In t devadasan v union of india, the Supreme Court examined the application of article 16(4) of the indian constitution. In this case, the question was whether the government’s “carry forward rule,” which governed the appointment of members of the underprivileged classes to positions involving state services, was constitutionally valid.
t devadasan v union of india Case Facts
- The extent of article 16(4) of the indian constitution was considered in the Carry Forward Rule case, commonly known as t devadasan v union of india.
- In this case, the “enforcement guidelines” set forth by the government for assigning members of the backward class to public service positions were incorporated.
- In this case, the general terminology used in Balaji on the quantum assumed a completely new dimension.
- The petitioner in this instance, a level IV assistant with the Central Secretariat, was qualified for the next unit officer grade. In 1961, the upsc conducted a competitive exam to fill 45 Assistant Superintendent positions, 29 of which were designated for scheduled caste and scheduled tribe candidates, leaving the remaining openings unfilled.
- The petitioner said that if the government had limited the regular quota of 17% for scheduled caste and scheduled tribes, more open positions could have been filled, and that the government would then have a legitimate chance of being chosen for the position.
- Moreover, in 1952, the government introduced the “carry forward rule” into operation.
t devadasan v union of india Issues
- Did the carry forward rule violate either article 16(1) or article 16(4) of the indian constitution?
- Does article 16(4) of the indian constitution violate the contested clause that reserves posts for members of scheduled caste and scheduled tribe?
Contentions by the Parties
Petitioner:
- The upsc lacked an effective procedure to suggest a separate qualifying criterion for members of Scheduled Castes and Tribes and another for the remaining applicants who were seated.
- The reservation made in this specific case increased to 65%, which was significantly more than what was specified in the upsc notification that the competitive exam was conducted in accordance with.
- The Union of India and the Union Public Service Commission use “the carry forward rule” as justification for their actions.
Respondent:
- Considering the requests included in the petition, it was argued that the petition did not disclose any judicial issue and that, as a result, it was unlawful because respondents who would be negatively impacted were excluded.
- It was refuted that the carry-forward provision violated people’s rights to equal treatment under the law and in terms of being appointed to positions within the State.
- A legal petition cannot be filed on the grounds of the right to be promoted. Furthermore, legal questions pertaining to the right to promotion will not be brought up in court.
t devadasan v union of india Judgment
Carry forward rule was overturned by majority (4:1)
A clause or an exception to Art. 16(1) is found in article 16(4) of the indian constitution. As a result, a provision nullifies or eliminates the primary provision. The reservation made pursuant to article 16(4) of the indian constitution does not violate article 16(1) or 14.
Dissident: Article 16(4) is a stand-alone article of article 16(1). It gives the government in a reservation unrestricted power. There must be two prerequisites, which are –
- Citizens who are behind the times must exist;
- They are underrepresented in the workforce.
It was crucial to keep in mind that while clause (4) makes particular accommodations for socially disadvantaged classes, clause (1) guarantees equal opportunity to every citizen of the nation. Both need to get along with one another. This also shouldn’t be let to overshadow the other. Therefore, it was decided that the service or unit should be viewed as the unit and not as the entirety of the framework in order to potentially apply the 50% annual criterion. The carry-forward mechanism was completely compliant with (4) in accordance with the spirit of Article 16, and failure to abide by the forward norm would result in backwardness and finally a closed space.
Therefore, it would be void or the carry-forward rule would stop working if any reservations exceeded 50%. The State could not be permitted to make an unjustifiable reservation in order to circumvent the laws outlined in Article 16(1) of the Constitution, as Article 16(4) is a component of the document. A reasonable restriction within its permissible bounds would depend on the particular facts and circumstances of each instance; there is no hard-and-fast rule that can be established or a mathematical formula that must be followed in every situation.
With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
