Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment : Judicial Perspectives on Backwardness

This thesis is a study of -Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment : Judicial Perspectives on Backwardness. This study is an attempt to evaluate the concept of backwardness and equality of opportunity in employment and to assess the judicial perspectives in relation to them. The study reveals that the recent review petition of the Constitution Bench did not assess the decision of Chakradhar and its import. The study reveals that the Indian judiciary could successfully locate and apply the above principles. It was-Justice Subba Rao's nascent attempt in Devadasan which marked the starting point of such a jurisprudential enquiry. Later Thomas developed the thoughts by a reading new meaning and content to equality provisions of the Constitution which included the elimination of inequalities as the positive content of Articles 14 and 16(1) and elevated reservation provision to the same status of equality principles under the Constitution. Soshit, Vasanth Kumar and Mandal supplemented further to the jurisprudential contents. In this process, the courts were guided by the theories of John Rawls, David Miller, Ronald Dworkin, Max Weber and Roscoe Pound. Thus there was a slow and steady process of transformation of the reservation provision. From an anti-meritarian, unenforceable and enabling provision, it reached a stage of equally relevant and explanatory part of fundamental right to equality. Mandal viewed it as a part of sharing of State power. Though this can be seen by rereading and re-joining thoughts of judges in this regard, the judicial approach lacks coherence and concerted efforts in evolving a jurisprudential basis for protective discrimination. The deliberations of the framers of the Constitution reveals that there was much confusion and indeterminacy with regard to the concept of Backwardness. The study shows that the judiciary has been keeping intact the framers’ expectation of having a reasonable quantum of reservation, preventing the undeserved sections from enjoying the benefit, avoiding its abuse and evolving a new criteria and rejecting the old ones.

Equal opportunity networks, distance-balanced graphs, and Wiener game

Given a graph G and a set X ⊆ V(G), the relative Wiener index of X in G is defined as WX (G) = {u,v}∈X 2  dG(u, v) . The graphs G (of even order) in which for every partition V(G) = V1 +V2 of the vertex set V(G) such that |V1| = |V2| we haveWV1 (G) = WV2 (G) are called equal opportunity graphs. In this note we prove that a graph G of even order is an equal opportunity graph if and only if it is a distance-balanced graph. The latter graphs are known by several characteristic properties, for instance, they are precisely the graphs G in which all vertices u ∈ V(G) have the same total distance DG(u) = v∈V(G) dG(u, v). Some related problems are posed along the way, and the so-called Wiener game is introduced.