STATE OF MYSORE 11. p & Anr. v. RAMASWAMJ

The first question to be considered in this appeal is whether the crea!ion of two sca~es of tracers in the new Mysore State who were domg the same kmd of work amounted to a discrimination ~hich violated the provisions of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitu l!on. The rele_van_t law on the subject is well-settled. Under Art. 16 o!. the c;onshtutton, the.re shall be equality of opportunity for all ctl!zens m matters relatmg to employment or appointment to any office under the State ~r to promotion from one office to a higher office thereunder. Article 16 of the Constitution is only an inci dent of the application of the concept of equality enshrined in 410 811PIWUI COVll'i' Bll:PORTS [1968] 1 s.o.a. It gives effect to the doctrine of equality in the A Art. 14 thereof. It follows that there can matter of appointment and promotion. be a reasonable classification of the employees for the purpose of appointinent or promotion. The concept of equality in the mat- ter of promotion can be predicated only when the promotees are drawn from the same source. This Court in dealing with the extent of protection of Art. 16(1) observed in General Manager, B Southern Rly. v. Rangachari('): "Thus construed it would be clear that matters relat ing to employment cannot be confined only to the initial matters prior to the act of employment. The narrow con struction would confine the application of Art. 16(1) to the initial employment and nothing else; but that clearly is only one of the matters relating to employment. The other matters relating to employment would inevi- tably be the provision as to the salary and periodical increments therein, terms as to leave, as to gratuity, as to pension and; as to the age of superannuation. These are all matters re)ating to employment and they are, and must be, deemed to be included in the expression 'mat- ters relating to employment' in Art. 16()) ................. . This equality of opportunity need not be confused with absolute equality as sudh. What is guaranteed is the equality of opportunity and nothing more. Article 16(1) or (2) does not prohibit the prescription of reasonable rules for selection to any employment or appointment to any office. Any provision as to the qualifications for the employment or the appoinment to office reasonably fixed and applicable to all citizens would certainly be con- sistent with the doctrine of the equality of opportunity; but in regard to employment, like other terms and cbndi- tions associated with and incidental to it, the promotion to a selection post is also included in the matters relat- ing to employment, and even in regard to such a promo- tion to a selection post all that Art. J 6(1) guarantees is equality of opportunity to all citizens who enter ser- vice ............... In this connection it may be relevant to remember that Art. 16(1) and (2) really give effect to the equaility before law guaranteed by Art . .14 and to the prohibition of discrimination guaranteed by Art. 15(1). The three provisions form part of the same constitutional code of guarantees and supplement each other. If that there would be no difficulty in holding that be so the m~tters relating to employment must in~lude all mat- ters in relation to employment both prmr, and sub- sequent, to the employment which are incidental t~>. the employment and form part of the terms and conditions of such employment." (1) [1962] 2 S.C.R. 586, 596. c D E F o B A B c D E F B ln'sou v. NilAIJING IU.O (RamaBWatnt, J.) 41i forwar.d in the argument put It is well-settled The argument was stressed on behalf of the respondent that success in the S.S.L.C. examination had no relevance to the post of tracer and the tracers of the erstwhile State of Hyderabad who were allotted to the new State of Mysore were persons similarly situated and there was no justification for making a discrimination against only some of them by creating a higher pay scale for tra· cers who had passed the S.S.L.C. examination. It was contended for the respondent that all the tracers who were allotted to the new State of Mysore were persons who were turning out the same kind of work and dischargin!l the same kind of duty and there was no rational basis for making two classes of tracers, one con sisting of those who had passed the S.S.L.C. examination and the In our opinion, there is other consisting of those who had not. justification favour the respondent. though Art. 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classifica· tion for the purposes of legislation. When any impugned rule or statutory provision is assailed on the ground that it contravenes Art. 14, its validity can be sustained if two tests are satisfied. The first test is that the classification on which it is founded must be based on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things grouped together from others left out of the group; and the second test is that the differentia in question must have a reason· able relation to the object sought to be achieved by the rule or statutory provision in question. In other words, there must be some rational nexus between the basis of classification and the object intended to be achieved by the statute or the rule. As we have already stat~. Arts. 14 and 16 form part of the same con· stitutional code of guarantees and supplement each other. In other words, Art. 16 is only an instance of the application of the general rule of equality laid down in Art. 14 and it should be construed as such. Hence, there is no denial of equality of op portunity unless the person who complains of discrimination is equally situated with the person or persons who are alleged to have been favoured, Article 16(1) does not bar a reasonable classification of employees or reasonable tests for their selection. It is true that the selective test adopted by the Government for making two different classes will be violative of Arts. 14 and 16 if there is no relevant connection between the test prescribed and the interest of public service. In other words, there must be a reas~nable relation of the prescribed test to the suitability of the candidate for the post or for employment to public service as such. The provisions of Art. 14 or Art. 16 do not exclude the laying down of selective tests, nor do they preclude the Govern ment fro~ lay!ng down qualifications for the post in question. Such quahfications need not be only technical but they can also be general qualifications relating to the suitability of the candidate It is therefore not right to say that in for public service as such. the appointment to the post of tracers the Government ought to 4-12 SUPBEME OOUBT 1'EPORTS [1968) 1 s.c.11. have taken into account only the technical proficiency of the It is open to the Government candidates in the particular craft. to consider also the general educat'onal attainments of the candi dates and to give preference to candidates who have a better edu technical proficiency of a tracer. cational qualification besides The relevance of general education even to technical branches of public service was emphasised long ago by Macaulay as follows: "Men who have been engage(.], up to one and two and twenty, in studies which have no immediate con nexion with the business of any profes; ion, and the effect of which is merely to open, to invigorate, and to enrich the mind, will generally be found, in the business of every profession, superior to men who have, at eighteen or nineteen, devoted themselves to the special studies of their calling. Indeed, early superiority in literature and science generally indicates the existence of some qualities which are securities against vice-industry, self-denial, a taste for pleasures not sensual, a laudable desire of honourable distinction, a still more laudable desire to obtain the approbation of· friends and relations. We. therefore, think that the intellectual test about to be estab lished will be found in practice to be also the best moral test can be devised." (Hansard, Series, 3 CXXVIII. 754, 755) In our opinion, therefore. higher educational qualifications such as success in the S.S.L.C. examination are relevant considerations for fixing a higher pay scale for tracers who have passed the S.S.L.C. examination and the classification of two grades of tra cers in the new Mysore State, one for matriculate tracers with a higher pay scale and the other for non-matriculate tracers with a lower pay scale is not violative of Arts. 14 or I 6 of the Constitu tion. We proceed to consider the next question raised on behalf of the respondent, viz., that the condition of service of the res pondent has been adversely affected by the creation of two new pay scales and that there was a violation of the provisions of.s. 115 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (Act No. 37 of 1956) which states: "115. Provisions relating to other services-(!) Every person who immediately before. the appointed day is serving in connection with the affairs of the Union the Lieutenant under the administrative control of Governor or Chief Commissioner in any of the existing State of Ajmer, Bhopal, Coorg, Kutch and Vindhya Pra desh, or is serving ill connection with the affairs of any of the existing States of Mysore, Punjab, Patiala and East Punjab States Union and Saurashtra shall, as from A B c D E F G B 1 -· MYSORE v. NARASING RAO (Ramaswami, J.) 413 that day, be deemed to have been allotted to serve in connection with the affairs of the successor State to that existing State. (2) Every person who immediately before the ap pointed· day is serving in connection with the affairs of an existing State part of whose territories is transferred to another State by the provisions of Part II shall, as from that day, provisionally continue to serve in connec tion with the affairs of the principal successor State to that existing State unless he is required by general or special order of the Central Government to serve provi- sional! y in connection with the affairs of any other suc cessor State. (3) As soon as may be after the appointed day, the Central Government shall, by general or special order, determine the successor State to which every person referred to in sub-section (2) shall be finally allotted for service and the date with effect from which such allot- ment shall take effect or be deemed to have taken effect. (4) Every person who is finally allotted under the provisions of sub-section (3) to a successor State shall, if he is not already serving therein be made available for serving in that successor State from such date as may be agreed upon between the Governments concern ed, and in default of such agreement, as may be deter mined by the Central Government. (7) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect after the appointed day the operation of the provisions of Chapter I of Part XIV of the Constitution in relation to the determination of the co0ditions of service of per sons serving in connection with the affairs of the Union or any State: Provided that the conditions of service applicable immediately before the appointed day to the case of any person referred to in sub-section (I) or sub-section (2) shall not be varied to his disadvantage except with the previous approval of the Central Government." A B c D E F G It was stated that in the erstwhile Hyderabad State the respon dent was kept in one grade along with matriculate tracers and there has been a violation of the proviso to s. 115(7) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, because in the new Mysore State the respondent has been made to work in a separate grade of non- H matriculate tracers. We do not think there is any substance. in this contention. We do not propose, in this case, to consicler what is the full scope and meaning of the phrase "Conditions of L/S~SCI-13 414- SUPllBllB COURT R.ll:FORTS L 1968] 1 s.c.:a, service" occurring in the proviso to s. 115 of the States Reorgani It is sufficient for us to say that, in the present case, sation Act. there is no violation of the proviso and the respondent is not right in contending that his condition of service is adversely affected because he is made to work in the grade of non-matriculate tracers in the new Mysore State. It was alleged by the respondent that according to Hyderabad rules 20 per cent of the vacancies of Sub Overseers were to be from the grade of tracers and for those who were not promoted there was another grade of Rs. 90-120 and if the order of the Superintending Engineer dated March 19, 1958 was to stand, the respondent's chance of promotion would In their counter-affidavit the appellants have said be affected. that JO per cent of the tracers in the new State of Mysore are en· titled to be promoted to the grade of Assistant Draftsmen in the scale of Rs. 110-220. The basis of promotion to the higher grade wa8 the inter-State seniority list prepared under the pro vi· It was stated that the sions of the States Reorganisation Act. seniority of the respondent was not affected and he had not been deprived of any accrued benefits. The basis of promotion to the In higher grades was selection based on merit-cum-seniority. other words, both matriculate and non-matriculate tracers were eligible for promotion on the basis of the inter-State seniority list prepared for this Department. In our opinion, Counsel on behalf of the respondent is unable to make good his submission :in thi! - ::meet of the case. For the reasons expressed we hold that the judgment of thr. Mysore High Court dated January 15. 1963 in Writ Petition Nr 48 of 1962 should bf set aside and this appeal ~nust be allowe. But, as directed by this Court in its order granting special leJve dated November 6. 1963, the appellant State of Mysore will pay the cost~ of the reSPJndent. A . J D R.K.P.S.