Consider the following statements: Statement-I: The Supreme Court of I

Consider the following statements:
Statement-I: The Supreme Court of India has held in some judgements that the reservation policies made under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India would be limited by Article 335 for maintenance of efficiency of administration.
Statement-II: Article 335 of the Constitution of India defines the term ‘efficiency of administration’.
Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?

Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II is the correct explanation for Statement-I
Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II is not the correct explanation for Statement-I
Statement-I is correct but Statement-II is incorrect
Statement-I is incorrect but Statement-II is correct
This question was previously asked in
UPSC IAS – 2023
Statement-I is correct, but Statement-II is incorrect.
Statement-I: The Supreme Court of India has indeed held in several judgments that the State’s power to make reservations under Article 16(4) must be exercised while keeping in view the maintenance of efficiency of administration, as stipulated in Article 335. This balancing act is a key aspect of reservation jurisprudence in India.
Statement-II: Article 335 of the Constitution states that the claims of SCs and STs shall be considered “consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration”. However, it does not define the term ‘efficiency of administration’. The scope and meaning of this term in the context of reservations have been subject to judicial interpretation rather than being defined in the Article itself.
Important Supreme Court cases like M. Nagaraj (2006) and Jarnail Singh (2018, 2022) have elaborated on the principles governing reservations, reaffirming that quantifiable data on backwardness, inadequacy of representation, and the impact on administrative efficiency (derived from Article 335) are essential considerations.