A classification of government servants based solely on their date of appointment is arbitrary and unreasonable and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Headnote:
RULE 8(2)(A) - RAJASTHAN SERVICE RULES, 1951 - CONSTITUTIONALITY - CLASSIFICATION OF GOVERNMENT SERVANTS INTO TWO CATEGORIES BASED ON DATE OF APPOINTMENT - VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 14 AND 16 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, government employees of Rajasthan, challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 8(2)(a) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, which barred correction of date of birth entries in service records for employees who joined service before January 1, 1979. The petitioners argued that the rule violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution by creating an arbitrary classification between employees based on their date of appointment.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that Rule 8(2)(a) violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It found that the classification of government servants into two categories based on the date of their appointment was arbitrary and unreasonable. The court noted that there was no rational basis for treating employees differently based solely on their date of appointment, and that the rule perpetuated errors in date of birth entries in service records. The court also found that the rule discriminated against employees who had submitted representations for correction of their date of birth before January 24, 1979, but whose representations were still pending on that date.
Issues: 1. Whether Rule 8(2)(a) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution? 2. Whether the classification of government servants into two categories based on the date of their appointment was arbitrary and unreasonable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that Rule 8(2)(a) violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution because it created an arbitrary and unreasonable classification between employees based on their date of appointment. 2. The court found that there was no rational basis for treating employees differently based solely on their date of appointment, and that the rule perpetuated errors in date of birth entries in service records. 3. The court also found that the rule discriminated against employees who had submitted representations for correction of their date of birth before January 24, 1979, but whose representations were still pending on that date.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitions and quashed the orders rejecting the petitioners' representations for correction of their date of birth. It directed that the representations be reconsidered on merits without taking into consideration the provisions of Rule 8(2)(a) of the Rules.

JUDGMENT

1. - These writ petitions raise common questions with regard to the constitutional validity of Rule 8(2)(a) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') and, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioners in all these writ petitions are employees of the Government of Rajasthan and have joined the service prior to 1st January,1979 The petitioners applied for correction of their date of birth entry in their service record. In SBCW No. 634 of 1982 the aforesaid request of the petitioner was rejected by the order of the Superintendent of Police dated 11th August, 1981, Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the said petitioner filed an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), but the said appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that in view of the amended Rule 8 of the Rules, no correction can be made in the service book as it stood on 24th January, 1979. In other writ petitions, the representations of the petitioners for correction of the date of birth as entered in the service book were rejected by the authorities on the ground that in view of the amended Rule 8 of the Rules, such an alteration cannot be made after 24th January, 1979. The petitioners in these writ petitions have challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 8(2)(a) which was inserted in the Rules by notification dated 24th January, 1979.

3. By the aforesaid notification dated 24th January, 1979 the following amendments were made in the Rules: (i) In Rule 7, note No. 2, which was inserted by the circular of the Government of Rajasthan dated 28h April, 1958, and the Government of Rajasthan decision No. 2 appearing below subrule (1) were deleted, (ii) The existing Rule 8 was renumbered as sub-rule(1) of Rule 8. (iii) Sub-rule (2) was inserted in Rule 8. The said Sub-rule 8 of Rule 8 reads as under:

(2)(a) In relation to a person already in the service of the Government on 1-1-1979, the Service Book/Service Roll shall be accepted by the State Government as date of birth of such person irrespective of the basis or authority on which it was entered. The date of birth so recorded and accepted shall not be changed subsequently on the basis of High/Secondary/Higher Secondary School Certificate or in the first certificate issued by any Board of Education etc. irrespective of whether it is advantageous to him or not.

(b)(i) In relation to a person appointed on or after 1-1-1979 the age of a Government servant for the purpose of this Rule shall be determined with reference to the date of birth entered in the High/ Secondary/Higher Secondary School Certificate or in the first certificate issued by the Board of Education where the minimum qualification prescribed for the post under Government is Matriculation or Secondary or Higher Secondary or any other diploma or certificate recognised and declared by the Government equivalent thereto and above.

(ii) The date of birth entered in the High/Secondary/Higher Secondary School Certificate or in the first certificate issued by a Board of Education shall be mentioned in the order of appointment issued by the competent authority.

(iii) Where the minimum qualifications prescribed for appointments post under Government is below Secondary/Higher Secondary or equivalent the date of birth shall be determined with reference to the certificate of date of birth issued by the Municipality or Panchayat or School according to the entry made in their respective records, and in the event of non-availability of the aforesaid certificate, the date of birth declared by the applicant at the time of first appointment may be accepted. If the date of birth of a Government servant is not known and he is able to state the year of birth, the procedure laid down in Rule 63 of General Financial and Accounts Rules shall be followed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1985 Supreme(Raj) 347

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCHS.C.Agrawal, J.Samarath Lal Joshi etc. - AppellantVersusState of Rajasthan & ors. - RespondentS.B.C.W.P. No. 1248 of 1981 and 4 other writ petitions.Decided On : 28-01-1985

A classification of government servants based solely on their date of appointment is arbitrary and unreasonable and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Cases Referred (4)

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
S.C.Agrawal, J.
Samarath Lal Joshi etc. - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & ors. - Respondent
S.B.C.W.P. No. 1248 of 1981 and 4 other writ petitions.
Decided On : 28-01-1985