1. Challenge to the validity of the carry forward rule for reserved vacancies in promotions to public service posts under Article 16(4) of the Constitution. (Para 1 , 2 , 5 , 9 )
Back
Next 
1953 Supreme(SC) 74
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
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
Case No. : 87 of 1963
Decided On : 29/08/1963
Advocates Appeared: Gopalakrishnan M.R. : Iyer R.Ganapathy : Sachthey R.N.
Reservations under Article 16(4) must be reasonable and cannot be so excessive (generally exceeding 50%) as to nullify the fundamental right to equality of opportunity guaranteed under Article 16(1) or create a monopoly in public employment.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16(1), 16(4) and 335 - Reservation in public employment - Carry forward rule - Validity of reserving vacancies in excess of 50% - Art 16(4) is an exception to Art 16(1) and cannot be interpreted to nullify or destroy the main provision (Para 16) - Reservation must not be so excessive as to practically deny reasonable opportunity for employment to other communities or create a monopoly (Para 12, 14) - A special provision for reservation should generally be less than 50% to strike a reasonable balance between competing claims and maintain efficiency of administration (Para 13).
(B) Equality of opportunity - Guarantee under Art 16(1) is for ensuring equality for all citizens on every occasion for recruitment; each year of recruitment must be considered by itself to ensure reservations are not so excessive as to disturb legitimate claims of other communities (Para 15).
Facts of the case:
A candidate challenged the validity of a rule allowing unfilled reserved vacancies from previous years to be carried forward and added to the current year's quota for backward classes. In a specific recruitment process, the application of this rule resulted in approximately 64.4% of total appointments being reserved for backward classes, despite the nominal quota being 17.5%, which the petitioner contended denied him a fair chance of selection despite higher merit.
Findings of Court:
The rule allowing the carry forward of vacancies is unconstitutional as its operation can lead to reservations far exceeding 50% in a single recruitment year, thereby destroying the fundamental right to equality of opportunity guaranteed under Art 16(1).
Issues: Whether the carry forward rule for reservations in public employment is unconstitutional for violating the guarantees of equality before law under Art 14 and equality of opportunity in matters of employment under Art 16(1).
Ratio Decidendi: Reservation under Art 16(4) is a permissible exception to Art 16(1), but it cannot be used to create monopolies or be so extravagant as to render the main provision illusory. When the operation of a rule results in reservations exceeding 50% of the vacancies in a recruitment year, it is deemed excessive and destructive of the fundamental right to equality of opportunity, as it eliminates general competition in a large field.
Result: Petition succeeds partially and the carry forward rule as modified in 1955 is declared invalid.
Judgement Key Points
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.
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)?
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the carry forward rule for reserved vacancies violates equality of opportunity under Article 16(1) and Article 14 or compromises administrative efficiency under Article 335. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 )
3. Reservation for backward classes must be reasonable and not so excessive as to create a monopoly or destroy the fundamental right to equality of opportunity. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
4. Reservation exceeding 50% is generally unconstitutional as it nullifies the guarantee of equality of opportunity under Article 16(1) and constitutes a fraud on the Constitution. (Para 13 , 14 , 16 )
5. The carry forward rule as modified in 1955 is declared invalid. (Para 20 , 32 )
6. Can the State make reservations for backward classes in public employment?
Yes, under Article 16(4), the State may reserve appointments or posts for any backward class of citizens who, in the State's opinion, are not adequately represented in the services. (Para 12 , 16 )
7. Is there a permissible limit on the percentage of reservations in public employment?
While not an inflexible rule, reservation should generally be less than 50%. Excessive reservation that eliminates general competition or creates a monopoly is liable to be challenged as a fraud on the Constitution. (Para 13 , 14 )
8. Does the carry forward rule for reserved vacancies violate the right to equality of opportunity?
If the carry forward rule results in reservations so excessive that they practically deny reasonable opportunity to other communities, it destroys the guarantee of equality of opportunity under Article 16(1). (Para 13 , 14 , 16 )
9. How should the general rule of equality in Article 16(1) be balanced with the reservation power in Article 16(4)?
Article 16(4) is an exception to Article 16(1). As a proviso, it cannot be interpreted to nullify or destroy the main provision of equality of opportunity for all citizens. (Para 16 )
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 announced by the Union public service commission in April, 1961. The Union public service commission recommended 16 candidates for being appointed in unreserved vacancies and 28 candidates in reserved vacancies. Subsequently the U.P.S.C. recommended 2 more candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes/Tribes for the posts. It may be mentioned that the number of vacancies which were expected to be filled was stated to be 48 out of which 16 were unreserved and the remaining 32 reserved, though in fact the U.P.S.C. recommended the names of only 30 candidates for the latter class of vacancies. The government, however, made only 45 appointments out of which 29 were from among the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Tribes.
(3) THE petitioner points out that the percentage of marks secured by him at the examination was 61 whereas the percentage of marks secured by some of the 29 candidates from the Scheduled Castes and Tribes was as low as 35 and one of his grievances is that it was not competent to the U.P.S.C. to prescribe one qualifying standard for members of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes and another for the rest of the candidates.
(4) IT is the petitioners case that had the Union of India and the U.P.S.C. adhered to the quota of 17-1/2 reservations in favour of Scheduled Castes and Tribes he would have had a fair chance of being selected to the post of Assistant Superintendent. His grievance is that the reservation actually made in this case comes to 65 and was far in excess of that set out in the notification of the U.P.S.C., pursuant to which the competitive examination was held. Had the reservation been limited to 17-1/2 only 8 vacancies could have gone to the members of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes and the rest to other candidates according to their merit.
(5) THE petitioner points out that the respondents, that is, the Union of India and the Union Pubilc Service Commission seek to justify their action by relying upon what is known as `the carry forward rule`. In order to understand what the aforesaid rule is it is necessary to refer to certain resolutions of the government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs. On 13/09/1950, the government of India published a resolution indicating their policy in regard to communal representation in the services. There they have stated that the following reservations would provisionally be made in recruitment to the posts and services under them : (a) Scheduled Castes : Reservation of 12½ of vacancies by direct recruitment through the Union public service commission or by means of open competitive tests held by any other authority. Where recruitment is made otherwise than by open competition the reservation will be 16-2/3 . (b) Scheduled Tribes: both in recruitment by o
