Case: C.A. Rajendran Vs. Union of India &amp; Others

1. In this case the petitioner, C. A. Rajendran has obtained rule from this Court calling upon the respondents to show cause why a writ in the nature of mandamus under Art. 32 of the Constitution should not be issued for quashing the Office Memorandum dated November 8,1963 which is annexure C to the Writ Petition, and for directing respondent No. 1 to restore the orders passed by it in Office Memorandum No. 2/11/55-RPS dated May 7, 1955 and No. 5/4/55-SCT (1) dated January 4, 1957. Cause has been shown-by the Attorney-General on behalf of the respondents to whom notice of the rule was ordered to be given2. The petitioner is a permanent Assistant in Grade IV (Class III, non-gazetted-ministerial) of the Railway Board Secretariat Service. He was initially appointed as Accounts Clerk on February 6, 1953 in Southern Railway. He was appointed as an Assistant on October 22, 1956 in the Railway Board and confirmed as Assistant on April 1, 1960. The pay-scale of the Assistants grade is Rs. 210-530. The next post to which the petitioner claims promotion is that of the Section Officer in the same service. The post of Section Officer is classified as Class II, Grade III, Gazetted and it carries a pay-scale of Rs. 350-900. The Railway Board Secretariat Service (Reorganisation and Re-enforcement) Scheme was drawn up in consultation with the Ministry of Home Affairs and introduced with effect from December 1, 1954 with the approval of the Union Public Service Commission. According to the new Scheme the Railway Board Secretariat Service consists of the following grades :"Grade IV-Assistants in the scale of Rs. 210-530/- (Class III non-gazetted) (to which Petitioner belongs)Grade III- Section Officers in the scald of Rs. 350-900 (Class II gazetted)-with effect from 1st July, 1959 (Section Officers grade)Grade II-Amalgamated with effect from 1st July, 1959 as Section Officers gradeGrade I- Assistant Directors/Under Secretaries in the scale of Rs. 900-1,250(Grade III was called, before 1st July, 1959, Assistant Superintendent in the scale of Rs. 275-500 and the scale of Grade II Superintendents was Rs. 530-800)."Recruitment to permanent vacancies of Grade III of the Railway Board Secretariat Service is made by the following three methods as per pare 18 of the Railway Board Secretariat Service Scheme :"(a) 33-1/3 per cent by direct recruit ment on the results of the combined Examinations held by the UPSC for the IAS, IPS and other Central Services Class I and Class II(b) 33-1/3 per cent by promotion on the basis of seniority subject to the rejection of the unfit(c) 33-1/3 per cent by limited competitive examination on the basis of a test to be prescribed and conducted by the UPSC for Assistants/Stenographers Grade II between 5 years and 10 years of service in the grade in the Boards officeNote: For the years 1961-65 only 1/4 of the substantive vacancies were to be filled by direct recruitment on the results of the competitive examination under item (a) above."

Court's reasoning:
The relevant law on the subject is well settled. Under Article 16 of the Constitution, there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State or to promotion from one office to a higher office thereunder. Articles 14, 15 and 16 form part of the same constitutional code of guarantees and supplement each other. In other words, Art. 16 of the Constitution is only an incident of the application of the concept of equality enshrined in Article 14 thereof. It gives effect to the doctrine of equality in the matter of appointment and promotion.. It follows therefore that there can be a reasonable classification of the employees for the purpose of appointment and promotion. To put it differently, the equality of opportunity guaranteed by Article 16 (1) means equality as between member of the same class of employees, and not equality between members of separate, independent classesIn any case, even the minority judgment of Subba Rao, J. does not support the contention of Mr. N. G. Chatterjee that Article 16 (4) confers a right on the backward classes and net merely a power to be exercised at the discretion of the Government for making a provision for reservation of appointments for backward classes which, in its opinion, are not adequately represented in the Services of the State.Our conclusion therefore is that Article 16 (4) does not confer any right on the petitioner and there is no constitutional duty imposed on the Government to make a reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, either at the initial stage of recruitment or at the stage of promotion. In other words Article 16 (4) is an enabling provision and confers a discretionary power on the State to make a reservation of appointments in favour of backward class of citizens which in its opinion, is not adequately represented in the Services of the State. We are accordingly of the opinion that the petitioner is unable to make good his submission on this aspect of the caseIn our opinion, there is no substance in this contention. The petitioner being an employee of the Railway Board is governed by the rules applicable to the officers in the Service to which he belongs.The employees of the Central Secretariat Service belong to a different class and it is not possible to adopt the argument that there is any discrimination against the petitioner and violation of the guarantee under Article 14 of the ConstitutionIn our opinion, there is no justification for this argument as it is well established that there can be a reasonable classification of employees for the purpose of appointment by promotion and the classification as between direct recruits and promotees is reasonableIn view of the requirement of efficiency in the higher echelons of Service it obvious that the classification made in the impugned order is reasonable and the argument of Mr. N. C. Chatterjee on this point must also be rejected as untenable.