NARESH KUMAR AND ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] 3 S.C.R. 777 · Decided: 05-04-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.N. VARIAVA · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

,-···<. 
NARESH KUMAR AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
APRIL 5, 2004 
[S.N. V ARIA VA AND H.K. SE:11A, JJ.] 
B 
Merchant Shipping Act, 1958: 
Section 80(since omitted)-Certificate of Sen1ice (COS)-Officers of 
Indian Navy were issued COS without any examination-Such COS saved C 
under S. 5 of Amendment Act of 1986-Validity of-Held: After en/1)1 into fore 
of the 1978 Convention as amended in 1995, such COS valid only temporaril;~ 
The governing provision is Art. VI of the Convention-Now there can only be 
Certificates contemplated by the Convention-Merchant Shipping (Amendment) 
Act, 1986, S. 5-Jnternational Convention on Standards of Training, 
Certification and Watch Keeping far Seafarers, 1978 (as amended in 1995), D 
Arts. VJ and VI! and Regns. 112 and Ill I. 
Merchant Shipping (STCW) Rules, 1998: 
Rules I I, I 5 and MS. Notice No. 4 of 2000-Provided for conversion 
from Cert(ficate of Service (COS) to Certificate of Competency (COC) ajier E 
undergoing necesswy refresher course, completing training or assessment-
Different courses prescribed for successful conversion from COS to COC-
Validity of-Held: Distinction bet11·een COS and COC was based on intelligible 
differentia and not violative of Arts. I 4 and I 9-Rr. I I and I 5 intra vires the 
1995 Convention and the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958-Constitution of India, F 
I 950, Arts. I 4 and I 9. 
Rules 11 and I 5 and MS. Notices Nos. 4, 5 and 6 of 2001: 
Chief Mate-No provisions existed to enable a COS holder to get an 
endorsement as Chief Mate in rnse he did not desire a COC as a Master- G 
Central Governme/1/ gave an undertaking to make suitable provisions in that 
regard-Held: In accordance with its undertaking, Central Government to 
make suitable provisions. 
The appellants were serving in Indian Navy as officers. They got 
777 
H 
778 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
12004] 3 S.C.R. 
A released from the Indian Navy and were employed in the Merchant Navy. 
As Officers in the Indian Navy they obtained, without examination, 
Certificates of Service (COS) as the "Master of Foreign Going Ship" or 
"First Class Engineer" or "Second Class Engineer". The COS was issued 
under Section 80 (as it then stood) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958. 
B 
The International Convention on Standards of Training, 
Certification and Watch Keeping for Seafarers, 1978 ("STCW" 78) came 
into force globally. India was one of the signatories to the Convention and 
ratified the Convention in 1986. The object of the Convention was to have 
uniform standard of training and Certification. Article VI of the 1978 
C Convention enjoined that Certificates be issued for masters, officers or 
ratings. rt provided that these shall be issued to those candidates who meet 
the requirements for service, age, medical fitness, training, qualification 
and examinations in accordance with the appropriate provisions. The 1978 
Convention was amended in 1995 and was known as STCW 1995. This 
1995 Convention extensively amended the 1978 Convention but Articles I 
D to XVII of the 1978 Convention remained un-amended. Consequently, the 
Merchant Shipping (STCW) Rules, 1998 were also framed. Rule 11 
required that existing COS holders who intended to become holders of 
COC shall be required to complete approved training assessment. 
Similarly, Rule 15 required that every Master on a seagoing ship of 500 
E gross tonnage or more shall hold an appropriate COC in the prescribed 
form. Accordingly, the respondent issued M.S. Notice N.os. 2 of 2000, 4, 5 
& 6 of 2001 in compliance with Rules 11 and 15 by prescribing the 
procedure of continued employment of COS holders by obtaining a COC 
as amended under STCW 1995. 
p , 
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid procedure, the appellants filed a 
writ petition before the High Court, which was dismissed. Hence the 
appeal. 
On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that though Section 
80 of the Act was repealed the appellants would continue to hold the COS 
G in view of S. 5 of the Amendment Act of 1986; that Art. VII of the 1995 
Convention continued to accept the COS as valid; that Rule 15 framed 
under STCW Rules, 1998 was violative of the Act and the Convention and 
that the arbitrary distinction sought to be made between COS and COC 
was in violation of Arts. 14 and 19 of the Constitution. 
H 
The following question arose before the Court:-
y 
!. 
-~ 
'f 
. ,.. 
-'( 
NARESH KUMAR v. U.0.1. 
779 
Whether the Certificate of Service issued under Section 80 of the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.