B. N. TIWARI versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

Citation: [1965] 2 S.C.R. 421 · Decided: 10-12-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B. N. TIWARI 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS 
December 10, 1964 
B [P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, c. J., K. N. WANCHOO, J, c. SHAH, N. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR and S. M. SIKRI, JJ.] 
Central Services-Reserved quota for Scheduled Castes and Tribes-
"Carry forward" rule of 1952 modified in 1955-Amended Rule declared 
invalid-Effect .. 
In 1950 by a resolution of the Ministry of Home Affairs a reservation 
was fixed for scheduled castes and tribes to the extent of 12!% and 5% 
respectively in respect of vacancies in public services to be filled from year 
to year. In 1952. a "carry forward" rule was introduced whereby the 
unfilled reserved vacancies of a particular year would be carried forward 
for on year only. 
In 1955 the above rule was substituted by another 
providing that the unfilled reserved vacancies of a particular year would 
be carried forward for two years. 
In 1960 a limited competitive examina· 
tion was held by the Union Public Service Commission for promtion to 
the post of Section Officers. The petitioner who was an Assistant in the 
Central Secretariat Service appeared at this examination and secured the 
37th rank. Although 43 appointments were made as a result of 
the 
examination the petitioner could not be appointed because under the 1955 
"carry forward" rule as many as 28 Yacancies were to be filled by Sche-
duled caste and scheduled tribes candidates. In 1963 the 1955 rule was 
declared invalid by this Court in Devadasan's case, whereupon the peti-
tioner filed a petition under Art. 32. 
He claimed that the 1952 "carry 
forward" rule having been substituted by the 1955 rule, and the latter 
having been declared unconstitutional there was no "carry forward" rule 
in existence in 1960 and therefore by virtue of his rank in the examination 
he ought to be appointed to the post of Section Officer. 
HELD : (i) When L 1952 "cary forward" rule was substituted by the 
rule of 1955 the former ceased to exist. 
The 1955 rule having been 
declared unconstitutional in Devadasan's case there was no "carry forward" 
rule in existence in 1960 when the petitioner appeared at the examination, 
(426 F-G] 
(ii) It must made clear that the judgment of this Court in Devada-
sans' case was only concerned with that part of the instructions of the 
Government of India which deal with the "carry forward" mle; it did not 
in any way touch the reservation for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes 
at 12t% and 5% respectively. This reservation had to be given effect to. 
After allowing for these reservations only 34 unreserved vacancies were 
left to be filled and the petitioner's rank being lower, he could not succeed. 
(426 G-H; 428 A-BJ 
T. Devadasan v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1964 S. C. 179, explained. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 110 of 1964. 
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for the 
enforcement of fundamental rights. 
B. Sen and B. N. Kirpal, for the petitioner. 
-422 
SUPREME 
COURT 
REPORTS 
[ 1965] 2 S.C.R. 
C. K. Daphtary, Soli,citor-General and B. R. G. K. Achar, for 
A. 
the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Wanchoo, J.-This petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution 
is a sequel to the judgment of this Court in T. Devadasan v. Union 
of lndid('). The petitioner was Assistant in Grade IV of the B 
Central Secretariat Service. 
The next post which the petitiener 
could expect to get was of Section Officer (Assistant Superinten· 
dent). Recruitment t-0 the post of Section Officer is made in the 
following manner :-
(i) 50% by direct recruitment from those who obtain 
lower ranks in the Indian Administrative Service etc. 
C 
examinations. 
(ii) 25 % by promotion from Grade IV on the basis of a 
departmental examination held at intervals by the Union 
Public Se!'.Vice Commission, and 
(iii) 25% by promotion from Grade IV on the basis 
D 
of seniority-cum-fitness. 
In February 1960 the Union Public Service Commission issued a 
notification to the effect that a limited competitive examination for 
promotion to the post of Section Officers would be held in June 
1960. The notification further stated that reservation of 12t% 
of the available vacancies would be made for members of sch~ E 
duled castes and 5 % for the members of scheduled tribes. 
The 
number of vacancies to be filled was to be announced later. The 
petitioner sat for this examination and he is said to have secured the 
37th position in order of merit. 
Later, a press communiq

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.