STATE OF KERALA & ANR. versus N. M. THOMAS & ORS.

Citation: [1976] 1 S.C.R. 906 · Decided: 19-09-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 39 judgment(s) · cites 13 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

906 
STATE OF KERALA & ANR, 
A 
v. 
N. M. THOMAS & ORS. 
September 19, 1975 
IA. N. RAY, C.J., H. R. KHANNAJ, 
K. K. MATHEW, 
M. H. BEG, 
v. R. KRISHNA !YER, A C. GUPTA AND s. MuRTAZA FAZAL Au, JJ.] 
B 
Kera/a State Subordinate Service Rules. 
1958. r. 
13AA-Constitulionnl 
i·afidity of. 
Constitution of India, 1950-Arts 16, 46 and 33S.--Scope of. 
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes-if a caste-Exen1ptio11 granted frorn 
passing special departtnenta/ tests-if violative of Art, 16. 
Rule 13(a) of the Kerala State Subordinate Services Rules. 1958, provides 
tha-t no person shall be eligible for appointment to any service or any post unless 
he possessed such special qualifications and has passed such special tests as may 
be prescribed in that behalf in the Special Rules. 
For promotion of a lower division clerk -to the next higher post of upper 
division clerk, the Government made it obligatory for an employee to pass 
the special departmcnta·l tests. 
Rule 13A which was introduced sometime later, 
gave temporary exemption from passing the departmen~al tests for a period of 
two years. 
·rhe rule also provided that an einployee who did not pass the 
unified departmenl'al tests within the period of two years from the 
date 
of 
introduction of the test would be reverted to thic lower post and further said 
tha,t he •3hall not again be eligible for appointment under this rule. 
Provi&o 2 
to this rule. gave ten1porary exen1ption of two years in the case of Scheduled 
Caste~ and Scheduled Tribes candidates. 
A Harijan Welfare Association repre-
sented to the State Government that a large number of Harijan employees in 
the State service ~re, facing immediate reversion as a result of this rule and 
reque~ted the Government to grant exemption in respect of Scheduled Caste~ 
and Scheduled 'Tribes employees from passing the obligatory departmental tes'.5 
for a period of two years with immedia'·e effect. 
Accordingly, 
the 
St1~e 
Government introduced rule 13AA giving further exemption of two year:> to 
members belonging to Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes in the service from 
pa<;sing the te'its referred to in r. 13 or r. 13A. 
c 
D 
E 
Respondent no, 1 passed the special tests in November, 1971. 
The other 
F 
respondents belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes viere pron1oted 
as Upper Division Clerks even though they had not passed the prescribed tests. 
Respondent no. 1 who was not promoted in spite of the fact 
that, he 
had 
passed the requisite tests moved the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitu~ 
tion seekin~ a declaration that r. 13AA under 
which 
exemption 
had 
hecn 
granted to the other respondents in the matter of promotion wa<> violative of 
Art. 16 of the Constitution. The High Court struck down the imugned rule 
a~ violative of Art. 16( I) and (2) and A·rt. 335 of the Constitution. 
G 
Allowing the State's appeal to this Court, 
[Per n1ajority, Ray C.J., Mathew, Beg. Krishna Iyer, S. M. Fazal Ali. JJ.; 
Khanna and Gupta. JJ. dissenting] 
HELD ; (Per Ray_ C.J.) ~fhe dassification of employees belonging 
to 
Scheduled Castes and ScheduJed Tribe3 for allowing them an extended period 
11 
of two years for passing the special tests for promotion is a just and reasonable 
classification having rational nexus to the object of providing equal opportunity 
for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to 
public 
-Offices. 
[9JOH] 
" 
A 
B 
t 
c 
D 
E 
F 
• -t 
G 
H 
KERALA v. N. M. THOMAS 
907 
(1) Articles 14, 15 and 16 form part of a string of constitutionally guaranteed: 
rights. 
These rights supplement each other. Article 16 is an 
incident 
of 
guarantee of equality contained in Art. 14. Both Articles 14 and 16( l) permit 
reasonable classificll!tion having a nexus to the objects to be achieved. 
Under 
Art. 16 there .can be a rea5onable classification of the employees in 1natters 
relating to employment or ap.pointn1ent. 
[926 F1 
State of Gujarat and Anr. etc. v. Shri Anibica Afil!s Ltd. Ahn1edabad etc. 
A.l.R. 1974 S.C. 1300, referred to. 
(2) Equa·lity is violated if it rests on an unreasonable basis. 
The concept 
of equality has an inherent limitation arising from the very nature of the con-
stitutional guarantee. Those who are similarly circumstanced are entitled to 
equal treatment. Clas·sification is to be founded on substantial differences which 
distinguish persons grouped together from those left out of the groups and su.:h 
differentia-1 attributes mus

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