Judgment

DUA, J.: Out of the five petitioners in this petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution, Kashmiri Lal, petitioner No. 5 having since retired, is no longer interested in the result of these proceedings. The claim of only 4 petitioners thus survives for consideration. They are officiating clerks, Grade I, in the office of Deputy Chief Accounts Officer (Traffic Accounts Br.), Northern Railway. They were promoted from Grade II after passing the departmental qualifying examination described as Appendix 2 examination. They claim that their seniority should be determined as from the date of their appointment as officiating clerks, Grade I, and not on the basis of their position in the gradation list of Clerks, Grade II. Their grievance is that they were appointed as officiating clerks, Grade I, after passing the Appendix 2 examination long before respondents 4 to 6and 11 but these four respondents are shown as senior to the petitioners on the ground of their seniority in Grade II. The petitioners seek to support their claim by relying on Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The seniority of the direct recruits to Grade I, the petitioners complain, is determined on the basis of their appointment, whereas the seniority of the petitioners, who are promotees from Grade II to officiate in Grade I, continues to be determined on the basis of their seniority in Grade II. It is emphasised that both the direct recruits and the promotees, like the petitioners, have to pass the Appendix 2 examination. But their seniority is determined by different methods. It is further complained that Grade II clerks who pass the qualifying Appendix 2 examination are not promoted immediately. They have to wait till a vacancy occurs and even at the time of filling the vacancy the senior most qualified clerk is selected for promotion without giving any preference to those who have qualified earlier in point of time. Again, when a permanent post falls vacant, all the eligible clerks in Grade II are considered at par without giving any credit or preference to those who have already officiated as Clerks, Grade I. A junior clerk, Grade II, qualifying earlier, according to the petitioners grievance, continues to remain junior for the purpose of promotion and confirmation in the permanent post in Grade I and a senior clerk, Grade II, qualifying later retains his seniority for this purpose. Similarly, in filling leave vacancies it is complained that if a clerk is appointed to officiate in short term leave vacancy, then on the return of the incumbent of the post, instead of reverting the clerk so appointed to officiate, the juniormost according to the gradation list in Grade II, officiating in Grade I, is reverted even though he may have qualified earlier than the former and may also have officiated for some time against a regular post in Grade I. The petitioners right of equality before the law and equality of opportunity in matters of public employment is stated thus to have been violated.

2. The right of equality is guaranteed by Arts. 14 to 16 of our Constitution. The petitioners rely on Arts. 14 and 16 (1). Article 14 is an injunction to both the legislative and the executive organs of the State and other subordinate authorities not to deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws. Article 16 is only an instance of the general rule of equality laid in Art. 14. Sub-article (1) of Art. 16 guarantees to every citizen equality of opportunity in matters of public employment thereby serving to give efface to the equality before the law guaranteed by Art. 14. The equality of opportunity in the matter of services undoubtedly takes within its fold all stages of service from initial appointment to its termination including promotion but it does not prohibit the prescription of reasonable rules for selection and promotion, applicable to all members of a classified group. Mere production of inequality is not enough to attract the consti