This would lead to the less meritorious ones among the Dalit and the backward category aspirants getting better and higher services compared to those allocated to their meritorious counterparts.

The law officer also contended that Rule 16(2) was also in conformity with Article 46 of the Constitution, which mandated the government to strive to raise the plight of underprivileged and backward sections of society.

While closing his argument, Subramanian made a plea to set aside the high court's ruling.

The high court had held that if a meritorious Dalit or backward category student, competing the civil service examination on merit, is allowed to avail the quota benefits at the stage of allocation of services and cadre, it would impinge upon the rights of the another set of Dalit and backward category students who were able to clear the examination availing quota benefits.

The high court had pointed out that in that case Dalit and backward category students, competing on the basis of reservation, would be deprived of better cadres and services despite availing the quota benefits from the start.

They would block the seats for backward category students, who have qualified, availing the benefit of the reservation and the relaxed norms of competition.

The government had approached the apex court May 17 last year, challenging the high court ruling. The apex court, in turn, had suspended the ruling two days later and had referred the matter to the constitution bench May 14 this year.