T. Devadasan v Union of India (1964) - Case Analysis

Introduction of T. Devadasan v Union of India (1964)

1. Devadasan v Union of India (1964) is a landmark case that centres around the constitutionality of the ‘carry forward rule’ in the context of reservations in public employment. The case challenged whether the ‘carry forward rule’ violated the principles of equality mentioned in Article 14, Article 16 and Article 335 of Indian Constitution. The judgement of the 5-Judge Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court on 29th August 1963 highlighted significant implications on the application of reservation policies in India. The Court ruled that they do not infringe upon the rights of other groups and that fairness is maintained in public employment.

Download T. Devadasan v Union of India 1964 PDF

Historical Context and Facts of T. Devadasan v Union of India (1964)

The case at hand centres around the constitutional validity of the carry forward rule and its impact on equality in public employment. The following are the brief facts of the case -

Background of the Case

The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) issued a notification on 6th February, 1960 regarding a limited competitive examination for promotions to the regular temporary establishment of Assistant Superintendents in the Central Secretariat Service. The examination was planned to take place in June 1960. The notification specified a reservation of -

• 12.5% of vacancies for Scheduled Castes (SC)
• 5% for Scheduled Tribes (ST)

Excessive Reservation in Practice

The results of the examination were announced in April 1961. The government appointed 45 candidates out of which 29 were candidates belonging to the SC/ST categories. As a result, 65% were reserved which was exceeding the stipulated 17.5% reservation mentioned in the original notification. According to the notification only 8 vacancies should have been reserved for the candidates belonging to SC/ST.

Justification by the Government

On 7th May, 1955 the Government of India and the UPSC defended this difference based on the ‘carry forward rule’. The said rule allowed unfilled reserved vacancies from one year to be carried over to future years and added to the reserved quota until enough suitable candidates were found.

Legal Challenge

The Petitioner T. Devadasan who was an Assistant in Grade IV of the Central Secretariat Service and expected to be promoted to the rank of Section Officer (Assistant Superintendent). He challenged the validity of the carry forward rule. The Petitioner Devadasan contended that the rule infringed -

• Article 14
• Article 16
• Article 335

Issue addressed in T. Devadasan v Union of India (1964)

The main questions which were addressed in this case were whether the carry forward rule violates Article 16(1) of the Indian Constitution and whether Article 16(4) is violative of Article 16 (1) of the Indian Constitution?

Legal Provisions involved in T. Devadasan v Union of India (1964)

In the T. Devadasan case Article 14, Article 16 and Article 335 of the Constitution of India played a significant role. The following are the legal analysis of these provisions -

Article 14 of the Indian Constitution: Equality before the law

Article 14 guarantees that the State shall not deny to any person equality before law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. This provision includes two important expressions:

• Equality Before the Law
• Equal Protection of the Laws

Article 16 of the Indian Constitution: Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment

Article 16 of the Indian Constitution guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment and ensures that the state does not discriminate based on religion, caste, sex, or place of birth.

• Article 16(1) grants the right to be considered for public employment opportunities but does not guarantee employment.
• Article 16(2) ensures no discrimination based on religion, caste, sex, etc., in public employment.
• Article 16(3) allows the Parliament to legislate provisions for reserving certain posts for residents of specific states or regions.
• Article 16(4) empowers the state to provide reservations for backward classes in public services if they are underrepresented.
• Article 16(4A) permits reservations in promotions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes based on seniority if they are not adequately represented. The Article was inserted by 77th Amendment Act, 1995.
• Article 16(4B) also known as the Carry forward rule. It allows unfilled reserved vacancies to be carried forward to the next recruitment cycle without affecting the 50% reservation ceiling. Article 16(4B) was added by the 81st Amendment Act, 2000.
• Article 16(5) provides that appointments in religious or denominational institutions can prioritise individuals of that faith.
• Article 16(6) provides a 10% reservation for economically weaker sections (EWS) in public employment.

Article 335 of the Indian Constitution: Claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to services and posts

The claims of the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes shall be taken into consideration, consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration, in the making of appointments to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State: Provided that nothing in this article shall prevent in making of any provision in favour of the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes for relaxation in qualifying marks in any examination or lowering the standards of evaluation, for reservation in matters of promotion to any class or classes of services or posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State.

Judgment and Impact of T. Devadasan v Union of India (1964)

The 5-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice Sudhi Ranjan Das, Justice K Subba Rao, Justice J.R. Mudholkar, Justice Raghubar Dayal and Justice N. Rajagopala Ayyangar held that the ‘carry forward rule’ was unconstitutional. The ‘Carry forwards Rule’ which allowed Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to occupy more than 50% of vacancies in a given year. 

The Constitution Bench stated that Article 14 ensures equality and permits reasonable restrictions based on circumstances. On the other hand Article 16(4) allows reservations for backward classes but they must not be so excessive that they deny opportunities to others. The Court ruled that to maintain fairness each recruitment year must be considered separately. The Supreme Court in this case referred to precedent M R Balaji vs State of Mysore. 

Justice Subba Rao, in dissent, claimed that the rule was a legitimate reservation policy and not a violation of rights unless it led to disproportionate representation. He acknowledged that reservations might slightly lower standards but said this did not make them unconstitutional. He also highlighted that Article 16(4) gives the State wide discretion to decide how to implement reservations.

Thus, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that the ‘carry forward rule’ will not be applicable if the reservation exceeds 50%. The ‘carry forward rule’ was overturned by 4:1.

Conclusion

In T. Devadasan v Union of India (1964) the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held the ‘carry forward rule’ was unconstitutional. The Court ruled that Article 14 guarantees equality any reservation must not be excessive and should not deny opportunities to others. The T. Devadasan judgement highlighted that each recruitment year should be considered separately to maintain fairness. The rule was overturned by a 4:1 majority.