Back
J.R.MUDHOLKAR, K.SUBBA RAO, N.RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, RAGHUBAR DAYAL, S.R.DASS, S.K.DAS
T. Devadasan – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
Question 1? What is the legality and constitutional validity of the carry forward rule for reservations under Article 16(4) of the Constitution? Question 2? How does Article 16(4) interact with Articles 14 and 335 in the context of reservations for Scheduled Castes and Tribes? Question 3? To what extent can reservations or carry forward provisions be maintained without destroying the fundamental right to equality under Article 16(1)?
Key Points: - (!) The petition challenges the carry forward rule as modified in 1955 under Art. 16(4) and its constitutionality. - (!) The Court analyzes whether Art. 16(4) is an exception to Art. 16(1) and how it interacts with Art. 335 and Art. 46. - (!) The judgment discusses that reservations for backward classes are permissible to ensure representation, but not to the extent of destroying equality or efficiency. - (!) It uses Balaji v. State of Mysore to compare permissible reservation percentages and the principle that reservation should not exceed reasonable limits (often discussed around 50%). - (!) The carry forward rule, as applied in the case, is held unconstitutional for exceeding permissible limits and creating undue prejudice to non-backward classes. - (!) The decision emphasizes that treatment must balance backward class representation with equality before the law and administrative efficiency. - (!) The Court finds that the specific carry forward rule in 1955 is invalid to the extent it excessively tilts representation toward backward classes. - (!) The relief granted is declaration of invalidity of the carry forward rule as modified in 1955; costs awarded against the State. - (!) The judgment distinguishes between reservation of appointments and reservation of posts and discusses their implications for implementing Art. 16(4). - (!) The majority opinion endorses that Art. 16(4) is a proviso to Art. 16(1) and must be applied to achieve a balanced approach without nullifying the main provision.
J.R.MUDHOLKAR, J.
(1) THE petitioner, who is a graduate, is an Assistant in Grade IV of the central Secretariat Service, having been recruited therein in the year 1956. He became permanent on 1/01/1958. The next post which the petitioner can expect to get is that of Section Officer (Assistant Superintendent) in the same service. Recruitment to the post of Section Officer is made in the following manner : (i) 40 by direct recruitment from those who obtained lower ranks in the I.A.S. etc., examination ; (ii)30 by promotion from Grade IV to Grade III on the basis of a departmental examination held at intervals by the U.P.S.C. (iii)30 by promotion from Grade IV on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness.
(2) ON 6/02/1960 the Union Public Service Commision issued a notification to the effect that a limited competitive examination for promotion to the regular temporary establishment of Assistant Superintendents of the central Secretariat Service would be held in June, 1.960. The notification further stated that a reservation of 12½ of the vacancies would be made for members of the Scheduled Castes and 5 for members of Scheduled Tribes. The result of this examination was ann
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
