Introduction:

T. Devadasan v. Union of India (1964) is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India that significantly shaped the understanding and application of the "carry forward rule" in the context of reservations for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in public employment, as guaranteed under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India. The case arose from a challenge to the government's implementation of this rule, arguing that it led to excessive reservations and violated the principle of equality of opportunity enshrined in Article 16(1).

Facts:

The petitioner T. Devadasan, was a qualified candidate for promotion in the Central Secretariat Service. In 1961, the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) conducted examinations to fill 45 Assistant Superintendent positions. Out of these, 29 posts were reserved for SC/ST candidates due to the application of the "carry forward rule," which allowed unfilled reserved vacancies from previous years to be added to the current year's quota. This resulted in approximately 65% of the vacancies being reserved in that particular year. The petitioner contended that this excessive reservation violated his fundamental right to equality of opportunity under Article 16(1) of the Constitution.

Issues:

Whether the "carry forward rule," as applied by the government, resulting in over 50% reservation in a single year, was constitutionally valid under Article 16(1) and Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India?

Analysis:

The Supreme Court, in its majority judgment, analyzed the interplay between Article 16(1) (guaranteeing equality of opportunity in public employment) and Article 16(4) (enabling the State to make provisions for reservation in favour of backward classes). The Court reiterated the principle established in M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore (1963) that while Article 16(4) is an exception to Article 16(1), this exception should not be so extensive as to effectively abrogate the general rule of equality.

The Court specifically examined the "carry forward rule." It acknowledged that the rule was intended to ensure that the benefits of reservation reach the intended beneficiaries over time, even if suitable candidates are not available in a particular year. However, the Court cautioned against the indiscriminate application of this rule, which could lead to a substantial portion of vacancies being reserved in a single recruitment year, thereby severely limiting the opportunities for general category candidates and undermining the principle of equality.

The Court held that the carry forward rule should be applied in a manner that does not result in the reservation exceeding 50% of the vacancies in a particular year. The rationale was that exceeding this limit would create a monopoly in favour of the reserved categories and would be detrimental to the principle of equality enshrined in the Constitution. The Court emphasized that each year of recruitment should be treated as a distinct unit for the purpose of applying the reservation limit.

Judgment:

By a 4:1 majority, the Supreme Court struck down the "carry forward rule" as it was applied in the present case, leading to 65% reservation. The Court held that such a high percentage of reservation in a single year was unconstitutional as it violated Article 16(1) by denying reasonable equality of opportunity to other citizens. The Court emphasized that the carry forward rule should be implemented in a way that maintains the overall balance and does not excessively encroach upon the general rule of equality.

Conclusion:

T. Devadasan v. Union of India is a significant milestone in the jurisprudence of reservations in India. The judgment established the crucial principle that while the "carry forward rule" is a permissible mechanism to ensure adequate representation for backward classes under Article 16(4), its application must be circumscribed to ensure that the total reservation in any given year does not exceed 50%. This case underscored the judiciary's role in balancing the constitutional mandate of affirmative action with the fundamental right to equality of opportunity for all citizens, setting a crucial precedent for future reservation policies and their implementation. However, it's important to note that the 50% limit was later revisited and somewhat relaxed in certain specific contexts by subsequent Supreme Court judgments, particularly concerning backlog vacancies.