SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.N. RAY. C.J.I., H.R. KHANNA, K.K. MATHEW, M.H. BEG, V.R. KRISHNA IYER, A.C. GUPTA AND S. MURTAZA FAZL ALI JJ.
State of Kerala and another, Appellants
Versus
N.M. Thomas and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 1160 of 1974
Decided on 19-9-1975.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. M. Abdul Khadir, Advocate General, Kerala, (Mr. K. M. K. Nair, Advocate with him), for Appellants; Mr. T. S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer Sr. Advocate, (M/s. P. K. Pillai and N. Sudhakaran Advocates with him), (for No. 1) and M/s. R. K. Garg, V. J. Francis and K. R. Nambiyar Advocates, for Respondents Nos. 2-4, 6 and 7 and Intervener Mr. Surendran, M/s. R. K. Garg and O. P. Rana, Advocates, for Intervener - State of U. P.; Mr. L. N. Sinha, Sol. General, (M/s. P. P. Rao and Girish Chandra, Advocates with him), for Attorney-General, for India.
The legal document discusses the relationship between the provisions of the rules and orders concerning the exemption of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from passing departmental tests for promotion and the principles enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. It emphasizes that Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws, which inherently involves the principle of reasonable classification. The court highlights that classification, if founded on rational and relevant grounds, does not violate the guarantee of equality under Article 14.
The judgments clarify that such classifications are permissible when they serve a legitimate purpose, such as promoting social justice and correcting historical disadvantages faced by backward classes, including Scheduled Castes and Tribes. The measures taken, such as granting temporary exemptions or extended periods for passing tests, are viewed as reasonable classifications aimed at achieving social and economic upliftment without undermining the core principle of equality. These classifications are justified as they are based on substantial differences and serve the legitimate aim of providing equal opportunities, especially for groups that have historically been socially and educationally backward.
Furthermore, the judgments stress that equality of opportunity does not mean absolute uniformity but allows for reasonable differentiation where justified by relevant social, economic, or educational disparities. The measures are seen as a means to bridge inequalities and promote inclusivity, which aligns with the broader constitutional goal of social justice and equality. Thus, the rules and orders are considered consistent with the constitutional guarantee of equality under Article 14, provided they are based on rational, relevant, and non-arbitrary grounds.
JUDGMENT
RAY, C. J. (Majority Judgment) :—This appeal is by certificate from the judgment dated 19 April, 1974 of the High Court of Kerala.
2. This appeal concerns the validity of Rule 13AA of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 hereinafter called the Rules and two orders which are marked P-2 and P-6.
3. In order to appreciate Rule 13AA, it is necessary to refer to Rules 12, 13A, 13AA. These rules were framed in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. These rules came into existence on 17 December, 1958.
4. "Promotion" is defined in Rule 2 (11) to mean the appointment of a member of any category or grade of a service or a class of service to a higher category or grade of such service or class.
5. Rule 12 states that where general educational qualifications, special qualifications or special tests are prescribed by the Special Rules of a service for any category, grade or post therein, or in a class thereof, which are not prescribed for a category or grade in such service or class carrying a lower rate of pay and no member in the category or grade carrying the lower rate of pay is eligible for promotion to such category, grade or post a member in such lower category or grade may be promoted to the category or grade carrying the higher rate of pay temporarily until a member of the former category or grade qualified under this rule is available for promotion. A member temporarily promoted under this rule shall not by reason only of such promotion, be regarded as a probationer in the category or grade to which he has been promoted, or be entitled to any preferential claim to future promotion.
6. Rule 13 speaks of special qualifications. Rule 13 does not concern this appeal.
7. The two rules which are of importance in this appeal are Rules 13A and 13AA. They are as follows:-
"13A. Special and Departmental Tests - Temporary exemption for promotion.- Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 13, where a pass in a special or departmental test is newly prescribed by the Special Rules of a service for any category, grade or post therein or in any class thereof, a member of a service who has not passed the said test but is otherwise qualified and suitable for appointment to such class, category, grade or post may within 2 years of the introduction of the test be appointed thereto temporarily. If a member so appointed does not pass the test within two years from the date of introduction of the said test or when the said test also involves practical training within two years after the first chance to undergo such training he shall be reverted to the class, category or grade or post from which he was appointed and shall not again be eligible for appointment under this rule:
Provided that a person so reverted shall not by reason only of the appointment under this rule be entitled to any preferential claim to future appointment to the class, category, grade or post, as the case may be to which he had been appointed under this rule:
Provided further that the period of temporary exemption shall be extended by two years in the case of a 494 person belonging to any of the scheduled castes or scheduled tribes.
Provided also that this rule shall not be applicable to tests prescribed or purposes of promotion of the executive staff below the rank of Sub-Inspectors belonging to the Police Department."
"13AA. Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the Government may, by order, exempt for a specified period, any member or members, belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, and already in service, from passing the tests referred to in Rule 13 or Rule 13A of the said Rules.
Provided that this rule shall not be applicable to tests prescribed for purposes of promotion of the executive staff below the rank of Sub-Inspectors belonging to the Police Department."
8. It is necessary to state here that the third proviso to Rule 13A and the proviso to Rule 13AA were introduced with effect from
All India Station Masters and Assistant Station Masters Association v. G. M., central Railway
All India Station Masters and Assistant Station Masters Association v. G. M., central Railway
All India Station Masters and Assistant Station Masters Association v. G. M., central Railway
State of J And K v. Triloki Nath Khosa
State of J. And K. v. Triloki Nath Khosa
State of J And K v. Triloki Nath Khasa
State of J And K v. Triloki Nath Khosa
State of J And K v. Triloki NathKhosa
State of JandK v. Triloki Nath Khosa
State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan
State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan
Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar
State of Rajasthan v. Thakur Pratap Singh
State of Rajasthan v. Thakur Pratap Singh
M. R. Balaji v. State of Mysore
M. R. Bahyi v. State of Mysore
Govind Dattatray Kelkar v. Chief Controller of Imports
Govind Dattatray Kelkar v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports
S.G Jaisinghani v. Union of India
distinguished : S.G.Jaisinghani v. Union of India
S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India
S.G.Jaisinghani v. Union of India
Roshon Lal Tandon v. Union of India
State of Mysore v. P. Narasing Rao
State of Mysore v. V. P Narasing Rao
C. A. Rajendran v. Union of India
C. A. Rajendran v Union of India
C. A. Rajendran v. Union of India
Chandra Bhavan Boarding and Lodging v. State of Mysore
REFERRED TO : State of Gujarat v. Shri Ambica Mills
Mohd. Shujat Ali v. Union of India
Mohd. Shujat Ali v. Union of India
Maganlal Chhaganlal v. Municipal Corporation
referred to : T. Devadasan v. Union of India
T. Devadasan v. Union of India
T. Devadasan v. Union of India
T. Devadasan v. Union of India
T. Devadasan v. Union of India
Kesavananda Bharati v.State of Kerala
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.