Classification of officers into different categories based on rank is permissible under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and the grant of study leave only to Commissioned Officers is not discriminatory if there are other institutions where courses are conducted for other categories of personnel.

Judgment

S. N. PHUKAN, J.

( 1 ) 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 matter 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 extraordinary leave subject to certain conditions and not persons like the petitioner, who is not an Officer. Therefore, he challenged the 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 allegations 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. 5-A. 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.

( 6 ) 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.

( 7 ) 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.

( 8 ) WE have heard Mr. P. N. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant.

( 9 ) 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.

( 10 ) WE may refer to :in All India Station Masters and Assistant Station Masters Association, Delhi v. General Manager, Central Railway, AIR 1960 SC 384 : ( (1960) 2 SCR 311, while considering Article 16 of the Constitution the Constitution Bench of this Court inter alia held that equally means - equality as between members of the same class of employees, and not equality between members of separate, independent classes.

( 11 ) SIMILAR views were expressed by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Jagannath Prasad Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 1245 : ( (1962) 1 SCR 151) 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.

( 12 ) IN State of Mysore v. P. Narasinga Rao, AIR 1968 SC 349 : ( (1968) 1 SCR 407), 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 classifica