Let’s analyze the statements:

Statement I:
The Supreme Court of India has held in some judgments that reservation policies made under Article 16(4) would be limited by Article 335 to maintain the efficiency of administration.
This is correct. The Supreme Court, in various rulings (such as the Indra Sawhney case), has emphasized that while Article 16(4) provides for reservations in public employment, it must be balanced with Article 335, which states that the claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes must be consistent with maintaining the efficiency of administration.

Statement II:
Article 335 defines the term “efficiency of administration.”
This is incorrect. Article 335 does not define “efficiency of administration.” It only mentions that the claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes should be taken into consideration, consistent with the maintenance of efficiency of administration. However, it does not provide a definition of “efficiency.”

Correct answer:
Statement-I is correct but Statement-II is incorrect