T. DEVADASAN versus THE UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

T. DEVADASAN versus THE UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

The majority held that the 'carry forward rule', as applied, resulted in reservation far exceeding 50% (65% in the relevant year) and was thus unconstitutional, as it denied reasonable opportunity for employment to members of other communities, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Court held that...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Petitioner: T. Devadasan; Respondent: Union of India; Respondent: Union Public Service Commission
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
29 August 1963
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (article 32) / Supreme Court Final Judgment
Outcome
Writ Petition allowed by majority (Subba Rao, J. dissenting)
Legal Topics
Reservation in Public Services, Equality Before Law, Carry Forward Rule, Scheduled Castes and Tribes, Fundamental Rights
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Public Employment Law Reservation in Public Services Equality Before Law Carry Forward Rule Scheduled Castes and Tribes Fundamental Rights

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

T. Devadasan

Petitioner

Union of India

Respondent

Union Public Service Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (article 32) / Supreme Court Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 'carry forward rule' for reservation of posts for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in public employment is constitutional under Articles 14, 16(1), 16(4), and 335 of the Constitution of India.
  2. 2 Whether the extent of reservation exceeding 50% in any given year amounts to a denial of reasonable opportunity to members of other communities.

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that the 'carry forward rule', as applied, resulted in reservation far exceeding 50% (65% in the relevant year) and was thus unconstitutional, as it denied reasonable opportunity for employment to members of other communities, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Court held that though reservation to achieve adequate representation for Scheduled Castes and Tribes is permissible, it must not be so excessive as to hamper the rights and opportunities of others.

Court Disposition

Writ Petition allowed by majority (Subba Rao, J. dissenting)

Orders

  • The 'carry forward rule' as applied was declared unconstitutional and struck down.
  • Petitioner awarded costs.