T. DEVADASAN versus THE UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1964] 4 S.C.R. 680 · Decided: 29-08-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.K. DAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 18 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1963 
Kharkan and 
others 
v. 
The State 
of U.P. 
Hidayatullah, f. 
1963 
August 29 
• 680 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1964] 
considered. The eye witnesses in this ca.se are five 
in 
number, while in the other case there were only two, but 
that apart, the earlier judgment can only be relevant if it 
fulfils the conditions laid down by the Indian Evidence 
Act in ss. 40-43. The earlier judgment is no doubt admis-
sible to show the parties and the decision but it is not 
admissible for the purpose of relying upon the apprecia-
tion of evidence. 
Since the bar under s. 403 
Criminal 
Procedure Code rlirl not operate, the earlier judgment is 
not relevant for the interpretation .of evidence in the present 
case. 
Mr. Tewatia attempted to argue on the facts of this 
case but we did not permit him to do so because this 
Court, in the absence of special circumstances, does not 
'review for the third time, evidence, which has been ac-
cepted in the High Court and the Court below. No such 
circumstance has been pointed out to us to make us de-
part from the settled practice. The appeal therefore fails 
and is dismissed. 
T. DEV ADASAN 
v. 
Appeal dismissed. 
THE UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER 
(S. K. DAS ACTING C.J., K. SOBBA RAO, RAGHUBAR DAYAL, 
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND J. R. MonHoLKAR, JJ.) 
Equality-Employment under 
State-Reservation 
of 
posts 
for backward classes-Scheduled 
Castes 
and 
Scheduled 
Tri-
bes-Unfilled vacancies of reserved posts for the year to be carri-
ed forward to subsequent 
year-"Carryforward 
rule"-Constitu-
tional validity-Constitution of India, Arts. 14, 16(1 ), 16( 4 ), 46, 
335. 
On February 6, 1960, the Union Public Service Commission 
issued a notification to the effect that a limited co:rripetitive exami-
nation 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 re-
servation of 12!% of the vacancies would be made for members 
of the Scheduled Castes and 5°!'. for members of Scheduled Tribe.s. 
The result of this examination was announced by the Union 
l(' ........ 
-
-
-
-
4 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
681 
Public Service Commission in April, 1961, and the Govern· 
ment made 45 appointments out of which 29 were from among 
the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Tribes. The 
result was that the reservation actually m<'l.de in this case came 
to 65% and was far in excess of that set out in the notification of 
the Union Public Service Commission pursuant to which the com· 
petitive examination was held. 
Had the reservation been Ii· 
mited to 
17-~o;,_ only 8 vacancies could have gone to the mem-
bers of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes and the rest to the other 
candidates according to their merit. 
The Government of India 
and the Public Service Commission sought to justify their action 
by relying upon \vhat is known as "the carry forward rule", as 
set out in th'e office Memorandum of instructions dated May 
7, 
1955, issued by the Government of India, by which : "If a suffic 
cient number of candidates considered suitable by the recruiting 
authorities, arc not available from the communities for whom re-
servations are made in a particular year, the 
unfilled 
vacancies 
should be treated as unreserved and filled by the best available 
candidates. 
The number of reserved vacancies thus treated 
as 
unreserved will be added as an additional quota to the number 
that would be reserved in the following year in the normal course; 
and to 
the extent to which 
approved candidates 
are 
not 
available· in that year against this additional quota, a correspond-
ing addition should be made to the number of reserved vacancies 
in the second following ycar'
1
• 
The petitioner, who was an assis-
tant in Grade IV of the Central Secretariat Service, who expected 
to become a Section Officer (Assistant Superintendent) by way ot 
promotion challenged the validity of the "carry forward rule" on 
the grounds, inter alia, that the rule contravened Arts. 14. 16 and 
335 of the Constitution of India . 
. Held, (Subba Rao, J., dissenting), that the "Carry forward 
rule", as a mult of which applicants belonging to Scheduled Cast-
es or Tribes could get more than 5001,, of the vacancies to be fil. 
Jed in a particu1<ll' year, is unconstitutional. 
Article H of the Constitution of India prohibits the Sta!J< 
from denying to any person equality before the law or

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