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

1. The petitioner, who is a graduate; is an Assistant in grade IV of the Central Secretariat Service, having been recruited therein in the year 1956. He became permanent on January 1, 1958. The next post which the petitioner can expect to get is that of Section Officer (Assistant Superintendent) in the same service. Recruitment to the post of Section Officers is made in the following manner :(i) 40 per cent by direct recruitment from those who obtained lower ranks in the I. A. S. etc., Examination;(ii) 30 per cent by promotion from Grade IV to Grade III on the basis of a departmental examination held at intervals by the U.P.S. C.(iii) 30 per cent by promotion from Grade IV on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness.2. On February 6, 1960, the Union Public Service Commission issued a notification to the effect that a limited competitive examination for promotion to the regular temporary establishment of Assistant Superintendents of the Central Secretariat Service would be held in June. 1960. The notification further stated that a reservation 12 1/2 per cent of the vacancies would be made for members of the Scheduled Castes and 5 per cent for members of Scheduled Tribes. The result of this examination was announced by the Union Public Service Commission in April, 1961. The Union Public Service Commission recommended 16 candidates for being appointed in unreserved vacancies and 23 candidates in reserved vacancies. Subsequently the U. P. S. C. recommended 2 more candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes/ Tribes for the posts. It may be mentioned that the number of vacancies which were expected to be filled was stated to be 48 out of which 16 were unreserved and the remaining 32 reserved though in fact the U.P.S. C. recommended the names of only 30 candidates for the latter class of vacancies. The Government, however, made only 45 appointments out of which 29 were from among the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Tribes.

Reasoning:
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.