Case: T.Devadasan Vs. The Union Of India And Another


Decision reasoning: 1[ds]11. It seems to us that the argument based upon Art. 14 of the Constitution in fact turns on the same considerations as the argument that Art. 16 (1) is infringed by the aforesaid rule. What Art.14 provides is that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. What is meant by equality in this Article is, equality amongst equals. It does not provide that what is aimed at is an absolute equality of treatment to all persons in utter disregard in very conceivable circumstance of the differences such as age, sex, education and so on and so forth as may be found amongst people in general. Indeed, while the aim of this Article is to ensure that invidious distinction or arbitrary discrimination shall not be made by the State between a citizen and a citizen who answer the same description and the differences which may obtain between them are of no relevance for the purpose of applying a particular law reasonable classification is permissible. It does not mean anythingtherefore, the State makes a rule providing fo the reservation of appointments and posts for such backward classes it cannot be said to have violated Art. 14, merely because members of the more advanced classes will not be considered for appointment to these posts even though they may be equally or even more meritorious than the members of the backward classes, or merely because such reservation is not made in every kind of service under the State. Where the object of a rule is to make reasonable allowance for the backwardness of members of a class by reserving certain proportion of appointments for them in the public services of the State what the State would in fact be doing would be to provide the members of backward classes with an opportunity equal to that of the members of the more advanced classes in the matter of appointments to public services. If the reservation is so excessive that it practically denies a reasonable opportunity for employment to members of other communities the position may well be different and it would be open then for a member of a more advanced class to complain that he has been denied equality by theneed for the maintenance of efficiency of administration, even when giving effect to the provisions of Art. 16(4) has been emphasised in Rangacharis case, 1962-2 SCR 586   : (AIR 1962 SC 36  ). It is, therefore, not necessary for us to say anything more on the point.20. Having held that the carry forward rule as modified in 1955 is unconstitutional, the question which arises is as to the relief which we should grant to the petitioner. Mr. Gopalakrishnan made it clear that all that he wants is a declaration about the invalidity of the rule and that he hopes that the department concerned will implement the decision of this Court in an appropriate way. Indeed, no further relief can be given to him because the persons who have been appointed and who may be affected by this decision have not been jointed as respondents in this petition.