Back
1960 Supreme(Mad) 87
MADRAS HIGH COURT
RAJAGOPALAN
Rangachari
Versus
The General Manager, Southern Railway, Madras
Writ Petn. No. 1051 of 1959
Decided On : 3 March, 1960
S. Mohan Kumaramangalam and P.S. Madhusudanan, for Petitioner; C.K. Daphtary for K. Rajah Aiyar, C. Govindaraja Aiyangar and B.T. Seshadri, for Respondents.
The reservation of promotions from one grade to another in the same service, such as the promotion of Court Inspectors from one grade to another, is not within the scope of Article 16(4) of the Constitution.
Headnote:
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 16(4) - RESERVATION OF PROMOTIONS IN FAVOUR OF SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES - VALIDITY - PROMOTIONS FROM ONE GRADE TO ANOTHER IN THE SAME SERVICE - WHETHER WITHIN THE SCOPE OF ARTICLE 16(4) - HELD, NO.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Court Inspector in Class III of the Railway Service, challenged the reservation of selection posts in Class III in favour of members of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes, including the post of Court Inspector in the grade of Rs. 260-350, which he was holding. The petitioner contended that the reservation violated his fundamental right to equality of opportunity in matters of employment under Article 16(1) and the prohibition against discrimination on grounds of caste under Article 16(2) of the Constitution. The respondents, represented by the learned Solicitor-General, argued that the reservation was valid under Article 16(4), which allows the State to make provisions for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of backward classes.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the reservation of promotions from one grade to another in the same service, such as the promotion of Court Inspectors from one grade to another, was not within the scope of Article 16(4) of the Constitution. The court interpreted the expressions "appointments" and "posts" in Article 16(4) to mean "appointments to services" and "appointments to posts", respectively, and held that promotion from one post to another in the same service did not fall within either of these categories. The court further held that the reservation violated the petitioner's fundamental right to equality of opportunity in matters of employment under Article 16(1) and the prohibition against discrimination on grounds of caste under Article 16(2) of the Constitution.
Issues: 1. Whether the reservation of promotions from one grade to another in the same service, such as the promotion of Court Inspectors from one grade to another, was within the scope of Article 16(4) of the Constitution. 2. Whether the reservation violated the petitioner's fundamental right to equality of opportunity in matters of employment under Article 16(1) and the prohibition against discrimination on grounds of caste under Article 16(2) of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the expressions "appointments" and "posts" in Article 16(4) to mean "appointments to services" and "appointments to posts", respectively, and held that promotion from one post to another in the same service did not fall within either of these categories. 2. The court held that the reservation violated the petitioner's fundamental right to equality of opportunity in matters of employment under Article 16(1) and the prohibition against discrimination on grounds of caste under Article 16(2) of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and issued a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from giving effect to the direction of the Railway Board ordering reservation of selection posts in class III of the Railway Service in favour of members of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes, including the post of Court Inspector in the grade of Rs. 260-350, which the petitioner was holding.
ORDER :- The petitioner holds the post which he described as that of a Law Assistant and the correct designation of which would appear to be court inspector, included in class III of the Railway service. From what has been stated in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit filed by the department, it would be seen that there were four grades of court inspectors, all of them included in class III : (1) Court Inspectors on Rs. 200-300; (2) Court Inspectors on Rs. 260-350; (3) Chief Court Inspectors on Rs. 300-400; and (4) Chief Court Inspectors on Rs. 360-500. Candidates are recruited to the last of these grades, that is, on Rs. 200-300 partly directly and partly by selection, which apparently means selection from other categories of the railway service.
The posts in the three higher grades are filled by promotions; and the posts in the three higher grades have been classified selection posts for the purpose of selecting candidates from the lower grade for promotion to the next higher grade. Such selections for promotion have to be made by a committee constituted under the service rules in force. Seniority of service is only one of the factors to be considered in such selection, in contrast with promotion to non-selection posts, which are governed primarily by seniority of service.
2. The petitioner was recruited to a post in the grade of Rs. 200-300, and he was eventually confirmed in that post on 21-11-1956. He was promoted to the next higher grade on Rs. 260-Rs. 350 between 23-5-1958 and 22-8-1958, and again between 8-12-1958 and 31-12-1958. Apparently these promotions were what is known as ad hoc or provisional promotions, that is, the promotion was on a temporary basis. So was the promotion on the nest occasion, 8-4-1959. The petitioner was eventually selected for promotion by the duly constituted selection committee which met on 16-6-1959, and the promotion of the petitioner was "regularised" by an order issued on 30-6-1959. The petitioner continued to officiate in the grade Rs. 250 (260?)-350 without any break, but his status after the selection was that of a probationer in that grade.
3. The petitioners promotions, temporary promotions as well as the promotion on a regular basis, were in accord with the policy that underlay the rules in force, that there was and there should be no reservation of pests to be filled by promotion in favour of subordinates of scheduled castes and scheduled Tribes. That policy was changed. In its letter dated 27-4-1959 the railway Board issued instructions to the Central Manager. The railway Board directed :
"There are different grades of Class III posts. Some of these posts are non-selection posts, promotion to which is made on seniority-cum-suitability basis, while in the case of others which are selection posts, promotion is made by a positive act of selection. There will be no quota for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates in respect of promotion to "non-selection posts.
For promotion to selection posts, however, there will be the prescribed quota of reservation. The field of consideration in the case of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates should be four times the number of posts reserved without any condition of qualifying period of service in their case, subject to the condition that consideration should not normally extend to such staff beyond two grades immediately below the grade for which selection is held. The further directions of the Railway Board were :
"The decision of the Railway Board providing reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in promotion vacancies as laid down above, comes into effect from 4-1-195". It will, therefore, be necessary to calculate all the number of posts that should have been made available to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes during 1957 and 1958 and these should be carried forward to be filled in 1959 .... ..... .... ..... .... "
The General Manager, Southern Railways, issued a circular on 12-6-1959 to give
