Discrimination by Railways in recruitment quota for scouting associations violates Article 14.

The petitioners, Hindustan Scouts and Guides Association (petitioner no. 1) and its National Chairman (petitioner no. 2), filed the present petition seeking to quash a Rejection Order dated November 25, 2022, passed by the respondent, Railways.

They sought parity and recognition, along with consequential benefits, on similar lines as Bharat Scouts and Guides.

The petitioner no. 1, registered as a 'Society' in 1998, is affiliated with the World Federation of Independent Scouts (WFIS), recognized by the United Nations.

It has been recognized by the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports (MOYA) since September 26, 2013, after an initial withdrawal and subsequent restoration of recognition.

Currently, petitioner no. 1 operates in 23 states with 13,15,350 scouts and guides.

The MOYA, in a letter dated June 13, 2016, clarified that only petitioner no. 1 and Bharat Scouts and Guides are recognized organizations for scouting and guiding in India and receive financial assistance.

The respondent, Ministry of Railways, provides recruitment benefits under a Cultural-Cum-Scouts and Guides quota exclusively to Bharat Scouts and Guides.

The petitioners had previously approached the respondent for similar recognition and facilities in 2016 and 2020, but received no response.

Subsequently, they filed W.P.(C) 14845/2022, which led to an order dated October 20, 2022, directing the respondent to decide their representation.

The respondent, pursuant to this order, issued a Speaking Order dated November 25, 2022, rejecting the petitioners' representation for parity in recruitment benefits, leading to the current petition.

The petitioners' claim for fare concession was withdrawn, confining the relief sought to parity in recruitment.

The court primarily applied Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees equality before law and equal protection of law, requiring that "amongst equals the law should be equal and should be equally administered," and prohibiting discrimination between persons who are "substantially in similar circumstances or conditions".

It further relied on the principle that differential treatment between similarly situated persons is permissible only if founded on an "intelligible differentia" that distinguishes the grouped from others and has a "rational relation to the object sought to be achieved".

The court also highlighted that government departments cannot take "diagonally opposite stands" and must have a unified policy.

Additionally, it emphasized that public employment must be fair, transparent, and impartial.

Financial constraints are not a valid ground for denying rights under Article 14.

The Court found that both the petitioner no. 1 association and Bharat Scouts and Guides are similarly placed given their identical aims and objectives in youth development, community service, and adventure, and their shared recognition and financial aid from the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports (MOYA).

The MOYA itself explicitly stated that both organizations are the only two recognized for scouting and guiding in India due to the large population.

Consequently, the respondent Ministry of Railways' exclusion of petitioner no. 1 from the "cultural-cum-scouts and guides quota" for recruitment, while extending it to Bharat Scouts and Guides, constituted clear discrimination.

The respondent's arguments for differentiation lacked an "intelligible differentia" with a "rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved".

The Court rejected the respondent's contention that international affiliation with WOSM (World Organization of the Scout Movement) was a valid distinguishing factor, noting that MOYA does not mandate such an affiliation for recognition in India and that WOSM's constitution is not binding on Indian authorities.

The respondent's plea of financial constraint was dismissed as an unacceptable reason to deny rights under Article 14.

The Court emphasized that allowing petitioner no. 1 members to apply for the quota would not obligate an increase in seats but would promote merit-based selection by increasing competition, aligning with the objective of securing the most suitable persons for public service.

The contradictory stance between the Ministry of Railways and MOYA on recognizing scouting organizations was held to be impermissible, as governments are expected to maintain a unified policy.

There was no intelligible differentia to justify treating the petitioner no. 1 association differently from Bharat Scouts and Guides.

Accordingly, the Court quashed the Speaking Order dated November 25, 2022.

The Court directed the respondent Ministry of Railways to extend the benefit of the quota reservation to the petitioner no. 1 association, equivalent to that provided to Bharat Scouts and Guides.

The petition was allowed.