(*.«!.,utesisai.ai a^ss ?R Pi-fw' •^qT 5flT^?T st)^(l'=t) 3^^ ^)|A||^, ^'Tdti'id, R^i+iy ^Wvff *N|cb 200; an^?r TBR; (ijgf^g^) .%. 'ssiraT^itersn^T PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS: Klrti j< Shahl Jagd| Distt.1 1. Higtl Bila4 Gen< 2 Stat^ the Regi| Bhasil (Writ petition under Arti D.8.: HON'BLE SHRI L.C. Cumar Shah, S/oShri Rattilal aged about 45 years, R/o sh Mandir Street, Dhamtari, Dhamtari, Pin: 493 773. - Vereus - Court of Chhattisgarh at pur, Through Registrar ?ral. of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary of Law & stration Department, D.K.S. /an, Raipur (C.G.) BHADDO HON'SLE SHR1 SUNIL KU Appearance: Shri Kunal Das, counsel for Shri A.S. Gaharwar, ofChhattisgarh/respondent No.2. L.C. BHADOO. J. By way of this Writ Petition India, the petitioner has challenged dated 15/4/2008 issued by the H vacancies of the Higher Judiciat S< direct recruitment quota as per Rules 2006, on the ground that 'bWfdl'l-f Wiaf •if.'fs^ <fa|^l< ^T affipT 3)1^1 e 226 of the Constitution of India) IAND. flARSINHA.JJ (he petitioner. Additiohal Advocate General on behalf of the State tAL ORDER ^5.05.20081 pled under Articte 226 of the Constitution of |the legality and validity of the advertisement jgh Court of Chhattisgarh for filling up the jrvice of the State of Chhattisgarh under the Riple 5 (1) (c) of the Higher Judfcial Service id the said advertisement dated 15/4/2008, '—78 -s^t^fv^f, ^w^, Rt^iyy lllMptf "*MI* .......fi.s3..^^ SIR^T ^51% (^pt^^T) sn^r'^i^ii?; •gqT 311^1 shHro TOdWdft^ SII^I -2- it>itil<-i<il-< iwi.ff-if.^'l <h^H ^aiRnam^ii -< relaxation in age maidmum up to| belonging to Scheduled Castes, g who are the bona fide residents) genera! ciass candidates have n4>1 the said act of the respondents i|s bee'n sought that (i) the candid^l State of Chhattisgarh have been age and the same benefit be the other states (ii) High Court submission of their applications fc|' be directed to be accepted by the the petitioner has completed 45 date. We have heard learned coui tt is an admitted position th< the candidates of SC, ST & OBC age. The principte of equality universal application for alt pers< circumstances in the same position persons often require separate trea to think that all laws have to be m< go. The principte of equality does Giassifying persons for legitimate exereise its discretion and make cl degree likely to produce some ine< years has been altowed for the candtdates icheduted Tribes & Other Backward Classes, of the State of Chhattisgarh, whereas, the been extended the said beneffl, therefore, discriminatory. The following relief(s) have tes belonging to S.C., S.T. & O.B.C. of e e^tended the benefit of relaxation of 3 years of ext^nded to the candidates of the same class of of Qhhattisgarh be directed to extend the time for 7 days (iii) the application of the petitioner tespondents giving relaxation 6f the same, as I'ears 8 months and 3 days on the relevant isel for the parties on admission. jt as per the advertisement dated •I5.4.2008, hjave been attowed relaxation up to 3 years of ^oes not mean that every law must have <ns who are not by • nature, attainment or as the varying needs of different classes of (ment. It would be inexpedient and incorrect ^de uniformly applicabte to ail people in one |not take away from the State the power of tjiurposes. The iegisiature is competent to l^ssification. Every classification is in some juality, and mere production of inequality is i^" sS '': :^K :^^ •'^^ .-^? ^:;@ Y:fe$1'-78 ''•^Si-r^?.^'"1 311^1 ?nfriW TWT3n^rww ^.. -yssf ^W^, ^W\4, ^<ftwy. wwn *w<*> C^. P. (€ an^r^ra; C^W) ^OTWflfefsn^I — '2., ^wh^-i wiKS-ifk^ <r»i^i< ^siRnsn^r not enough. Differential treatm^nt does not per se constitute violationof Art. 14. It denies equal protection c|nly when there is no reasonable basis for the differentiation. If a law dsals equally w|th members of a well-defined class, it is not obnoxious and it is not open to (he charge of denlal of equal protection on the ground that it has no appticatiorj to other persons. !n order, however, to pass the test of permissible classjficat|on two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (i) that the classification must bejfounded on an intelligibledifferential Which distinguishes persons or things tl)at are grouped together from others left out of the group and (ii) that, that differejntial must have a rational relatlon to the object sought to be achieved by the stat(rte in question. Article 16 (1) ofthe Consti^ution of Ind.ia guarantees an equal opportunify to atl citizens to apply for emp|oyment under the State. tt extends to all 'employment' under the state wh^re there is no question of appointment to an office, provided there is a re!at|onship of employer and employee and an element of subordination to the St^te. The equality of opportunity guarantee by Art. 16 (1) need not be an absolut^ equality. It does not prohibit theprescription of reasonable rules for selection| to any employment or appointment to any office. I Any reservation or relaxati|on of service conditions for appointment or promotion made available to S discriminatory even though it r^lates to 'selection posts', provided such reservation is not excessive. Under Articles 341 & 342 consultation with the Governor by ;, ST & OBC cannot be challenged as <tf the Constitution of India, the President in public notification hasspecified the tribes, -78 sii^i ?n'Raw •aii sti^i si>*ii'» ^E. -S^^fWv^, ^W\^,^wy. _.__ ....^:.<E:.-../£^..?^^. Tira?ir wncb ••••••--••--^^/ an^r WK (iphp^t) 2005 •s^nwnf^t sii^ii 4- tribal communities and Scheduled Castes as also the Other Backws treated as a separate class and 1 <(illid''il-l IIHcil 'it.fezt tr<n«(it "^ sifw oii^i Castes. Therefore, the tribes and Scheduled rd Classes in view of Art. 16 (4) have been |hey are entitled for special treatment in the matter of recruitment and appoinljTient. Relaxation in age has been given to SC,|ST &OBC, the candidates o| general category cannot chaltenge the said relation on the ground of equalify b^fore law and equal protection, because, SC, ST & OBC have been treatec) as a separate class on a reasonable classiflcafion. Therefore, the can<(idates of general category cannot clafm the same relaxation which has been|e)dended to SC, ST & OBC. Uhder fte constitutional provisions the Go^ernment is entitled to make reasonable classification on the ground of sp^cified castes, races or tribes or paris of or groups as SC, ST & OBC. In con^idering SC, ST & OBO as a separate class, being sufferers and looking to th^r social background, in order to give them adequate representation, if relaxati()n of three years w'rth regard to age is given to them, the general category eanc^date cannot claim the same benefrt and the said relaxation given to SC, Sf & OBC cannot be considered to be discriminatory, because said rela^ation has been extended to them after makjng reasonable classification. Now coming to the seco^d ground that the Scheduled Castes, Scheduted Tribesand Other Backwfard Class of the other States have notbeen exlended the similar benefit,whicti has been extended to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backv^ard Classes of the State of Chhattisgarh, in this respect, the provisions of Articl^s 341 & 342 are clear, which envisage that to any State [or Union Territory], after Ipubtic notification, can specify e castes, jwithin castes, races or tribes which shall for ,the President (may witft respect consuttation with the Governor by races or tribes or parts of or groups !C—7i M^r?it^;tn? V 3TI^T **<!<*' •^•. 'T 3^q- ^fiAii^, ^^1^, Ri^iyy WERW sbtllch L^-^S^ 200 ^ 31ROT IR^ (lj«ltl'sl<f) ?RIWHf??f3II^f 5 declaration the purposes of this Constituticfr Schedules Tribes. Therefore, in view of the| Scheduied Castes and Schedulet or tribes or parts of or groups witltii / or Union Territory. If any cast^ Scheduled Castes or Scheduled benefit on the basis of their Tribes or any caste in respect df Scheduled Tribes and Other Bact who have been declared as ScHe Backward Classes of those Statet State Government of Chhattisabrh petitioner is baseless. Now coming to the grounp submitting the applications be exts or argued that on wrtiat basis the reasons and provisions oftherule^ No other point was pres^ petitioner. For the foregoing reasons, ^ediwiisse^andjtjsacrordjngly Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo ,Judge ^. <*wf<*t<il-< Mw'rif ^_tezt <Ri«ti< ^sjfwan^T be deemed to be Schedules Castes and above constitutional provision, the status of Tribes is given to the specific eastes, races in castes, races or tribes in respect of a State ps, races ortribes have been declared as 'ribes in a State, they cannot seek the same as Scheduled Castes and Scheduled other State. Therefore, Scheduled Castes, |ward Classes in respect of the other States, jeduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other cannot be extended the same status in the i. Therefore, this ground raised by the raised by the peUtioner that the time for (nded by 7 days, nothing has been mentioned j)eriod should be extended. Without any valid >, the timecannot be extended. ^ed or raised by learned counsel tor the fthe petition being devoid of merit is liable to jlismissed, /n^^e^Noorteras to costs. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge E'^