Case: Md. Usman &amp; Ors Vs. State Of Andhra Pradesh &amp; Ors

to be selected from the L.D.Cs. after the L.D.Cs. had put in certain number of years of service and after they had passed the Accounts Test as well as the Registration Test. A.U.D.C. holds superior post to that of an L.D.C. His salary is higher and his conditions of service are better than that of an L.D.C. Hence it was urged that as rule 5 treats U.D.Cs. as well as L.D.Cs. as equal for the purpose of recruitment for the post of a Grade II Sub Registrar, the rule violates the doctrine of equality. According to the petitioners the equality doctrine is attracted not only when equals are treated as unequals but also where unequals are treated as equals. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that a statutory provision may offend Art. 14 of the Constitution both by finding differences where there are none and by making no difference where there is one. The proposition of law advanced on behalf of the petitioners is unexceptionable. This Court ruled in Kunnathat Thathunni Moopil Nair v. The State of Kerala and another, (1961) 3 S.C.R. 77, that when the statute obliged every person who held land to pay tax at the flat rate prescribed, whether or not he made any income out of the property, or whether or not the property was capable of yielding any income, there being no attempt at classification in the provisions of the statute, the statute denied equality before law because of lack of classification. Similar views have been expressed by this Court in other decisions. It is not necessary to refer to those decisions.4. On the other hand it was argued on behalf of the contesting respondents that before considering the vires of rule 5 we must first ascertain the reason behind the rule to find out whether in fact there is discrimination. The contesting respondents do not deny that the position of an U.D.C. is superior to that of an L.D.C. But according to them it became necessary for the State to pool together the U.D.Cs. as well as the L.D.Cs. for the purpose of recruitment in question for the following reasons :-5. The Grade II Sub-Registrars are in a state wise cadre whereas the U.D.Cs. and L.D.Cs. belong to a district-wise cadres. Promotion from L.D.C. to U.D.C. is made district-wise. The chances of promotion from L.D.C. to U.D.C. in one district materially differs from another district. It depends on the number of posts available in a particular district. In one district an L.D.C. may be promoted as a U.D.C. as soon as he puts in a service of 5 years, whereas in another district an L.D.C. possessing the same or better qualifications as well as efficiency may not be promoted as a U.D.C. for 15 years or more. That being so while making recruitment to a State-wise cadre it was not possible for the State to make distinction between the L.D.Cs. and the U.D.Cs. The only reasonable basis that could have been adopted was to treat the U.D.Cs. and L.D.Cs. as one class for the purpose of recruitment. But at the same time the rule provides for giving preference to the U.D.Cs. who had put in a service of 5 years or more. There is force in these contentions though there may be some anomaly in the case of L.D.Cs. and U.D.Cs. serving in the same district. But that anomaly cannot be avoided. The validity of a rule has to be judged by assessing its over-all effect and not by picking up exceptional case. What the court has to see is whether the classification made is a just one taking all aspects into consideration.6. On the facts before us we are unable to agree that for the purpose of recruitment with which we are concerned herein the State should have classified the U.D.Cs. and L.D.Cs. separately. If the State had treated the U.D.C. as being superior to the L.D.Cs. for the purpose of that recruitment it would have resulted in a great deal of injustice to a large section of the clerks. The fortuitous circumstances of an officer in a particular district becoming a U.D.C. would have given him an undue advantage over his seniors who might have been as efficient or even more efficient than himself, merely because they chanced to serve in some other district. For the reasons mentioned above, we do not think that in the present case the State can be said to have treated unequals as equals. The rule of equality is intended to advance justice by avoiding discrimination. In our opinion the High Court by overlooking the reason behind rule 5 came to the erroneous conclusion that the said rule violated Art. 14 of the Constitution.7. We agree with the High Court that there is no substance in the petitioners contention that the impugned recruitments were not made in accordance with rule 5. It is clear from the affidavit filed on behalf of the State and the Registrar that the Registrar had considered the case of all the qualified clerks, but the Registrar though that the best basis for recruitment was to prepare a list of all the clerks, U.D.Cs. as well as L.D.Cs. arranging the names in the order of seniority as L.D.Cs. and thereafter consider each name and reject the unfit. In other words, the selection was made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. The seniors among the clerks were selected subject to suitability. Those persons who were entitled to be given preference under the rules were considered separately and recruited at the first instance. Only thereafter the other recruitments were made. The rules do not prescribe that the recruitment should be made on the basis of merit and merit alone. Bearing in mind the fact that the recruitment with which we are concerned in this case is a recruitment by transfer which means recruitment from among the ministerial officials, the method adopted by the Registrar appears to us to be the most reasonable one.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]The rules provide for the promotion to the posts of Sub-Registrar as well as for recruitment to those posts. Rule 2 provides that a post of Grade-I Sub-Registrar should be filled by promotion from Grade-II Sub-Registrar. So far as Grade II Sub-Registrars are concerned, they are to be appointed either by promotion from reserve Sub-Registrars or by "recruitment by transfer from the clerks of the Registration and Stamps Department including the office of the Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages and the office of the Registrar of the Firms." Rule 5 deals with qualifications for being recruited as Grade-IIshall be given to persons who, in addition to the qualifications specified in items (i) to (iii) possess a degree in Law of a University in the State or any other equivalent qualification or a leadership certificate in the first category or Upper Division Clerks in the Registration Department".It was urged that this rule is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution because though among the clerks there are U.D.Cs. as well as L.D.Cs. yet all of them had been put in one class for the purpose of recruitment. As per the Ministerial Service Rules the U.D.Cs. had to be selected from the L.D.Cs. after the L.D.Cs. had put in certain number of years of service and after they had passed the Accounts Test as well as the Registration Test. A.U.D.C. holds superior post to that of an L.D.C. His salary is higher and his conditions of service are better than that of anit was urged that as rule 5 treats U.D.Cs. as well as L.D.Cs. as equal for the purpose of recruitment for the post of a Grade II Sub Registrar, the rule violates the doctrine of equality.The Grade II Sub-Registrars are in a state wise cadre whereas the U.D.Cs. and L.D.Cs. belong to a district-wise cadres. Promotion from L.D.C. to U.D.C. is made district-wise. The chances of promotion from L.D.C. to U.D.C. in one district materially differs from another district. It depends on the number of posts available in a particular district. In one district an L.D.C. may be promoted as a U.D.C. as soon as he puts in a service of 5 years, whereas in another district an L.D.C. possessing the same or better qualifications as well as efficiency may not be promoted as a U.D.C. for 15 years or more. That being so while making recruitment to a State-wise cadre it was not possible for the State to make distinction between the L.D.Cs. and the U.D.Cs. The only reasonable basis that could have been adopted was to treat the U.D.Cs. and L.D.Cs. as one class for the purpose of recruitment. But at the same time the rule provides for giving preference to the U.D.Cs. who had put in a service of 5 years or more. There is force in these contentions though there may be some anomaly in the case of L.D.Cs. and U.D.Cs. serving in the same district. But that anomaly cannot be avoided. The validity of a rule has to be judged by assessing its over-all effect and not by picking up exceptional case. What the court has to see is whether the classification made is a just one taking all aspects into consideration.6. On the facts before us we are unable to agree that for the purpose of recruitment with which we are concerned herein the State should have classified the U.D.Cs. and L.D.Cs. separately. If the State had treated the U.D.C. as being superior to the L.D.Cs. for the purpose of that recruitment it would have resulted in a great deal of injustice to a large section of the clerks. The fortuitous circumstances of an officer in a particular district becoming a U.D.C. would have given him an undue advantage over his seniors who might have been as efficient or even more efficient than himself, merely because they chanced to serve in some other district. For the reasons mentioned above, we do not think that in the present case the State can be said to have treated unequals as equals. The rule of equality is intended to advance justice by avoiding discrimination. In our opinion the High Court by overlooking the reason behind rule 5 came to the erroneous conclusion that the said rule violated Art. 14 of the Constitution.7. We agree with the High Court that there is no substance in the petitioners contention that the impugned recruitments were not made in accordance with rule 5. It is clear from the affidavit filed on behalf of the State and the Registrar that the Registrar had considered the case of all the qualified clerks, but the Registrar though that the best basis for recruitment was to prepare a list of all the clerks, U.D.Cs. as well as L.D.Cs. arranging the names in the order of seniority as L.D.Cs. and thereafter consider each name and reject the unfit. In other words, the selection was made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. The seniors among the clerks were selected subject to suitability. Those persons who were entitled to be given preference under the rules were considered separately and recruited at the first instance. Only thereafter the other recruitments were made. The rules do not prescribe that the recruitment should be made on the basis of merit and merit alone. Bearing in mind the fact that the recruitment with which we are concerned in this case is a recruitment by transfer which means recruitment from among the ministerial officials, the method adopted by the Registrar appears to us to be the most reasonable one.