IMPORTANT POINT
Under the Rajasthan Administrative (Emergency Recruitment) Rules, a special formula fixing seniority of the emergency recruits other than that provided in the normal Rules, held as not discriminatory.

Headnote:Service Law-Rajasthan Administrative Service (Emergency Recruitment) Rules-Emergency recruitments -Validity challenged-Providing a special rule for seniority of those who were recruited under Emergency Recruitment Rules of 1976 by having a notional year of allotment-Challenged as discriminatory-Test of permissible classification-Emergency recruits to Rajasthan Administrative Service form a class by themselves-They being neither direct recruits under 1954 Rules nor promotees-Special formula adopted for purpose of their seniority in the cadre held as not discriminatory in nature-Seniority position which has operated for more than 25 years, the same should not be altered after this length of time.
       Held : When a law is challenged as violative of Article 14, it is necessary in the first place to ascertain the policy underlying the statute and the object intended to be achieved by it. Having ascertained the policy and the object of the Act, the Court has to apply a dual test in examining the validity, the test being, whether the classification is rational and based upon an intelligible differentia which distinguished persons or things that are grouped together from others that are left out of the group, and whether the basis of differentiation has any rational nexus or relation with its avowed policy and objects. In order that a law may be struck down under this Article, the inequality must arise under the same piece of legislation or under the same set of laws which have to be treated together as one enactment. Inequality resulting from two different enactments made by two different authorities in relation to the same subject will not be liable to attack under Article 14. (Para 6)
       Emergency recruits to the Rajasthan Administrative Service form a class by themselves, they being neither direct recruits under the Recruitment Rules of 1954 nor are they promotees. For the purpose of their seniority in the cadre, in the Emergency Recruitment Rules of 1976, a formula has been adopted. The said formula, in our opinion cannot be held to be discriminatory in nature. (Para 7)
       It is true, that the formula under Rule 25 confers benefit under the principle of N1+ N2 in relation to the conferment of year of allotment of the emergency recruits and it has not been demonstratively shown as to how the income has any nexus for the object sought to be achieved, but yet we think it inappropriate to strike down the Rules after it has operated for more than a quarter century on that score. A special formula fixing seniority of the emergency recruits other than that provided in the normal Rules had been thought of so that the entire past experience of such recruits is not totally wiped off. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, and bearing in mind that hardly a few people of those emergency recruits are there in the cadre who are also on the verge of superannuation, we are not inclined to strike down the aforesaid Rule governing the seniority of the emergency recruits and thereby unsettle the matter of seniority in the cadre. (Para 8)

JUDGMENT

Pattanaik, J.-The appellant is a direct recruit to the Rajasthan Administrative Service, having been selected through the competitive examination held by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. The recruitment of the appellant had been made on 5.6.1975 under the Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules 1954. The Government of Rajasthan finding necessity for making emergency recruitment to the State Administrative Service framed a set of Rules in the year 1956, called The Rajasthan Administrative Service (Emergency Recruitment) Rules 1956 and then another similar set of Rules have been framed in the year 1959, called The Rajasthan Administrative Service (Emergency Recruitment) Rules, 1959 . Emergency recruitment had taken place under the aforesaid two Emergency Recruitment Rules, once in the year 1956 and another in the year 1959. While the appellant has joined the Rajasthan Administrative Service on being recruited under the provisions of Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules of 1954 on 5.6.1975, and is continuing, a set of Rules were framed by the Governor in exercise of power under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution on 29.9.1976, called The Rajasthan Administrative Service (Emergency Recruitment) Rules, 1976. The said Rules were amended on 15.12.1976 (hereinafter referred to as The Emergency Recruitment Rules, 1976 ). Persons on being selected under the provisions of the aforesaid Emergency Recruitment Rules of 1976 were appointed on 6.11.1978. The validity of the Rules relating to seniority under the Emergency Recruitment Rules of 1956 as well as of 1959 were challenged in a Writ Petition and the learned Single Judge of Rajasthan High Court quashed the provision dealing with seniority in the aforesaid Emergency Recruitment Rules by judgment dated 4.4.1980. Special appeals being filed by the State Government and the same were dismissed by the Division Bench on 14.8.1980. A seniority list was published by the State Government on 2.6.1980 and in the aforesaid list persons recruited under the Recruitment Rules of 1976 were shown as senior to the directly recruited officers to the Rajasthan Administrative Service in the year 1974 and 1976. A batch of Writ Petitions were filed by the direct recruits challenging the validity of Rule 25 of the Emergency Recruitment Rules 1976. On 12.6.1981 Rule 23 of the Emergency Recruitment Rules of 1956 and 1959 were amended and under the amended provision the emergency recruits would rank junior to the special recruits and senior to the direct recruits appointed during the same year. The batch of Writ Petitions including the Writ Petition filed by the appellant were dismissed by the learned Single Judge by judgment dated 7.1.1983. Special appeals were filed against the same to the Division Bench and the Division Bench by the impugned judgment dated 16.5.1997, having upheld the validity of Rule 25 of the Emergency Recruitment Rules of 1976 and having affirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge the present appeal by grant of Special Leave has been filed. While upholding the validity of Rule 25 of the Emergency Recruitment Rules 1976, the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court strongly relied upon the judgment of this Court in Anand Parkash Saksena vs. Union of India and Ors. (1968) 2 Supreme Court Reports 611 and K.P. Singhal vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (1995) Suppl. 3 Supreme Court Cases 549. When this appeal has been placed before a Bench of this Court on 4.12.2001, a Bench of this Court examined the two decisions on which reliance has been placed and the fact that in Singhal s case (supra) this Court examined Rule 25 of the Emergency Recruitment Rules 1976 and held that the notional service could be taken into account as a part of service. It was further observed that it is no doubt true that the constitutional validity of Rule 25(3)(1) and Rule 25(3)(2) of the Emergency Recruitment Rules of 1976 was not the subject

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 383

IMPORTANT POINTUnder the Rajasthan Administrative (Emergency Recruitment) Rules, a special formula fixing seniority of the emergency recruits other than that provided in the normal Rules, held as not discriminatory.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
Under the Rajasthan Administrative (Emergency Recruitment) Rules, a special formula fixing seniority of the emergency recruits other than that provided in the normal Rules, held as not discriminatory.