2010 Supreme(SC) 172

2010 (2) Supreme 183
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Markandey Katju and T.S. Thakur, JJ.
B. Manmad Reddy & Ors. — Appellants
versus
Chandra Prakash Reddy & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 933-935 of 2004
Decided on : 17-02-2010

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Classification must rest on a reasonable and intelligible basis and the same must bear a nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the statute.
2. By its very nature classification can and is often fraught with the danger of resulting in artificial inequalities which make it necessary to subject the power to classify to restraints lest the guarantee of equality becomes illusory on account of classifications being fanciful instead of fair, intelligible or reasonable.

Headnote:Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 - Sections 78 and 99-Andhra Pradesh Educational Service Rules- Note 6 to Rule 3-Constitutional Validity of- Appeals against order passed by High Court whereby order passed by Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal was set aside to extent the same had declared Note 1(i) to Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Service Rules to be unconstitutional-To the extent the Tribunal had declared Note 6 to Rule 3 of the Rules to be ultra vires High Court had affirmed the view taken by Tribunal and dismissed the writ petitions- Appeals filed by direct recruits to Andhra Pradesh State Educational Service on plea that Tribunal and High Court fell in error in declaring Note 6 to Rule 3 of the Rules in question to be unconstitutional- Held Tribunal and High Court were, justified in holding that Note 6 to Rule 3 was unconstitutional inasmuch as the same classified officers eligible for appointment against class II category 1 posts depending upon whether they were direct recruits or promotes- Such a classification based on the birth mark that stood obliterated after integration of officers coming from different source into a common cadre/category would be wholly unjustified and discriminatory-Any imbalance among those eligible for appointment against class II category1 posts coming from different sources and categories would not itself justify a classification like the one made in Note 6- There is no gain saying that classification must rest on a reasonable and intelligible basis and the same must bear a nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the statute- By its very nature classification can and is often fraught with the danger of resulting in artificial inequalities which make it necessary to subject the power to classify to restraints lest the guarantee of equality becomes illusory on account of classifications being fanciful instead of fair, intelligible or reasonable-Appeals having no merit dismissed. (Paras 12 to 14)

       Facts of the Case :

        Present Appeals have been filed against order passed by High Court whereby order passed by Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal was set aside to extent the same had declared Note 1(i) to Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Service Rules to be unconstitutional. To the extent the Tribunal had declared Note 6 to Rule 3 of the Rules to be ultra vires High Court had affirmed the view taken by Tribunal and dismissed the writ petitions. Appeals were filed by direct recruits to Andhra Pradesh State Educational Service on plea that Tribunal and High Court fell in error in declaring Note 6 to Rule 3 of the Rules in question to be unconstitutional.

       Findings of the Court :

        Tribunal and the High Court held that inasmuch as Note 6 to Rule 3 classified the promotees and direct recruits for the purpose of future promotion, even after their integration into one cadre the same was discriminatory hence ultra vires of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Tribunal and High Court were, justified in holding that Note 6 to Rule 3 was unconstitutional inasmuch as the same classified officers eligible for appointment against class II category 1 posts depending upon whether they were direct recruits or promotes. Such a classification based on the birth mark that stood obliterated after integration of officers coming from different source into a common cadre/category would be wholly unjustified and discriminatory. Any imbalance among those eligible for appointment against class II category1 posts coming from different sources and categories would Not itself justify a classification like the one made in Note 6. There is no gainsaying that classification must rest on a reasonable and intelligible basis and the same must bear a nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the statute. By its very nature classification can and is often fraught with the danger of resulting in artificial inequalities which make it necessary to subject the power to classify to restraints lest the guarantee of equality becomes illusory on account of classifications being fanciful instead of fair, intelligible or reasonable. Appeals having no merit were dismissed.

       Result : Appeals dismissed.