ssue Framed By The Court:- In this case the court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether Article 16(4) is an exception to Article 16(1) and would be exhaustive of the right to reservation of posts in services under the State? 2. What would be the content of the phrase "Backward Class" in Article 16(4) of the Constitution and whether caste by itself could constitute a class and whether economic criterion by itself could identify a class for Article 16(4) and whether "Backward Classes" in Article 16(4) would include the "weaker sections" mentioned in Article 46 as well? 3. If economic criterion by itself could not constitute a Backward Class under Article 16(4), whether reservation of posts in services under the State, based exclusively on economic criterion would be covered by Article 16(1) of the Constitution? 4. Can the extent of reservation of posts in the services under the State under Article 16(4) or, if permitted under Article 16(1) and 16(4) together, exceed 50 % of the posts in a cadre or Service under the State or exceed 50% of appointments in a cadre or service in any particular year and can such extent of reservation be determined without determining the inadequacy of representation of each class in the different categories and grades of Services under the State? 5. Does Article 16(4) permit the classification of 'Backward Classes' into Backward Classes and Most Backward Classes or permit classification among them based on economic or other considerations? 6. Would making "any provision" under Article 16(4) for reservation "by the State" necessarily have to be by law made by the legislatures of the State or by law made by Parliament? Or could such provisions be made by an executive order? 7. Will the extent of judicial review be limited or restricted in regard to the identification of Backward Classes and the percentage of reservations made for such classes, to a demonstrably perverse identification or a demonstrably unreasonable percentage? 8. Would reservation of appointments or posts "in favour of any Backward Class" be restricted to the initial appointment to the post or would it extend to promotions as well? 9. Whether the matter should be sent back to the Five-Judge Bench? 4) Argument Made On Behalf Of The Petitioner :- On behalf of the Petitioner following arguments were made by learned SENIORCOUNCEL, Mr. N.A. Palkhiwala, Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Smt. Shyamala Pappu and Mr. P.P. Rao assisted by a battery of layers appearing for the petitioners:- I. Firstly, the recommendations made by the MONDAL COMMISSION are indirectly provoking the evil idea of CASTE SYSTEM which is nothing but considered as against the idea of the secularism. According to themwould be dangerous and disastrous for the rapid development of the Indian society as a whole marching towards the goal of the welfare state. They also contended that the identification of SEBCs by the Commission on the basis of caste system is bizarre and barren of force, much less exposing hollowness. Therefore, the OMs issued on the strength of the Mandal Report which is solely based on the caste criterion arc violative of Article 16(2). II. Secondly, the report was not solely based upon the caste criteria but three other factors are also considered i.e. social, educational and economic backwardness but giving more importance -rightly too - to the social backwardness as "having a direct consequence of caste status. III. Thirdly, the present Report based on 1931 census can never serve a correct basis for identifying the 'backward class', that therefore, a fresh Commission under Article 340(1) of the Constitution is required to be appointed to make a fresh wide survey throughout the length and breadth of the country and submit a new list of OBCs (other backward classes) on the basis of the present day Census. IV. Fourthly, if the recommendations of the Commission are implemented, it would result in the sub-standard replacing the standard and the reins of power passing from meritocracy to mediocrity. V. Fifthly, it will be in demoralization and discontent and that it would revitalize caste system, and cleave the nation into two - forward and backward - and open up new vistas for internecine conflict and fissiparous forces, and make backwardness a vested interest. VI. Sixthly, the argument that the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission would result in demoralisation of the meritorious candidates appearing for the public employment. VII. Seventhly, the 'Equal protection' clause prohibits the State from making unreasonable discrimination in providing preferences and facilities for any section of its people. VIII. Eighthly, the arguments criticising the Report is that the said Report virtually rewrites the Constitution and in effect buries 50 fathoms deep the ideal of equality and that if the recommendations are given effect to and implemented, the efficiency of administration will come to a grinding halt.