LexASHUTOSH GUPTA versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. ASHUTOSH GUPTA v. STATE OF RAlASTHAN AND ORS. -~ '....-' MARCH 20, 2002 [G.B. PATTANAIK, S.N. PHUKAN AND BRJJESH KUMAR, 11.J Service Law: A B Constitution of India-Articles 14 and I 6-Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules, I 954-Rajasthan Administrative Service (Emergency C Recruitment) Rules, 1976-Rule 25-Recruitments made under both the Rules- Seniority-Formula, for fu:ing notional year of allotment and premium prescribed for period of practice or profession before reqruitment in 1976 Rules-Constitutionality of the Rule-Held, in absence of releva'1t materials disclosing unequal treatment, Rule 2 5 is valid and constitutional-Formula D prescribed is not discriminatory in nature. Appellant was directly recruited by respondent-State in June 1975 under the Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules, 1954. In November 1978, the State made some recruitments under the Rajasthan Administrative Service (Emergency Recruitment) Rules, 1976. In June 1980, a seniority list was E published by the State placing the persons recruited under the 1976 Rules as senior to the directly recruited officers made under the 1954 Rules. The direct recruits filed Writ Petitions before High Court challenging the validity of Rule 25 of the I 976 Rules. Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petitions. Special appeals fded by the direct recruits before the Division Bench of the High Court were F also dismissed. In appeal to the Court, the appellant challenging the validity of Rule 25 of the I 976 Rules co~tended that the persons recruited under the said Rules and under the 1954 Rules form one class; that providing a special rule for seniority for recruitment under the 1976 Rules by having a notional year of G allotment is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution; that even if they formed two different classes, there is no intelligible differentia and nexus in providing a notional year of allotment ~or recruitment under the 1976 Rules without any specific object sought to be achieved; that the year of allotment based on emoluments is irrational and 649 H 650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 2 S.C.R. A arbitrary; that the period-of practice or profession taken into account in fixing seniority is irrelevant and illogical; and that the persons with less merit and no administrative experience were recruited under the 1976 Rules and hence they are inefficient and are of less standard, who cannot be granted any • fi . d «-- . B premmm or perio . . · Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Persons who were recruited under the Rajasthan Administrative Service (Emergency Recruitment) Rules, 1976 had undertaken a written test on specified subjects as indicated in the Rules. After qualifying _>.- C in the written test, they were also subjected to interview conducted by the · State Public Service Commission in the same manner as those who had been recruited under the Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules, 1954. There may have been a variance on the subjects of which they had taken the test. But that by itself would not be sufficient to hold that the candidates recruited under the 1976 Rules are less efficient or their suitability had been adjudged at a D lesser standard. [656-E-F) 1.2. It is a well settled principle that if a person complains of unequal . treatment, the burden squarely lies on that person to place before the court sufficient materials from which it can be inferred that there is unequal E treatment. Where the necessary materials have not been placed, the plea of provisions befog violative of Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be . entertained. No material h_as been produced J:>y the appellant to indicate if any of the persons recruited under the 1976 Rules has reaped any undue advantage in respect of his past experience by adoption of the formula in the Rules for the purpose of allotting year of allotment. In the absence of any F materials, the Court is not required to examine the correctness of the contention of the appellant on an assumption that the provisions of the Rules might have enabled the professionals on being recruited to count their past ;experience for reckoning their seniority in the cadre of administrative service even though the said experience might not have any co-relationship ~ith the G administrative service. (656-G-H; 657-A-C) 1.3. Where a challenge is made to a statutory provision being · discriminatory, allegations
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.