According to Indian Constitution this kind of reservation is not a violation…

Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws -- understood as substantive, not merely formal, equality. Article 15(4) enables the State to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes (including SC/ST) in matters such as education, while Article 16(4) separately enables the State to reserve appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens that, in the State's opinion, is not adequately represented in the services under the State. Both are enabling provisions that give concrete shape to genuine equality of opportunity for groups that would otherwise be unable to compete on an equal footing -- not exceptions carved out of the equality guarantee.

Because every option here concerns reservation in jobs/appointments, Article 16(4) is the operative provision. It recognises exactly this kind of measure -- special treatment given to a backward class of citizens inadequately represented in State services so that its members can genuinely compete on an equal footing -- as advancing equality of opportunity rather than violating it. Reservation described in this general character is therefore held to be consistent with the Right to Equality, not a violation of it.

CROSS-CHECK (contrasting the other descriptions on their own terms):

• Job reservation tied to the State a sitting representative or minister happens to come from has no basis in Article 16(4) at all -- it describes regional favoritism, not reservation for an inadequately represented backward class, and would itself unsettle equal treatment of citizens from other States.

• Allocating jobs through nepotism replaces merit and the backward-class criterion with personal connections -- the opposite of the group-based, criteria-driven provision Article 16(4) actually enables.

• Reserving jobs for the relatives of political leaders is patronage based on family ties to power, not membership of a backward class inadequately represented in State services -- it would itself amount to unequal treatment among similarly placed candidates.

Only the description of special treatment for a backward class aimed at equal opportunity in employment matches the enabling provision under Article 16(4); the others describe forms of favoritism that Article 16(4) does not cover and that would themselves run counter to the Right to Equality.