Jurisdiction over Residence Requirements

Evidence 1 and Inference 1 are coherent. Discrimination purely on 'place of birth' violates the core mandate of Article 16(2). Evidence 2 and Inference 2 are contradictory. Article 16(3) deliberately denies State Legislatures this power to prevent regionalism, vesting it exclusively in the Union Parliament. The correct counterpart is the parliamentary monopoly on residence laws. Evidence 3 and Inference 3 are coherent. Only the Union Parliament possesses the legislative competence to create residence-based employment exceptions under Article 16(3).

The Assertion is correct. A state assembly cannot pass such a law. Reason (R1) is true and correctly explains the assertion. The power is centralized in Parliament. Reason (R2) is factually false. There IS an exception (Art 16(3)), but it can only be exercised by Parliament. The correct counterpart is the existence of a federally controlled exception.

Statement 1 is incorrect. State sovereignty in hiring is strictly bound by Fundamental Rights (Art 16). The correct counterpart is the supremacy of Part III over state hiring. Statement 2 is correct. Discrimination on 'place of birth' is an outright violation. Even if framed as 'residence', only the Union Parliament has the legislative competence to make such a rule under Art 16(3). Statement 3 is incorrect. A State Legislative Assembly cannot ratify or bypass this; the power simply does not belong to the state tier.

Statement 1 is correct. Descent is an explicitly protected ground in Art 16(2). Statement 2 is incorrect. State Legislatures have zero power to prescribe residence/domicile requirements; it is an exclusive parliamentary power. The correct counterpart is the denial of concurrent jurisdiction. Statement 3 is correct. 'Place of birth' is a protected ground. Statement 4 is correct. This is the exact function of Article 16(3). Thus, exactly three statements are correct.