COL. A. S. IYER & ORS. ETC. versus V. BALASUBRAMANYAM & ORS.

Citation: [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1036 · Decided: 24-10-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1036 
A 
COL. A. S. IYER & ORS. ETC. 
v. 
V. BALASUBRAMANYAM & ORS. 
Oclober 24, 1979 
I 
[Y. V. CIIANDRACIIUD, C.J., V. R. KRISHNA IYER, N. L. UNTWALIA, 
P. N. SHINGIIAL ANO A. D. KOSHAL, JJ.J 
c 
D 
E 
(i 
G 
l:l 
Stuve}' of India (Rec.:ruitrne1u /10111 Corps of Engineer Officers) R"les 1950 
-Service' consisted of Anny and Civilian Officers-Seniority and promotional 
opportunities for Army Officers different from Civilian Officers-Rule if violatn·e 
of Articles 14 and 16-of the Constitution. 
Rule 5 of the Survey of India (Recruitn1ent from Corps of Engineer Offi-
cers) Rules 1950 provided that on first appointment an officer \VOUld be in the 
grade of Deputy Superintending Surveyor in Class I Service of the Survey of 
India and that seniority of n1ilitary officers inter se will re1nain the same as itI 
the Army. Sub-rule 5 of this rule provided that an1ong those allotted to the 
same yea(, military officers would rook senior to directly 
recruited 
civilian 
officers. 
Rule 11 of the Rules \Vhich dealt with the me~hod of recruitment to 
Survey of India Clas& I Service provided that all recruitments to 
the Cadre 
would be 50% from the Corps of Engineer Officers, 25% from promoted Clas:i 
II civilian officers and 25% from direct recn1its by competitive examination 
through the· Union Public Service Commission. These Rules- were amended in 
1960 and 1970 but the provision relating to military engineers remained the 
same as in the 1950 Rules. 
In a writ petition filed in the High Court, the civilian officers of the service 
consisting of direct recntits and Class II promotees impugned the validity of 
the 1950 Rul'es on the· ground that seniority prescriptions were based on irrele-
vant criteria and that discrimination was writ large in the in1pugned provisions. 
The High c·ourt, accepting the contentions of the civilian officers, stiuck 
down eertairr rules of the 1950 Rules as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the 
Constitution. 
The High Court did not acc'ept the contention of the Govern-
ment that the nature and character of the work done by the Survey of India 
was essehtially -connected with defence purpose& because th'e work done by the 
Department for the Army was done along with several other services carri'ed 
on by it, namely, with the development projects, preparation of ma.ps 
for 
various Ministries of the Central and S;tate Governments, public sector under-
takings and other agencies; assuming that the work was related to defence 
purposes, civilian officers were employed by the D'epartment to do the same 
work and during emergencies, civilian officers were <;ailed upon to serve 
in 
border areas. 
Th1e Department had civilian budget. 
For these reasons the 
High Court came to the conclusion that there was no ground to justify classi-
fication made under the impugned Rules between the Army officers and civilian 
officers because th1e recruits from the army could not be said to be 
better 
qualified than the civilian direct recruits and that there was no jus-tification for 
adopting any discrimination iil favour of the Ai:my officers. 
The impugned 
rules were struck down on the ground that there was no reasonabJe nexus with 
the object sought to be achieved. 
, 
A. S. IYER V. V. BALASUBRAMANYAM 
1037 
Jn appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the State that the 
A. 
constitutional mandate of \!qual treatment applies only to equals 3lld in the 
case of recn1itment to the service the sources of recruitment of Army peroonnei 
and civilian entr11nts- are different and remain diffetent; weightage is given only 
at the time of entry and thereafter officers are treated as equals for all pur-
poses of promotio'n.· and -the advantage gained by the militarymen is a conse
4 
quence of tbe initial advantage of the commissioned service for the purposes 
cf seniority. 
Assuming that there is a unified cadre, since 
thet'e-
exists 
a 
I, 
ra4ional relation to the object sought to be a'l:hieved Article 16 cannot be said 
to have been violated. 
Allo,ving the appeals, 
HELD: The 1950 Rules are valid in that they have a prominent feature 
\vhich is basic namely the military nominees do not- shed their army service 
<1nd merge into a ne\v service to undergo partial ;ibsorption but preserve a sub-
sl"'1tial separateness. [1054 B-C] 
I. Without the military cng!ncers the Survey of In<lia 
would 
becorne 
a 
function~1l failure in discharging its paramount duties in times- of war and peoce. 
Tue \\'Ork done b

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.