Since you have not provided a specific case to summarize, I will provide a hypothetical example related to Article 16 of the Constitution of India to demonstrate the requested format and guidelines.

Short Summary

This hypothetical case concerns a challenge to a state government's policy reserving certain government jobs exclusively for domiciles of that state. The petitioner argues that this policy violates Article 16 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality of opportunity in public employment. The Court ultimately holds that the domicile-based reservation is unconstitutional as it discriminates based solely on place of birth, violating Article 16(2).

Facts

The State of X enacted a policy reserving 80% of entry-level government jobs for individuals who have resided in the state for at least 10 years. Mr. A, a highly qualified candidate from State Y, applied for a government job in State X but was rejected solely because he did not meet the domicile requirement. Mr. A challenges the policy in court.

Issues

1. Does the State of X's domicile-based reservation policy violate Article 16(2) of the Constitution, which prohibits discrimination in public employment based on place of birth?
2. Does the domicile requirement constitute a reasonable classification under Article 16(1) read with Article 16(4)?

Petitioner's Arguments

Mr. A argues that the domicile requirement is a blatant violation of Article 16(2) as it directly discriminates based on place of birth. He contends that merit should be the sole criterion for public employment, and the domicile requirement unfairly disadvantages qualified candidates from other states. He further argues that the policy is not a reasonable restriction under Article 16(4) as it is not intended to address social or educational backwardness.

Respondent's Arguments

The State of X argues that the domicile requirement is necessary to prioritize the employment of its residents and to address local unemployment issues. They contend that the policy is a reasonable classification under Article 16(1) as it serves a legitimate state interest. They also argue that the state has the power to determine the qualifications for its public service.

Court's Reasoning

The Court held that Article 16(2) explicitly prohibits discrimination based on place of birth. While Article 16(1) allows for reasonable classifications, the domicile requirement, in this case, is not a reasonable classification as it is directly linked to place of birth and does not address any specific social or educational backwardness. The Court distinguished between residence as a qualification (which may be permissible in certain circumstances) and domicile as a basis for exclusion (which is generally prohibited). The Court emphasized that the fundamental right to equality of opportunity in public employment cannot be arbitrarily restricted based on place of birth.

Conclusion

The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, Mr. A. The State of X's domicile-based reservation policy was declared unconstitutional as it violates Article 16(2) of the Constitution. The state was directed to consider Mr. A's application without regard to the domicile requirement.