Back
2002 Supreme(SC) 389
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Brijesh Kumar : G.B.Pattanaik : S.N.Phukan
Ashutosh Gupta
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
Case No. : 7777 of 1997
Date of Decision : 3/20/02
Advocates Appeared: Battacharya S.K. : Dhamija A.P. : Goswami Sandhya : Jain Sushil Kumar : Tomar M.P.S.
Emergency recruits constitute a distinct class of government servants. Seniority rules providing a notional year of allotment based on a formula to account for past experience are not discriminatory under Articles 14 and 16, provided they are based on a reasonable classification and have operated over a long period.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16, 309 - Seniority of government servants - Emergency recruitment - Validity of rules providing notional year of allotment - Formula based on past emoluments challenged as discriminatory - Reasonable classification - Equality before law means likes should be treated alike; it does not mean things which are different shall be treated as though they were the same - Two conditions for valid classification: (i) intelligible differentia and (ii) rational relation to the object sought to be achieved - Presumption of constitutionality attaches to statutory enactments (Paras 5, 6)
(B) Service Law - Seniority - Emergency recruits form a distinct class, separate from direct recruits and promotees - Provisions for fixing seniority of emergency recruits via a formula to avoid wiping off past experience are not arbitrary or violative of Articles 14 and 16 (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
A direct recruit to the state administrative service under the rules of 1954 challenged the validity of a rule under the Emergency Recruitment Rules of 1976. The impugned rule provided a formula for determining the year of allotment and seniority for emergency recruits based on a notional year, partially factoring in past emoluments. The appellant contended that this classification was discriminatory and lacked a rational nexus to administrative experience, thus violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Findings of Court:
The court found that emergency recruits constitute a separate class. The selection process for emergency recruitment involved competitive written tests and interviews, ensuring efficiency. The formula for seniority was designed to avoid disregarding previous professional experience. Since the rules had operated for over 25 years and the affected cadre was now vanishing due to superannuation, the court saw no reason to disturb the established seniority.
Issues: Whether the rule providing a formula for the year of allotment for emergency recruits is discriminatory and violates the principles of equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the classification of emergency recruits as a distinct class is valid. A statutory provision is presumed constitutional unless clear evidence of transgression is provided. Since no material was produced to show that the formula led to undue advantage or absurdity, and given that the rules are in pari materia with other service recruitment schemes and have operated for over two decades, the seniority arrangement is reasonable.
Result: Civil appeal fails and is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
G.B. PATTANAIK, J.
(1) 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 Saxena v. Union of India and Ors. ([1968) 2 Supreme Court Reports - 611] and K.P. Singhal v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. [(1995) Supp1 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 Singhals 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 197
