Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8
PETITIONER:
STATE OF MYSORE & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
P. NARASING RAO
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
31/08/1967
BENCH:
RAMASWAMI, V.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMI, V.
WANCHOO, K.N. (CJ)
BACHAWAT, R.S.
MITTER, G.K.
HEGDE, K.S.
CITATION:
1968 AIR 349 1968 SCR (1) 407
CITATOR INFO :
D 1972 SC 252 (6)
D 1974 SC 1 (40A,46,52)
F 1974 SC1631 (28)
F 1976 SC 490 (27,106)
R 1978 SC 327 (7,9,10)
RF 1981 SC 298 (24)
RF 1985 SC1124 (7)
RF 1989 SC 307 (9)
APR 1989 SC1256 (8)
F 1989 SC1308 (7)
R 1992 SC1754 (5)
ACT:
Constitution of India Arts. 14, 16--Non-matriculate
Government employee placed in lower pay scale--Matriculate
employees doing similar work placed in higher scale--Whether
discrimination--Whether higher general education relevant
consideration for fixing higher pay where technical
qualifications are similar.
States Reorganisation Act, 1956, s. 115(7)--Respondent in
single cadre of matriculate and non-matriculate tracers in
old Hyderabad State--Placed in separate cadre of non-
matriculates in new Mysore State--Whether his conditions, of
service adversely affected.
HEADNOTE:
The respondent was employed as a Tracer in the Engineering
Department in the erstwhile Hyderabad State where the cadre
of Tracers consisted of both matriculates as well as non-
matriculates and no distinction was made between them. As a
result of the reorganisation of States in 1956 he was
allotted to the appellant Mysore State where the cadre of
Tracers was reorganised into two, ,one consisting of
matriculate Tracers in a higher scale of pay and the other
of non-matriculates in a lower scale. The respondent was
given the option either to remain in his old Hyderabad scale
of pay or to accept the new scale applicable to non-
matriculates. He refused to exercise the option and claimed
that the cadre of Tracers should not have been divided into
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8
two grades and that no distinction should have been made
between matriculates and non-matriculates. His claim was
rejected by the Superintending Engineer on March 19, 1958
and he filed a writ petition in the High Court praying that
the order of the Superintending Engineer be quashed and for
the issue of writ in the nature, of mandamus to fix his pay
in the scale prescribed for matriculate Tracers. The High
Court allowed the petition, holding that there was no valid
reason for making a distinction as both matriculate and non-
matriculate Tracers were doing the same kind of work and the
distinction made was in violation of Arts. 14 and 16 of the
Constitution.
On appeal to this Court,
Held: Allowing the appeal. Higher educational
qualifications are relevant considerations for fixing a
higher pay scale and the classification of two grades of
Tracers in the new Mysore State was not violative of Arts.
14 or 16 of the Constitution.
Articles 14 and 16 form part of the same constitutional 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 opportunity unless the person who complains of
discrimination is equally situated with the person or
persons who are alleged to have been favoured. [411E-F]
408
The provisions of Art. 14 or Art. 16 do not exclude the
laying down of selective tests, nor do they preclude the
Government from laying down qualifications for the post in
question. Such qualifications need not be only technical
and it is open to the Government to consider the general
educational attainments of the candidates and to give
preference to candidates who have better educational
qualifications besides the technical proficiency of a
Tracer. [411G412B]
General Manager, Southern Railway v. Rangachari, [1962] 2
S.C.R. 586, 596, referred to.
There was no force in the respondent’s contention that
because of his having been in one grade with matriculate
Tracers in the old State and, on his being made to work in a
separate non-matriculate grade in the new State his
conditions of service were adversely affected in violation
of s. 116(7) of the States Reorganisation Act 1956.
Furthermore the basis of promotion was merit and seniority
based on the interstate seniority list prepared under the
provisions of the Act; thus the respondent’s seniority had
not been affected and he was not deprived of any accrued
benefits. [412F-G; 414C-D]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1238 of 1966.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
January 15, 1963 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition
No. 48 of 1962.
R. Gopalakrishnan and S. P. Nayar, for the appellants.
S. C. Mazumdar, M. M. Kshatriya and G. S. Chatterjee, for
the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Ramaswami, J.This appeal is brought, by special leave, from
the judgment of the Mysore High Court dated January 15, 1963
in Writ Petition No. 48 of 1962 granting a writ -in the
nature of mandamus directing the appellants to accord to the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8
respondent that benefit of both the revised higher pay
scales for the Matriculate tracers with effect from the
respective dates on which they came into force.
The respondent, Narasing Rao was employed as a tracer in the
Engineering Department in the Ex-Hyderabad State on the
scale of pay Rs. 65-90.In the cadre of tracersof that
State,there were matriculates as well as non-
matriculates.But there was no distinction made in the scale
of pay for that reason and all the tracers were placed in
the -same scale. The respondent was a non-matriculate.
There was re-organisation of States in 1956 and as a result
of the re-organisation a part of the area of Hyderabad State
became part of the new Mysore State. The respondent was
allotted to the new Mysore State. After the transfer of the
respondent to the new State. the cadre of tracers into which
tracers from Bombay State had also been absorbed, was re-
organised into two grades, one consisting of matriculate
tracers whose scale of pay was fixed at Rs. 50-120 and the
other of non-matriculates
409
at Rs. 40-80 with effect from January 1, 1957. It is
necessary to state that in the old Mysore State even before
November 1, 1956 there were two grades of tracers, viz.,
non-S.S.L.C. tracers on the pay scale of Rs. 30-50. and
S.S.L.C. tracers on the pay scale of Rs. 40-60. As the
respondent was a non-matriculate he was given the option to
accept the new scale of pay i.e., Rs. 40-80 or remain in the
old Hyderabad scale of Rs. 65-90. But the respondent
refused to exercise the option and claimed that the cadre of
tracers in the new Mysore State should not have been divided
into two grades and that no distinction should have been
made between matriculates and non-matriculates. The respon-
dent insisted that his pay should be fixed in the grade Rs.
50-120. The claim was rejected by the Superintending
Engineer on March 19, 1958 and the respondent was told that
he could only be fixed in the new revised scale of Rs. 40-80
as he had not passed the S.S.L.C. examination. Meanwhile,
by an order of the Government dated February 27, 1961 the
pay scales of the tracers in the new State of Mysore were
further revised and the revised pay scales were directed to
come into force with effect from January 1, 1961. Under
this Government order, the tracers who had passed the
S.S.L.C. examination were entitled to opt in favour of the
pay scale Rs. 80-150 and those who had not passed that
examination were entitled to get into pay scale of Rs. 70-1
10. The respondent claimed that he was entitled to the pay
scale applicable to the tracers who had passed the S.S.L.C.
examination viz., Rs. 80150. The claim of the respondent
was rejected. Thereafter the respondent filed a writ
petition in the Mysore High Court praying that the order of
the Superintending Engineer dated March 19, 1958 fixing his
pay in the scale of non-matriculate tracers and giving him
the option; to retain his old scale may be quashed and for a
writ in the nature of mandamus to fix his pay in the scale
prescribed for matriculate tracers. The High Court allowed
the writ petition, holding that there was a violation of the
guarantees given under Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution
and granted the relief claimed by the respondent on the
ground that there was no valid reason for making a
distinction as both matriculate and non-matriculate tracers
were doing the same kind of work.
The first question to be considered in this appeal is
whether the creation of two scales of tracers in the new
Mysore State who were doing the same kind of work amounted
to a discrimination which violated the provisions of Arts.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8
14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The relevant law on the subject is well-settled. Under Art.
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.
Article 16 of the Constitution is only an incident of the
application of the concept of equality enshrined in
410
Art. 14 thereof. It gives effect to -the doctrine of
equality in the matter of appointment and promotion. It
follows that there can be a reasonable classification of the
employees for the purpose of appointment or promotion. The
concept of equality in the matter 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,
Southern Rly. v. Rangachari(1):
"Thus construed it would be clear that matters
relating to employment cannot be confined only
to the initial matters prior to the act of
employment. The narrow construction 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 inevitably 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
relating to employment and they are, and must
be, deemed to be included in the expression
’matters relating to employment’ in Art.
16(1).................. This equality of
opportunity need not be confused with absolute
equality as such. 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
appointment to office reasonably fixed and
applicable to all citizens would certainly be
consistent with the doctrine of the equality
of opportunity; but in regard to employment,
like other terms and conditions associated
with and incidental to it, the promotion to a
selection post is also included in the matters
relating to employment, and even in regard to
such a promotion to a selection post all,that
Art. 16(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 equality 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 be so, there
would be no difficulty in holding that the
matters relating to employment must include
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8
’all matters in relation to employment both
prior, and subsequent, to the employment which
are incidental to the employment and form part
of terms and conditions of such employment."
(1) [1962] 2 S.C.R. 586, 596.
411
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 tracers 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 discharging 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 other consisting of those who had not. In our opinion,
there is no justification for the argument put forward in
favour of the respondent. It is well-settled that though
Art. 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid
reasonable classification 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 reasonable 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 stated ’ 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 opportunity unless the person who
complains of discrimination is equally situated with the
person or persons who are alleged to have been favoured,
Article 1.6(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 reasonable 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 Government from
laying down qualifications for the post in question. Such
qualifications need not be only technical but they can also
be general qualifications relating to the suitability of the
candidate for public service as such. It is therefore not
right to say that in the appointment to the post of tracers
the Government ought to
412
have taken into account only the technical Proficiency of
the candidates in the particular craft. It is open to the
Government to consider also the general educational
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8
attainments of the candidates and to give preference to
candidates who have a better educational qualification
besides technical proficiency of a tracer. The relevance of
general education even to technical branches of public
service was emphasised long ago by Macaulay as follows:
Men who have been engaged, up to one and two
and twenty, in studies which have no immediate
connexion with the business of any profession,
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 established 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 tracers 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 .16 of the Constitution.
We proceed to consider the next question raised on behalf of
the respondent, viz., that the condition of service of the
respondent 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-
(I) Every person who immediately before the
appointed day is serving in connection with
the affairs of the Union under the
administrative control of the Lieutenant-
Governor or Chief Commissioner in any of the
existing State of Ajmer, Bhopal, Coorg, Kutch
and Vindhya Pradesh, or is serving in
connection with the affairs of any of the
existing States of Mysore, Punjab, Patiala and
-East Punjab States Union and Saurashtra
shall, as from
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
appointed 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 11 shall, as from that
day, provisionally continue to serve in
connection with the affairs of the principal
successor State to that existing State unless
he is required by general or special order of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8
the Central Government to serve provisionally
in connection with the affairs of any other
successor 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
subsection (2) shall be finally allotted for
service and the date with effect from which
such allotment 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
concerned, and in default of such agre
ement, as
may be determined 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 conditions of service of
persons 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 (1) or sub-section (2) shall not
be varied to his disadvantage except with the
previous approval of the Central Government."
It was stated that in the erstwhile Hyderabad State the
respondent 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-matriculate tracers. We do not
think there is any substance in this contention. We do not
propose, in this case, to consider what is the full scope
and meaning of the phrase "Conditions of
SCI-13
414
service" occurring in the proviso to S. 115 of the States
Reorganisation Act. It is sufficient for us to say that, in
the present cast,, 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 SubOverseers
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 be affected. In their counter-affidavit the
appellants have said that 10 percent of the tracers in the
new State of Mysore are entitled to be promoted to the grade
of Assistant Draftsmen in the scale of Rs. 110-220. The
basis of promotion to the higher grade was the inter-State
seniority list prepared under the provisions of the States
Reorganisation Act. It was stated that the seniority of the
respondent was not affected and he had not been deprived of
any accrued benefits. The basis of promotion to the higher
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8
grades was selection based on merit-cum-seniority. In 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 on this aspect of the case.
For the reasons expressed we hold that the judgment of the
Mysore High Court dated January 15, 1963 in Writ Petition
No. 48 of 1962 should be set aside and this appeal must be
allowed. But, as directed by this Court in its order
granting special leave dated November 6, 1963, the appellant
State of Mysore will pay the costs of the respondent.
R.K.P.S. Appeal allowed.
415