Case: All India Station Masters' &amp; Assistant Station Master's Association Vs. General Manager, Central Railways &amp; Others

The petitioners who describe themselves as Road-side Station Masters challenge in this petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution theof the channel of promotion for Guards to higher grade Station Masters posts as notified in the issue of the Central Railway Weekly Gazette No. 3 datedUnder this Notification Guards have two lines of promotion open to them. One is that by promotion, C grade Guards may become B grade Guards on Rs. 100-185 and thereafter by further promotion A grade Guards on Rs.The second line of promotion open to them is that by an examination described curiously enough as Slip 45 examination C grade Guards are eligible forpromotion to posts of Station Masters on Rs.150-225 scale and thereafter to all the further promotions that are open to the Station Mastersle of Rs.200 to Rs. 300, Rs. 260 to Rs. 350,Rs. 300 to Rs. 400 and finally Rs. 360 to Rs. 500; B grade Guards and A grade Guards are also on passing Slip 45 examination eligible forpromotion to posts of Station Masters on Rs.200-300 pay scale and thereafter to further promotions to the higher scalein the Station Mastersline. The Road-side Station Masterse of Rs. 80to Rs. 170 (the scale was formerly Rs. 64-170) can also reach by promotion the grade of Rs. 150-225 but only after going through an intermediate stage of Rs.Similarly Station Masters on Rs. 100-185 scale may also reach the stage of Rs. 200-300 but only after passing through the intermediate stage of Rs.Obviously the provisions enabling Guards to become Station Masters on the payof Rs. 150-225places the Station Masters of Rs. 80-170 scale at a disadvantageas against Guards on thatpay scale and also puts the Road-side Station Masters on the pay of Rs. 100-185 pay scale at a disadvantageas against Guards on thatscale of pay.

Court's reasoning:
It is clear that as between the members of the same class the question whether conditions of service are the same or not may well arise. If they are not, the question of denial of equal opportunity will require serious considerationin such cases. Does the concept of equal opportunity in matters of employment apply, however, to variations in provisions as between members of different classes of employees under theIn our opinion, theanswer must be in theconcept of equality can have no existence except withreference to matters which are common as between individuals, between whom equality is predicated. Equality of opportunity in matters of employment can be predicated only as between persons, who are either seeking the same employment, or have obtained the sameit is meaningless to say that unless persons who have obtained employment as school teachers, have the same chances of promotion as persons who have obtained employment as teachers in colleges, equality of opportunity isis, in our opinion, no escape from the conclusion that equality of opportunity in matters of promotion, must mean equality as between members of the same class of employees, and not equality between members of separate, independentcrux of the question is the nature of the differentiation between Road-side Station Masters and Guards in recruitment, prospects and promotion. We find that Road-side Station Masters and Guards are recruited separately, trained separately and the several classes of posts which are ordinarily open to them are also distinct and separate. The only point of contact between them is provided by the rule that Guards may become Station Masters by passing the Slip 45 examination. If after becoming Station Masters these Guards could continue also as Guards there might be some scope for suggesting that the two classes have coalesced. It is not disputed however that Guards once they become Station Masters cease to be Guards and continue as Station Masters. The fact that the qualifications necessary for recruitment as Guards or Station Masters are approximately or even wholly the same can in no way affect the question whether they form one and the same class, or form differenton the admitted factsthe Road-side Station Masters and Guardsare, as already stated, recruited separately and trained separately and have separate avenues of promotion, the conclusion is irresistible that they form two distinct and separate classes as between whom there is no scope for predicating equality or inequality of opportunity in matters of promotion.In view of this conclusion it is unnecessary for the purpose of the present case to decide the other question : whether matters of promotion are included in the words "matters relating to employment" inArt. 16(1) of the Constitution.For even assuming that they are so included, the present application must be rejected on the simple ground that the petitioners belong to a wholly distinct and separate class from Guards and so there can be no question of equality of opportunity inof promotion as between the petitioners andel for the petitioners stated before us that this channel of promotion for Guards is peculiar to the Central Railways, and is not now to be found in the other Zones of Indian Railways. If that be the position, the matter may well deserve the attention of the Government; but this has nothing to do with the merits of the petition before us.