Das, J. — This is an application under Article 32 of the Constitution of India complaining of the infringement of the petitioners fundamental right to employment in the State service of the first respondent. 2. By a notification dated December 16, 1949, published in the Fort St. George Gazette, dated December 20 1949, the Madras Public Service Commission invited applications for 83 posts of District Munsifs in the Madras Subordinate Civil Judicial Service. It was notified that out of the 83 posts to be filled by direct recruitment, 12 were to go to persons already in the service holding certain classes of employment in the Madras Civil Judicial Department and that the remaining 71 posts would be filled up from among the Official Receivers, Assistant Public Prosecutors and practising members of the Bar. It was further notified that the selection of the candidates would be made from various castes, religions and communities in pursuance of the rules prescribed in what are popularly described as Communal G.Os., namely, for Harijans 19, Muslims 5, Christians 6, Backward Hindus 10, Non-Brahmin Hindus 32 and Brahmins 11, Different and unequal age limits for candidates of the above mentioned different classes were fixed and no age limit was fixed for Harijans and Backward Hindus. 3. The petitioner is a Graduate having secured a first class degree in Mathematics. He also passed the B.L. Degree Examination in the second class. He has been practising as an Advocate in Nellore for over seven years. Admittedly, therefore, he possesses the requisite qualifications for being selected as a District Munsif. Indeed, it is admitted that the marks secured by him would entitle him to be selected if the provisions in the Communal G.O. were disregarded. In April and May, 1950, the Madras Public Services Commission interviewed the candidates. It is claimed by the petitioner that he did well in the viva voce examination held by the Public Services Commission in which one of the Judges of the Madras High Court was also present as a representative of the High Court. Out of the 83 posts, 12 were selected from the Madras Judicial Department. The Madras Public Services Commission in its notification in the Supplement to Part I-B to the Fort St. Out of the 83 posts, 12 were selected from the Madras Judicial Department. The Madras Public Services Commission in its notification in the Supplement to Part I-B to the Fort St. George Gazette dated June 6, 1950 published the list of selected candidates under each community: Harijan 1, Muslims 7, Christians 4, Backward Hindus 13 Non-Brahmin Hindus 42 and Brahmins 4. The present petition was filed on October 21, 1950 praying for an order declaring that the rule of the communal rotation, in pursuance of which the selection to the posts of District Munsifs was made in the Madras Subordinate Civil Judicial Service, was repugnant to the provisions of the Constitution and, therefore, void, for directing the Madras Public Services Commission to cancel the selections already made, prohibiting the State of Madras from filling up the posts from out of the candidates selected in pursuance of the notification dated December 16, 1949 and for directing the disposal of the petitioners application for the said post after taking it on the file on its merits and without applying the rule of communal rotation. 5. The Constitution by Article 16 specifically provides for equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. The relevant clauses are as follows:— (1) There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. (2) No citizen shall, on ground only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any employment or office under the State. (4) Nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from making any provisions for the reservation of appointments or post in favour of any backward class of citizens which in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State. Clause (4) expressly permits the State to make provision for the reservation of appointments of posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services of the State. Reservation of posts in favour of any backward class of citizens cannot, therefore, be regarded as unconstitutional. The Communal G.O. itself makes an express reservation of sets for Harijans and Backward Hindus. Reservation of posts in favour of any backward class of citizens cannot, therefore, be regarded as unconstitutional. The Communal G.O. itself makes an express reservation of sets for Harijans and Backward Hindus. The other categories, namely Muslims, Christians, Non-Brahmin Hindus and Brahmins must be taken to have been treated as other than Harijans and Backward Hindus. Our attention was drawn to a Schedule III to Part I of the Madras Provincial and Subordinate Service Rules. It was, therefore, argued that Backward Hindus would mean Hindus of any of the communities mentioned in that Schedule. It is, in the circumstances, impossible to say that classes of people other than Harijans and Backward Hindus can be called Backward Classes. As regards the posts reserved for Harijans and Backward Hindus it may be said that the petitioner who does not belong to those two classes is regarded as ineligible for those reserved posts not on the ground of religion, race, caste, etc. but because of the necessity for making a provision for reservation of such posts in favour of a backward class of citizens, but the ineligibility of the petitioner for any of the posts reserved for communities other than Harijans and Backward Hindus cannot but be regarded as founded on the ground only of his being a Brahmin. For instance, the petitioner may be far better qualified than a Muslim or Christian or a Non-Brahmin candidate and if all the posts reserved for those communities were open to him, he would be eligible for appointment, as is conceded by the learned Advocate-General of Madras, but, nevertheless, he cannot expect to get any of those posts reserved for those different categories on\y because he happens to be a Brahmin. His ineligibility for any of the posts reserved for the other communities, although he may have far better qualifications than those possessed by members falling within those categories is brought about only because he is a Brahmin and does not belong to any of those categories. This ineligibility created by the Communal G.O. does not appear to us to be sanctioned by Clause (4) of Article 16 and it is an infringement of the fundamental right guaranteed to the petitioner as an individual citizen under Article 16(1) and (2). The Communal G.O. in our opinion, is repugnant to the provisions of Article 16 and is as such void and illegal. The Communal G.O. in our opinion, is repugnant to the provisions of Article 16 and is as such void and illegal. This, in our opinion, is sufficient to dispose of this application and we do not consider it necessary to consider the effect of Articles 14 or 15 of the Constitution on the case of the respondents. 5. We are informed that this petition was made after most of the selected candidates had taken charge of the posts to which they were appointed. As a result of this judgment we do not direct the Madras Public Services Commission to cancel the selections already made in so far as the candidates selected have already taken charge of their posts. We understand, however, that all the posts have not yet been filled up and there will be no difficulty in considering the petitioners application on its merits without reference to the Communal G.O. which offends against the provisions of Part III of the Constitution. We, therefore, direct the respondents to consider and dispose of the petitioners application for the post after taking it on file on its merits and without applying the rule of communal rotation. The petitioner will be entitled to his costs of this application.