Prakash v. K.S. Jagannathan MANU/SC/0066/1986 : [1986]2SCR17 and also on Julius v. Lord Bishop which case was followed by this Court in Commissioner of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji MANU/SC/0002/1951 : [1952]1SCR135 . We are unable to agree with the above contention. As pointed out earlier, the Constitution Bench of this Court in C.A. Rajendran v. Union of India MANU/SC/0358/1967 : (1968)IILLJ407SC held that Article 16(4) conferred a discretion and did not create any constitutional duty or obligation. In fact, in that case, a mandamus was sought to direct the Government of India to provide for reservation under Article 16(4) in certain Class I and Class II services. The Government stated that in the context of Article 335 and in the interests of efficiency of administration at those levels, it was of the view that there should be no reservation. The said opinion of the Government was accepted by this Court as reasonable and mandamus was refused. Even in M.R. Balaji's case, the Constitution Bench declared that Article 16(4) conferred only a discretion. It is true that in Jagannathan's case, the three Judge Bench issued a mandamus, after referring to Article 142, that the Government must add 25 marks to SC/ST candidates who had taken the S.A.S. Examination for promotion as Section Officers and also that, in future, a reduced minimum marks must be provided and announced before the examination. The Court also observed that the Department had not passed orders as per a general O.M. of the Government dated 21.9.1977. But the attention of the Court was not drawn to the judgment of the Constitution Bench in C.A. Rajendran's case and other cases to which we have referred earlier. Further, if the State is of the opinion that in the interests of efficiency of administration, reservation or relaxation in marks is not appropriate, then it will not be permissible for the Court to issue a mandamus to provide for reservation or relaxation. We also note that in Superintending Engineer, Public Health v. Kuldeep Singh MANU/SC/0520/1997 : [1997]1SCR454 , Jagannathan 's case was followed and reference was made to Article 16(4) and Article 16(4A) and 19 the principle that where a power is coupled with a duty as in Julius v. Lord Bishop and Commissioner of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji, the same could be enforced by the Court. But we may point out that
