Consider the following statements: Statement-I: The Supreme Court of India has held in some judgements that the reservation policies made under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India would be limited by Article 335 for maintenance of efficiency of administration. Statement-II: Article 335 of the Constitution of India defines the term 'efficiency of administration'. Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?

Answer: C. Statement-I is correct, but Statement-II is incorrect. Statement-I is CORRECT. The Supreme Court has consistently held that Article 16(4) (which permits reservation in public employment) must be read together with Article 335, which mandates 'consistency with the maintenance of efficiency of administration' when making appointments for SCs and STs. Key judgments include Indra Sawhney 1992 (Mandal case), M. Nagaraj 2006, and Jarnail Singh 2018. The Court has used Article 335 as a moderating principle on reservation policy. Statement-II is WRONG. Article 335 does NOT define 'efficiency of administration'. It merely states that 'the claims of the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes shall be taken into consideration, consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration' in making appointments. The term 'efficiency of administration' is left undefined and has been interpreted by courts case-by-case. Source: Article 335 of Constitution / Indra Sawhney 1992 and M. Nagaraj 2006 judgments.