GANGA RAM & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1970] 3 S.C.R. 481 · Decided: 02-02-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
• 
G 
H 
481 
GANGA RAM & ORS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
February 2, 1970 
(M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J., 
J. C, SHAH, 
K. S. HEGDE, 
A. N. GROVER, A. N. RAY AND I. 0. DUA, JJ.) 
Indian Railways Establishment Manuul-Para 20(b) of Chapter II 
whether violates Arts. 14 and 16 of Constitution of India-Discrimination 
whether exists between direct recruits and promotees in respect of posts of 
Grade I Accounts Clerks. 
.. ' 
The petitioners were oftkiating clerks Grade I in the office of the 
Deputy Chief Accounts Officer (Traffic Accounts Branch) 
Northern 
Railway. They had been promoted to these posts after passing a qualify-
ing examination which irl -the Indian Railways Establishment Manual was 
referre!l to as the Appendix 2 Examination. 
When respondents 4 to 6 
and 11 who had passed the said examination later than the petitioners 
were shown as senior to the petitioners in Grade I on the strength of 
para 20(b) of Chapter II and other relevant provisions of the aforesaid 
Manual, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Arts. 14 and 16 of the 
Constitution. 
Discrimination according to the petitioners arose because 
while senioritv amon~ direct recruits to Grade I was fixed on the basis 
of their. appointment, the seniority of promotees to Grade I like the peti-
tionen was regulated by their seniority in Grade II without regard being 
paid to the fact of their having passed the 
Appendix 2 examination 
earlier or their having officiated in Grade I. 
HELD : (i) The equality of opportunity in the matter of services 
undoubtedly takes within its fold all stages of services from initial appoint-
ment to its termination including promotion but it does not prohibit the 
prescription of reasonable rules for selection and promotion, applicable 
to all members of a classified group. 
Mere production of inequality is 
not enough to attract the constitutional inhibition because every classifi· 
cation is likely in some degree to produce some inequality. The classifi-
cation need not be scientifically perfect or logically complete. The matter 
has to be considered in a practical way without 
whittling 
down the 
equality clause. The c\assification must however be founded on intelli· 
gible differentia which on rational grounds distinguishes persons grouped 
together from those left out, and it must bear a just and reasonable re-
lation to the object sought to be achieved. [483 F-H; 484 A] 
(ii) The State which encounters diverse problems arising 
from a 
variety of circumstances is entitled to lay down condition.;; of efficiency 
and other qualifications for securing the best se'rvice for being eligible 
for promotion in its different departments. In the present case the object 
which is sought to be achieved by the relevant provisions is the requisite 
efficiency in the Accounts Department of the Railway establishment. The 
departmental authority is the proper judge of its requirements. [488 C·D] 
The direct recruits and the promotees like the petitioners clearly 
constitute different classes and this classification is sustainable on intelli-
gi'ble differentia which has. a reasonable .connection with. the. object 
of 
efficiency •ought to be achieved. Promotion to Grado I ts gmd,d by the 
4S2 
SCPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1970] 3 S.C.R. 
<onsideratiun 1f -enioritv-cum-merit. It is therefore difficult to find fault 
A 
with the pro'.·i ... ion v ... hich places in one group all those Grade II clerks 
who have qu•lir.ed by pa,,ing the Appendix 2 examination. 
The fact 
that the pron1rtees from Grade 11 who have officiated for some time are 
not given the credit of this period when a permanent vacancy arises also 
does not attract the prohibition contained in Arts. 14 and 16. It qoes 
not constitute any ho.stile discrimination and ·is neither arbitrary nor un· 
·reasonable. It applies uniformly to all members of the class of Grade 
B 
JI clerks who have qualified and become eligible. The petitioners had not 
discharged the onus which lay on them to prove discriminatiol!. [488 Fl 
Meryyn Coutindo v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, [1966] 3 S.C.R. 
600, referred to. 
'"' 
ORIGINAL 1uRISD!CTION : Writ Petition No. 124 of 1967. 
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of.India for enforce-
C 
ment of the fundamental rights. 
· 
S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta, for the petitioners. 
N. S. Bindra and S. P. Nayar, for respondents Nos. 1 to 3. 
Harbans Singh for respondents Nos. 4 to 10. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered b

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