1964 (12) TMI 40 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the "carry forward" rule of 1952.
2. Validity of the "carry forward" rule of 1955.
3. Petitioner's entitlement to appointment based on the reservation rules applicable in 1960.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the "carry forward" rule of 1952:
The petitioner contended that the 1952 "carry forward" rule should be considered invalid as it was violative of Article 16 of the Constitution. The Court, however, clarified that the 1952 rule had ceased to exist when it was substituted by the 1955 rule. The judgment stated, "When therefore this Court struck down the carry forward rule as modified in 1955 that did not mean that the carry forward rule of 1952 which had already ceased to exist...could revive." Thus, the Court did not need to consider the constitutionality of the 1952 rule as it no longer existed.

2. Validity of the "carry forward" rule of 1955:
The 1955 "carry forward" rule had already been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the case of T. Devadasan v. Union of India (A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 179). The Court reiterated this position, stating, "the carry forward rule of 1955 was struck down by this Court." Consequently, the 1955 rule was invalid, and no carry forward rule was in existence post the Devadasan judgment.

3. Petitioner's entitlement to appointment based on the reservation rules applicable in 1960:
The petitioner argued that in the absence of a valid carry forward rule, the reservation for the 1960 examination should be limited to 12.5% for scheduled castes and 5% for scheduled tribes. However, the Court found that even without the carry forward rule, the petitioner was not entitled to an appointment based on his position in the examination. The judgment detailed the calculations: "Originally it was notified that the number of vacancies expected were 48...the petitioner secured 37th place in the unreserved quota...the petitioner being 36th on his own showing cannot claim appointment." Thus, the petitioner's position in the merit list did not entitle him to an appointment within the unreserved quota.

Conclusion:
The petition was dismissed as the petitioner could not claim appointment based on his position in the merit list, and the carry forward rules of 1952 and 1955 were either non-existent or invalid. The Court made no order as to costs.