State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas

1 S.C.R. 906, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 490 (1976)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas

India Supreme Court
1 S.C.R. 906, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 490 (1976)

  • Written by Nathan Herkamp, JD

Facts

N. M. Thomas (plaintiff) was a lower-division clerk in the Registration Department of the Indian state of Kerala. Lower-division clerks were required to pass an examination prior to receiving a promotion to the upper division. In order to encourage the promotion of more members of the scheduled castes and tribes, the State of Kerala passed Rule 13AA, which allowed individuals of the scheduled castes and tribes to be promoted without passing the examination. Individuals who were promoted without passing the examination were still required to pass the examination within two years of receiving the promotion. Thomas, who was not a member of a scheduled caste or tribe, took and passed the examination. Thomas was not promoted. Other lower-division clerks who had not passed the examination were promoted. Thomas petitioned the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court for a determination that Rule 13AA violated articles 16(1), 16(2), and 335 of the Indian constitution. Article 16(1) guaranteed equal opportunity to all citizens. Article 16(4) allowed the government to reserve some economic opportunities for the so-called backward classes, or scheduled castes and tribes. Article 335 required that claims of the scheduled castes and tribes be taken into account in making employment offers to citizens. The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court determined that the promotion of clerks who had not passed the examinations violated each of the articles and undermined the constitutionally mandated efficiency of government administration. The State of Kerala appealed the ruling.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Ray, C.J.)

Concurrence (Krishna Iyer, J.)

Concurrence (Mathew, J.)

Dissent (Khanna, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 816,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership