON LAW ADMISSION TEST -2020-PG 
 
?9. We now come to the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as Rajeev Kumar 
Gupta & Others v. Union of India & Others – (2016) 13 SCC 153. In this judgment, the posts 
in Prasar Bharati were classified into four Groups–A to D. The precise question that arose 
before the Court is set out in para 5 thereof in which it is stated that the statutory benefit of 3 
per cent reservation in favour of those who are disabled is denied insofar as identified posts in 
Groups A and B are concerned, since these posts are to be filled through direct recruitment. 
After noticing the arguments based on the nine-Judge bench in Indra Sawhney vs. Union of 
India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217, this Court held:  
14. We now examine the applicability of the prohibition on reservation in promotions as 
propounded by Indra Sawhney. Prior to Indra Sawhney, reservation in promotions were 
permitted under law as interpreted by this Court in Southern Railway v. Rangachari, AIR 
1962 SC 36. Indra Sawhney specifically overruled Rangachari to the extent that reservations 
in promotions were held in Rangachari to be permitted under Article 16(4) of the 
Constitution. Indra Sawhney specifically addressed the question whether reservations could 
be permitted in matters of promotion under Article 16(4). The majority held that reservations 
in promotion are not permitted under our constitutional scheme.  
15. The respondent argued that the answer to Question 7 in Indra Sawhney squarely covers 
the situation on hand and the reasons outlined by the majority opinion in Indra Sawhney at… 
must also apply to bar reservation in promotions to identified posts of Group A and Group B.  
16. We do not agree with the respondent?s submission. Indra Sawhney ruling arose in the 
context of reservations in favour of backward classes of citizens falling within the sweep of 
Article 16(4).  
21. The principle laid down in Indra Sawhney is applicable only when the State seeks to give 
preferential treatment in the matter of employment under the State to certain classes of 
citizens identified to be a backward class. Article 16(4) does not disable the State from 
providing differential treatment (reservations) to other classes of citizens under Article 16(1) 
if they otherwise deserve such treatment. However, for creating such preferential treatment 
under law, consistent with the mandate of Article 16(1), the State cannot choose any one of 
the factors such as caste, religion, etc. mentioned in Article 16(1) as the basis. The basis for 
providing reservation for PWD is physical disability and not any of the criteria forbidden 
under Article 16(1). Therefore, the rule of no reservation in promotions as laid down in Indra 
Sawhney has clearly and normatively no application to PWD.? 
Source: Excerpt taken from a Judgment of three judge bench comprising of R.F. Nariman, 
Aniruddha Bose & V. Ramasubramaniyam., JJ. 
1. 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. 
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION B 
Page 2 of 35 
 
2. Which of the following is true in context of the scheme provided under Article 16 of the 
Indian Constitution, relating to reservation in promotion? 
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). 
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION C 
 
3. The Union government has issued an office memorandum under which 3% reservation 
has been provided to the persons with disability, apart from the reservations provided to 
different class of citizens such as 27% for OBCs, 14% to SCs and & 7% to STs. Now, the 
total percentage of reservation has reached 51%, which is against the judgment given in 
Indira Sawhney v. Union of India. Now, choose the most appropriate option amongst the 
following. 
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 provided to persons with disability is invalid as in no case reservation can 
increase 50%. 
d) The reservation to PWD does not fall under the scheme of Article 16 (4) and hence 
unconstitutional. 
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION A 
 
4. What is the meaning of the ?Catch-up? rule associated with the matters of seniority in 
reservation in promotion? 
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. 
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION B 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Page 3


Page 1 of 35 
 
                       COMMON LAW ADMISSION TEST -2020-PG 
 
?9. We now come to the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as Rajeev Kumar 
Gupta & Others v. Union of India & Others – (2016) 13 SCC 153. In this judgment, the posts 
in Prasar Bharati were classified into four Groups–A to D. The precise question that arose 
before the Court is set out in para 5 thereof in which it is stated that the statutory benefit of 3 
per cent reservation in favour of those who are disabled is denied insofar as identified posts in 
Groups A and B are concerned, since these posts are to be filled through direct recruitment. 
After noticing the arguments based on the nine-Judge bench in Indra Sawhney vs. Union of 
India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217, this Court held:  
14. We now examine the applicability of the prohibition on reservation in promotions as 
propounded by Indra Sawhney. Prior to Indra Sawhney, reservation in promotions were 
permitted under law as interpreted by this Court in Southern Railway v. Rangachari, AIR 
1962 SC 36. Indra Sawhney specifically overruled Rangachari to the extent that reservations 
in promotions were held in Rangachari to be permitted under Article 16(4) of the 
Constitution. Indra Sawhney specifically addressed the question whether reservations could 
be permitted in matters of promotion under Article 16(4). The majority held that reservations 
in promotion are not permitted under our constitutional scheme.  
15. The respondent argued that the answer to Question 7 in Indra Sawhney squarely covers 
the situation on hand and the reasons outlined by the majority opinion in Indra Sawhney at… 
must also apply to bar reservation in promotions to identified posts of Group A and Group B.  
16. We do not agree with the respondent?s submission. Indra Sawhney ruling arose in the 
context of reservations in favour of backward classes of citizens falling within the sweep of 
Article 16(4).  
21. The principle laid down in Indra Sawhney is applicable only when the State seeks to give 
preferential treatment in the matter of employment under the State to certain classes of 
citizens identified to be a backward class. Article 16(4) does not disable the State from 
providing differential treatment (reservations) to other classes of citizens under Article 16(1) 
if they otherwise deserve such treatment. However, for creating such preferential treatment 
under law, consistent with the mandate of Article 16(1), the State cannot choose any one of 
the factors such as caste, religion, etc. mentioned in Article 16(1) as the basis. The basis for 
providing reservation for PWD is physical disability and not any of the criteria forbidden 
under Article 16(1). Therefore, the rule of no reservation in promotions as laid down in Indra 
Sawhney has clearly and normatively no application to PWD.? 
Source: Excerpt taken from a Judgment of three judge bench comprising of R.F. Nariman, 
Aniruddha Bose & V. Ramasubramaniyam., JJ. 
1. 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. 
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION B 
Page 2 of 35 
 
2. Which of the following is true in context of the scheme provided under Article 16 of the 
Indian Constitution, relating to reservation in promotion? 
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). 
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION C 
 
3. The Union government has issued an office memorandum under which 3% reservation 
has been provided to the persons with disability, apart from the reservations provided to 
different class of citizens such as 27% for OBCs, 14% to SCs and & 7% to STs. Now, the 
total percentage of reservation has reached 51%, which is against the judgment given in 
Indira Sawhney v. Union of India. Now, choose the most appropriate option amongst the 
following. 
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 provided to persons with disability is invalid as in no case reservation can 
increase 50%. 
d) The reservation to PWD does not fall under the scheme of Article 16 (4) and hence 
unconstitutional. 
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION A 
 
4. What is the meaning of the ?Catch-up? rule associated with the matters of seniority in 
reservation in promotion? 
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. 
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION B 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Page 3 of 35 
 
5. The Article 16 (4A), provides for which of the following? 
a) Catch-up rule. 
b) Carry forward rule. 
c) Consequential seniority. 
d) All of the above. 
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION C 
 
6. The scheme of reservation in promotion is limited to which of the following as per the 
text of Article 16 (4A)? 
a) Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes. 
b) Backward class of citizens. 
c) PWD candidates. 
d) All of the above. 
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION A 
 
7. Government policy of no reservation in promotion for class I and II posts was initially: 
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. 
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION D 
 
8. Jarnail Singh case overruled the M. Nagraj  on the issue of:   
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. 
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION B 
 
 
9. Creamy layer concept is applicable to  
a) All reservations 
b) SC ST reservations 
c) OBC reservation 
d) Only horizontal reservation 
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION C 
 
 
 
 
Page 4


Page 1 of 35 
 
                       COMMON LAW ADMISSION TEST -2020-PG 
 
?9. We now come to the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as Rajeev Kumar 
Gupta & Others v. Union of India & Others – (2016) 13 SCC 153. In this judgment, the posts 
in Prasar Bharati were classified into four Groups–A to D. The precise question that arose 
before the Court is set out in para 5 thereof in which it is stated that the statutory benefit of 3 
per cent reservation in favour of those who are disabled is denied insofar as identified posts in 
Groups A and B are concerned, since these posts are to be filled through direct recruitment. 
After noticing the arguments based on the nine-Judge bench in Indra Sawhney vs. Union of 
India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217, this Court held:  
14. We now examine the applicability of the prohibition on reservation in promotions as 
propounded by Indra Sawhney. Prior to Indra Sawhney, reservation in promotions were 
permitted under law as interpreted by this Court in Southern Railway v. Rangachari, AIR 
1962 SC 36. Indra Sawhney specifically overruled Rangachari to the extent that reservations 
in promotions were held in Rangachari to be permitted under Article 16(4) of the 
Constitution. Indra Sawhney specifically addressed the question whether reservations could 
be permitted in matters of promotion under Article 16(4). The majority held that reservations 
in promotion are not permitted under our constitutional scheme.  
15. The respondent argued that the answer to Question 7 in Indra Sawhney squarely covers 
the situation on hand and the reasons outlined by the majority opinion in Indra Sawhney at… 
must also apply to bar reservation in promotions to identified posts of Group A and Group B.  
16. We do not agree with the respondent?s submission. Indra Sawhney ruling arose in the 
context of reservations in favour of backward classes of citizens falling within the sweep of 
Article 16(4).  
21. The principle laid down in Indra Sawhney is applicable only when the State seeks to give 
preferential treatment in the matter of employment under the State to certain classes of 
citizens identified to be a backward class. Article 16(4) does not disable the State from 
providing differential treatment (reservations) to other classes of citizens under Article 16(1) 
if they otherwise deserve such treatment. However, for creating such preferential treatment 
under law, consistent with the mandate of Article 16(1), the State cannot choose any one of 
the factors such as caste, religion, etc. mentioned in Article 16(1) as the basis. The basis for 
providing reservation for PWD is physical disability and not any of the criteria forbidden 
under Article 16(1). Therefore, the rule of no reservation in promotions as laid down in Indra 
Sawhney has clearly and normatively no application to PWD.? 
Source: Excerpt taken from a Judgment of three judge bench comprising of R.F. Nariman, 
Aniruddha Bose & V. Ramasubramaniyam., JJ. 
1. 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. 
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION B 
Page 2 of 35 
 
2. Which of the following is true in context of the scheme provided under Article 16 of the 
Indian Constitution, relating to reservation in promotion? 
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). 
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION C 
 
3. The Union government has issued an office memorandum under which 3% reservation 
has been provided to the persons with disability, apart from the reservations provided to 
different class of citizens such as 27% for OBCs, 14% to SCs and & 7% to STs. Now, the 
total percentage of reservation has reached 51%, which is against the judgment given in 
Indira Sawhney v. Union of India. Now, choose the most appropriate option amongst the 
following. 
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 provided to persons with disability is invalid as in no case reservation can 
increase 50%. 
d) The reservation to PWD does not fall under the scheme of Article 16 (4) and hence 
unconstitutional. 
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION A 
 
4. What is the meaning of the ?Catch-up? rule associated with the matters of seniority in 
reservation in promotion? 
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. 
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION B 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Page 3 of 35 
 
5. The Article 16 (4A), provides for which of the following? 
a) Catch-up rule. 
b) Carry forward rule. 
c) Consequential seniority. 
d) All of the above. 
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION C 
 
6. The scheme of reservation in promotion is limited to which of the following as per the 
text of Article 16 (4A)? 
a) Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes. 
b) Backward class of citizens. 
c) PWD candidates. 
d) All of the above. 
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION A 
 
7. Government policy of no reservation in promotion for class I and II posts was initially: 
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. 
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION D 
 
8. Jarnail Singh case overruled the M. Nagraj  on the issue of:   
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. 
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION B 
 
 
9. Creamy layer concept is applicable to  
a) All reservations 
b) SC ST reservations 
c) OBC reservation 
d) Only horizontal reservation 
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION C 
 
 
 
 
Page 4 of 35 
 
10. In Vivekanand Tiwari, Supreme Court held that the unit for reservation in  universities 
should be: 
a) University as a whole 
b) Faculties of the University 
c) Departments of the University 
d) (a) and (b) 
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION C 
 
It will be relevant to refer to the statement made by the contemnor which was made and read 
out before this Court by the contemnor on 20.08.2020, which reads as under:  
?I   have   gone   through   the   judgment   of   this   Hon?ble Court. I am pained that I have 
been held guilty of committing contempt of the Court whose majesty I have tried to uphold - 
not as a courtier or cheerleader but as a humble guard - for over three decades, at some 
personal and professional cost. I am pained, not because I may be punished, but because I 
have been grossly misunderstood. I   am   shocked   that   the   court   holds   me   guilty   of 
“malicious, scurrilous, calculated attack” on the institution of administration of justice. I am 
dismayed that the Court has arrived at this conclusion without providing any evidence of my 
motives to launch such an attack. I must confess that I am disappointed that the court did not 
find it necessary to serve me with a copy of the complaint on the basis of which the suo-motu 
notice was issued, nor found it necessary to respond to the specific averments made by me in 
my reply affidavit or the many submissions of my counsel. I find it hard to believe that the 
Court finds my tweet “has   the   effect   of   destabilizing   the   very   foundation   of   this 
important pillar of Indian democracy”. I can only reiterate that these   two   tweets   
represented   my   bona-fide   beliefs,   the expression of which must be permissible in any 
democracy. Indeed, public scrutiny is desirable for healthy functioning of judiciary itself. I 
believe that open criticism of any institution is necessary in a democracy, to safeguard the 
constitutional order. We are living through that moment in our history when higher 
principles must trump routine obligations, when saving the   constitutional   order   must   
come   before   personal   and professional niceties, when considerations of the present must 
not come in the way of discharging our responsibility towards the future. Failing to speak up 
would have been a dereliction of duty, especially for an officer of the court like myself. My 
tweets were nothing but a small attempt to discharge what I considered to be my highest duty 
at this juncture in the history of our republic. I did not tweet in a fit of absence mindedness. It 
would be insincere and contemptuous on my part to offer an apology for the tweets that 
expressed what was and continues to be my bona-fide belief. Therefore, I can only humbly 
paraphrase what the father of the nation Mahatma Gandhi had said in his trial: I do not ask 
for mercy. I do not appeal to magnanimity. I am   here,   therefore,   to   cheerfully submit to 
any penalty that can lawfully be inflicted upon me for what the Court has determined to be an 
offence, and what appears to me to be the highest duty of a citizen.? 
Source: Excerpt taken from the Judgment delivered by Arun Mishra, B. R. Gavai & Krishna 
Murari, J.J. 
Page 5


Page 1 of 35 
 
                       COMMON LAW ADMISSION TEST -2020-PG 
 
?9. We now come to the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as Rajeev Kumar 
Gupta & Others v. Union of India & Others – (2016) 13 SCC 153. In this judgment, the posts 
in Prasar Bharati were classified into four Groups–A to D. The precise question that arose 
before the Court is set out in para 5 thereof in which it is stated that the statutory benefit of 3 
per cent reservation in favour of those who are disabled is denied insofar as identified posts in 
Groups A and B are concerned, since these posts are to be filled through direct recruitment. 
After noticing the arguments based on the nine-Judge bench in Indra Sawhney vs. Union of 
India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217, this Court held:  
14. We now examine the applicability of the prohibition on reservation in promotions as 
propounded by Indra Sawhney. Prior to Indra Sawhney, reservation in promotions were 
permitted under law as interpreted by this Court in Southern Railway v. Rangachari, AIR 
1962 SC 36. Indra Sawhney specifically overruled Rangachari to the extent that reservations 
in promotions were held in Rangachari to be permitted under Article 16(4) of the 
Constitution. Indra Sawhney specifically addressed the question whether reservations could 
be permitted in matters of promotion under Article 16(4). The majority held that reservations 
in promotion are not permitted under our constitutional scheme.  
15. The respondent argued that the answer to Question 7 in Indra Sawhney squarely covers 
the situation on hand and the reasons outlined by the majority opinion in Indra Sawhney at… 
must also apply to bar reservation in promotions to identified posts of Group A and Group B.  
16. We do not agree with the respondent?s submission. Indra Sawhney ruling arose in the 
context of reservations in favour of backward classes of citizens falling within the sweep of 
Article 16(4).  
21. The principle laid down in Indra Sawhney is applicable only when the State seeks to give 
preferential treatment in the matter of employment under the State to certain classes of 
citizens identified to be a backward class. Article 16(4) does not disable the State from 
providing differential treatment (reservations) to other classes of citizens under Article 16(1) 
if they otherwise deserve such treatment. However, for creating such preferential treatment 
under law, consistent with the mandate of Article 16(1), the State cannot choose any one of 
the factors such as caste, religion, etc. mentioned in Article 16(1) as the basis. The basis for 
providing reservation for PWD is physical disability and not any of the criteria forbidden 
under Article 16(1). Therefore, the rule of no reservation in promotions as laid down in Indra 
Sawhney has clearly and normatively no application to PWD.? 
Source: Excerpt taken from a Judgment of three judge bench comprising of R.F. Nariman, 
Aniruddha Bose & V. Ramasubramaniyam., JJ. 
1. 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. 
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION B 
Page 2 of 35 
 
2. Which of the following is true in context of the scheme provided under Article 16 of the 
Indian Constitution, relating to reservation in promotion? 
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). 
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION C 
 
3. The Union government has issued an office memorandum under which 3% reservation 
has been provided to the persons with disability, apart from the reservations provided to 
different class of citizens such as 27% for OBCs, 14% to SCs and & 7% to STs. Now, the 
total percentage of reservation has reached 51%, which is against the judgment given in 
Indira Sawhney v. Union of India. Now, choose the most appropriate option amongst the 
following. 
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 provided to persons with disability is invalid as in no case reservation can 
increase 50%. 
d) The reservation to PWD does not fall under the scheme of Article 16 (4) and hence 
unconstitutional. 
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION A 
 
4. What is the meaning of the ?Catch-up? rule associated with the matters of seniority in 
reservation in promotion? 
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. 
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION B 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Page 3 of 35 
 
5. The Article 16 (4A), provides for which of the following? 
a) Catch-up rule. 
b) Carry forward rule. 
c) Consequential seniority. 
d) All of the above. 
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION C 
 
6. The scheme of reservation in promotion is limited to which of the following as per the 
text of Article 16 (4A)? 
a) Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes. 
b) Backward class of citizens. 
c) PWD candidates. 
d) All of the above. 
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION A 
 
7. Government policy of no reservation in promotion for class I and II posts was initially: 
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. 
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION D 
 
8. Jarnail Singh case overruled the M. Nagraj  on the issue of:   
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. 
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION B 
 
 
9. Creamy layer concept is applicable to  
a) All reservations 
b) SC ST reservations 
c) OBC reservation 
d) Only horizontal reservation 
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION C 
 
 
 
 
Page 4 of 35 
 
10. In Vivekanand Tiwari, Supreme Court held that the unit for reservation in  universities 
should be: 
a) University as a whole 
b) Faculties of the University 
c) Departments of the University 
d) (a) and (b) 
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION C 
 
It will be relevant to refer to the statement made by the contemnor which was made and read 
out before this Court by the contemnor on 20.08.2020, which reads as under:  
?I   have   gone   through   the   judgment   of   this   Hon?ble Court. I am pained that I have 
been held guilty of committing contempt of the Court whose majesty I have tried to uphold - 
not as a courtier or cheerleader but as a humble guard - for over three decades, at some 
personal and professional cost. I am pained, not because I may be punished, but because I 
have been grossly misunderstood. I   am   shocked   that   the   court   holds   me   guilty   of 
“malicious, scurrilous, calculated attack” on the institution of administration of justice. I am 
dismayed that the Court has arrived at this conclusion without providing any evidence of my 
motives to launch such an attack. I must confess that I am disappointed that the court did not 
find it necessary to serve me with a copy of the complaint on the basis of which the suo-motu 
notice was issued, nor found it necessary to respond to the specific averments made by me in 
my reply affidavit or the many submissions of my counsel. I find it hard to believe that the 
Court finds my tweet “has   the   effect   of   destabilizing   the   very   foundation   of   this 
important pillar of Indian democracy”. I can only reiterate that these   two   tweets   
represented   my   bona-fide   beliefs,   the expression of which must be permissible in any 
democracy. Indeed, public scrutiny is desirable for healthy functioning of judiciary itself. I 
believe that open criticism of any institution is necessary in a democracy, to safeguard the 
constitutional order. We are living through that moment in our history when higher 
principles must trump routine obligations, when saving the   constitutional   order   must   
come   before   personal   and professional niceties, when considerations of the present must 
not come in the way of discharging our responsibility towards the future. Failing to speak up 
would have been a dereliction of duty, especially for an officer of the court like myself. My 
tweets were nothing but a small attempt to discharge what I considered to be my highest duty 
at this juncture in the history of our republic. I did not tweet in a fit of absence mindedness. It 
would be insincere and contemptuous on my part to offer an apology for the tweets that 
expressed what was and continues to be my bona-fide belief. Therefore, I can only humbly 
paraphrase what the father of the nation Mahatma Gandhi had said in his trial: I do not ask 
for mercy. I do not appeal to magnanimity. I am   here,   therefore,   to   cheerfully submit to 
any penalty that can lawfully be inflicted upon me for what the Court has determined to be an 
offence, and what appears to me to be the highest duty of a citizen.? 
Source: Excerpt taken from the Judgment delivered by Arun Mishra, B. R. Gavai & Krishna 
Murari, J.J. 
Page 5 of 35 
 
11. The above passage has been taken from which of the following recent cases relating to 
the Criminal Contempt of Court? 
a) In Re: Prashant Bhushan & Anr. 
b) The Registrar General, Supreme Court of India v. Prashant Bhushan & Anr. 
c) Amicus Curiae v. Prashant Bhushan 
d) Union of India v. Prashant Bhushan & Anr. 
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION A 
 
12. The Source of power of the Supreme Court to take suo-motu cognizance of Contempt of 
the Court has been provided under which of the following? 
a) Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 
b) Article 129 r/w Section 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 
c) Article 129  
d) Article 129 r/w Article 141. 
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION C 
 
 
13. Which of the following could be a valid defence for the contemnor in a contempt 
proceeding against him? 
a) Statements are bona-fide fair criticism without attributing motives to the judges. 
b) Statements are the personal opinion of the person and do not have the capacity to 
influence the thinking of public at large. 
c) Statements are based on the quotes from retired judges of the Supreme Court. 
d) Statements are mere opinions which does not fall under the category of the term 
?scandalising the court.? 
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION A 
 
 
14. In which of the following cases, the apex court held that, ?Contempt jurisdiction should 
not be used by judges to uphold their own dignity. In the free market-place of ideas, 
criticism about the judicial system or the judges should be welcomed, so long as 
criticisms do not impair or hamper the „administration of justice‘.?? 
a) Amicus Curiae v. Prashant Bhushan 
b) P.N. Duda v. V. P. Shivshankar 
c) A.K. Gopalan v. Noordeen 
d) Hari Singh Nagra v. Kapil Sibal 
CORRECT ANSWER : OPTION B