Introduction

• In this case, Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India (COI) is interpreted in a broader sense, and guidelines were issued by the Supreme Court to be followed in all state recruitments.

Facts

• In this case, the petitioner was a level IV assistant with the Central Secretariat who was qualified for the next unit officer grade.
• In 1961, the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) conducted a competitive exam to fill 45 Assistant Superintendent positions out of which 29 were designated for scheduled caste (SC) and scheduled tribe (STs) candidates, leaving the remaining openings unfilled.
• The petitioner argued that 17% of normal quota to be restricted for ST/SC candidates so that more vacancies can be made.
• The Petitioner also challenged the Carry Forward Rule.

Issue Involved

• Whether the carry forward rule is in violation of Article 16(1) of the COI?
• Whether Article 16(4) is violative of Article 16 (1) of the COI?

Observations

• The Supreme Court in this case observed that Article 16(4) is an exception to article 16(1) of the COI which is incorporated to uplift the socially backward classes.
• The Supreme Court also added that the idea of equal opportunity should not be violated by applying unproportionate reservations otherwise the same would affect Article 14 of the COI.
• It was also clearly held by the Supreme court that the carry forward rule will stop working if the reservation exceeds 50%.

Conclusion

• The Supreme Court issued guidelines for recruitment in compliance with Article 16(4) of the COI to avoid any kind of violation of the equal opportunity rights guaranteed under the constitution of India.