1. Challenge to Army Order restricting study leave to Regular Commissioned Officers, alleging discrimination against non-officer ranks under Article 14. (Para 4 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 506
1999(4) Supreme 138
Supreme Court of India
(From Himachal Pradesh High Court)
S.S. Mohammed Quadri’s and S.N. Phukan, JJ.
Union of India & Ors. -Appellants
versus
No. 664950 IM Havildar/Clerk SC Bagari -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 7633 of 1995
Decided on 15-4-1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : P.N. Misra, Sr. Advocate (Ms. Anubha Jain), Advocate for Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate.
Important Points
Important Points
1. Army Order 11 of 1987 which provides for extra-ordinary study leave for Regular Commissioned Officers alone is founded on inteligible differentia having relation with object sought to be achieved and as such it does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
2. Equality before law means equality as between members of same class and not equality between members of separate and independent classes.
1. Army Order 11 of 1987 which provides for extra-ordinary study leave for Regular Commissioned Officers alone is founded on inteligible differentia having relation with object sought to be achieved and as such it does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
2. Equality before law means equality as between members of same class and not equality between members of separate and independent classes.
Subject
Constitutional Law - Equality and Discrimination
Act Referred
Headnote
(i) Army Order No. 11 of 1987 read with Article 14 of the Constitution of India - Extra ordinary study leave - Provision only for Regular Commissioned Officer-Whether discriminatory - No-For officers of other rank there are other institutions where courses are conducted for these categories of personnel and proper case is taken to ensure their efficiency in armed forces-Junior commissioned officers and non-commissioned officers are different as compared to regular commissioned officers-Army order No. 11 of 1987 founded in inteligible differentia and it has relation with object sought to be achieved-Army order No. 11 of 1987 does not violates Article 14.
Held : Clause (XVIII) of Section 3 of The Army Act, 1950, while defining the term ‘Officer’, has clearly stated that the Officer does not include a Junior Commissioned Officer, Warrant Officer, Petty Officer or Non-Commissioned Officer. Relying on the above definitions, Mr. Mishra has rightly pointed out that legislature has classified the personnel of the Armed Forces into different categories and this classification has not been challenged. We are of the opinion that legislature while creating different classes of officers has classified them on the basis of the requirement of armed forces and thus this classification cannot be said to be arbitrary. If pay, perks and other privileges granted to these offiers are different, we are, therefore, of the opinion that there is no question of violation of provisions of articles 11 and 16 of the Constitution. (Para 16)
The Army authorities have given reasons for not making available the benefit of study leave to the other categories of officers except Commissioned Officers. It has been categorically stated that for officers of other rank, there are other institutions where courses are conducted for these categories of personnel and by sending them for these courses, proper care is taken to ensure efficiency in the armed forces. In fact, the petitioner has admitted, as stated in the Writ Petition, that two weeks’ Computer Course in Jodhpur University was organised by the Army Authorities. It has also been stated in the counter that there cannot be any dispute that character and duties of Junior Commissioned Officers and Non-Commissioned Officers are different as compared to that of regular Commissioned Officers. If the competent authority thought it fit and proper that case for study leave for Commissioned Officers should be considered and this benefit should not be given to other categories of officers, as for this category Army Authorities take adequate care for training them in their own institutions or outside, it cannot be said that impugned Order No. 11 of 1987 is arbitrary or irrational. The object as stated in the counter, of granting study leave is to enhance the knowledge of Commissioned Officers who have an important role to play not only to maintain discipline but also for performing their duties as Commissined Officers. Therefore, it cannot be said that Army Order No. 11 of 1987 was not founded no intelligible differentia and it has no relation with the object sought to be achieved and we hold that the Order in question is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. (Paras 19 & 20)
(ii) Constitution of India-Articles 14 and 16-Equality before law Equality means equality as between members of same class and not equality between members of separate independent classes.
Held : Broadly speaking, concept of equality has an inherent limitation arising from very nature of the guarantee under the Constitution and those who are similarly circumstanced are entitled to equal treatment. If there is a rational classification consistent with the purpose for which such classification was made, equality is not violated. Article 16 of the Constitution does not bar a reasonable classification of employees or reasonable tests for selection. Equality of opportunity of employment means equality as between members of the same class of employees and not equality between members of separate independent classes. (Para 15)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellants contend different duties and existing training for non-commissioned ranks; respondent alleges arbitrary classification and discrimination. (Para 5 , 18 )
3. Equality under Articles 14 and 16 applies to members of the same class; reasonable classification based on intelligible differentia with rational nexus is permissible. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 20 )
4. Classification of employees into separate independent classes is permissible if based on an intelligible differentia having a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. (Para 13 , 15 , 20 )
5. Appeal allowed and the impugned order of the High Court set aside. (Para 21 )
6. What is the scope of equality under Articles 14 and 16 regarding different classes of employees?
Equality means equality between members of the same class of employees, and not equality between members of separate, independent classes. Equal protection of the laws guarantees the application of the same laws alike and without discrimination to all persons similarly situated. (Para 11 , 12 , 15 )
7. What are the tests for a valid reasonable classification under Article 14?
A classification is valid if it satisfies two tests: it must be based on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things grouped together from others left out, and that differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. (Para 13 )
8. Is the restriction of study leave to Regular Commissioned Officers in the Army discriminatory?
No, because the duties of Commissioned Officers differ from those of Junior Commissioned and Non-Commissioned Officers, and the Army provides separate training institutions for the latter, making the classification rational and non-arbitrary to enhance the knowledge of Commissioned Officers. (Para 16 , 19 , 20 )
Judgment
S.N. Phukan, J.-This appeal is directed against the full bench decision dated 24.12.1993 of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Civil Writ Petition No. 747 of 1991.
2. For the purpose of appreciating the points urged in this appeal we may briefly state the facts.
3. The respondent appeared in person before the High Court. In this Court though notices were issued he did not appear, hence the mater was taken up for hearing in his absence.
4. The respondent is a Havildar/Clerk in Indian Army and he was interested in prosecuting his studies further for obtaining higher educational qualifications such as post-graduation in law but he felt handicapped because of the provisions contained in Army Instruction namely Army Order No. 11 of 1987 according to which only Regular Commissioned Officers can be granted extra-ordinary leave subject to certain conditions and not persons like the petitioner, who is not an officer. Therefore, he challenged he said Army Order before the High Court on the grounds of discrimination, without any lawful basis etc.
5. Before the High Court the present appellants took the stand that study leave is granted to a Regular Commissioned Officer to get higher studies having a direct and close connection with the spheres of his duties. It was also stated that the nature of duties of Junior Commissioned Officers and non-Commissioned officers is different as compared to Regular Commissioned Officers. The appellants took the stand that the matter of grant or refusal of study leave is purely discretionary. The allegation of discrimination was denied. It was also stated that for Junior Commissioned Officers and Non-commissioned Officers there are institutions of the appellants where these Officers are trained.
6. We find from the judgment that a prayer made on behalf of the present appellants for adjournment was denied on the ground stated in the judgment and the writ petition was disposed of without hearing the learned counsel for the appellants.
7. The High Court relying on the decisions of this Court came to the finding that the duties of clerical nature are also important and, therefore, rejected the stand of the appellants and held that higher educational qualification is also necessary for clerical staff.
8. According to the High Court the present classification for granting study leave was not founded on an intelligible differentia and the same has also no relation to the object sought to be achieved and benefit of study leave must be made available equally to all classes of above officers of Indian Army.
9. We have heard Mr. P.N. Mishra, learned Senior counsel for the appellant.
10. Before entering into the reasoning given by the High Court let us now first consider the scope and ambit of Articles 14 and 16 vis-a-vis different classes of employees.
11. We may refer to:
In All India Station Masters’ and Assistant Station Masters’ Association, Delhi & Ors. v. General Manager, Central Railway & Ors.1 while considering Article 16 of the Constitution the Constitution Bench of this Court inter alia held that equality means-equality as between members of the same class of employees, and not equality between members of separate, independent classes.
12. Similar views were expressed by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Jagannath Prasad Sharma v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.2 and in paragraph 15 it was inter alia held that equal protection of the laws does not postulate equal treatment of all persons without distinction: it merely guarantees the application of the same laws alike and without discrimination to all persons similarly situated.
13. In The State of Mysore & Anr. v. P. Narasinga Rao3 this Court considered the validity of the Rules and it was inter alia held that it is well settled that though Article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation and when any impugned rule or statutory provision is assailed on the ground that it contravenes
