Devdasan vs Union of India Case summary
Facts
In Devadasan v. Union of India , also known as ‘carry forward rule case’, the scope of Article 16(4) was contemplated. In this case the government's ”enforcement guidelines” for the appointment of retrograde class persons to public services was included. The overall language concerning the quantum in Balaji took on a whole new facet in this case.
In this case the petitioner, a Central Secretariat assistant level IV was competent for the next Unit Officer grade. The U.P.S.C. in 1961, organized a competitive examination which was held for the position of Assistant Superintendent to fill 45 vacancies of which 29 vacancies were reserved for SCs and STs and the subsequent vacancies remained open. The petitioner challenged the government to have a reasonable chance of being selected for the post if it restricted the normal quota of 17% for Scheduled Castes and Tribes because then more vacant jobs could have been made. Furthermore, in 1952 the government introduced the “carry forward law”.
Issues
The issues were that whether the carry forward rule was challenged so far as the privileges granted by Article 16 clause (1) ought to be nullified or lost and whether or not the aft class was properly portrayed was left to the state’s subjective satisfaction.
Rule
The rule discussed in this case was The Carry Forward Rule which states that in addition to the existing reserves, unfilled vacancies for reserved category candidates are to be extended to the next year, thereby increasing the quantum of reserves in the next year by the amount that is actually unfulfilled (with a limit of two years, in this case). It ended in 64.4 per cent of vacancies that were to be filled with Scheduled Castes and Tribes in the recruitment yearly issue i.e. in the third year.
Observations
The Supreme Court in this case observed that Article 16(4) is an exception to Article 16(1) of the COI which is incorporated to uplift the socially backward classes.The Supreme Court also added that the idea of equal opportunity should not be violated by applying unproportionate reservations otherwise the same would affect Article 14 of the COI.It was also clearly held by the Supreme court that the carry forward rule will stop working if the reservation exceeds 50%.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court issued guidelines for recruitment in compliance with Article 16(4) of the COI to avoid any kind of violation of the equal opportunity rights guaranteed under the constitution of India
“ NIDHI VERMA, BBA LLB (H) , 2nd-year student of Shri Ramswaroop Memorial University Lucknow “
Comments