LexTH0TE BHASKARA RAO versus A.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND OTHERS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
TH01E BHASKARA RAO A v. A.P. PUBLIC SERVICE .COMMISSION AND OTHERS. NOVEMBER 25, 1987 [A.P. SEN AND LAUT MOHAN SHARMA, JJ.) B Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules: Rules 2(15)(a) and 12-District Munsif-Recruitment of-Eligibility conditions-Expe- rience in 'Government Service'--Whether service in Hindustan Ship- yard, a Government of India Undertaking can be equated to 'Govern- ment service.'. Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 12 and 14-Hindustan Shipyard, a Government of India undertaking-Though 'State' for purposes of Part III of the Constitution-Whether service in such undertaking 'Government service' -Classification based on difference c in nature of service under Government and that of other services- D Whether valid-Proviso to Rult' 12 of Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules-Validity of. The appellant who had enrolled himself as an Advocate on 24.2. 77 and practised law till l.4.81 when he was appointed in the service of the Hindustan Shipyard, an undertaking . owned by the E Government of India, applied for the post of a District Munsif, in pursuance of an advertisement elated 25.4.84 issued by the respondent No. 1-Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission for filling up, by direct recruitment, of vacancies reserved for the Scheduled Castes. His application was rejected by the respondent No. I, as in its opinion, he did not fulfil the necessary qualificatiQR fixed under Rule 12 of the F Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules and was, therefore, in- eligible for appointment. The appellant challenged the aforesaid decision before the High Court. A Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the first G respondent to consider the appellant's candidature. The Letters Patent Appeal filed by the respondent was allowed and the writ petition was dismissed. In the appeal by special leave, the appellant contended that as he had practised for a requisite period immediately prior to his entering H 35 36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 2 S.C.R. A service of Hindustan Shipyard, an undertaking owned by the Govern· ment of India, he must be held to be qualified for appointment, that no distinction ought to be made between experienc.e acquired in Government service and the one in any other service, whether public or private in nature, that this discrimination was illegal and ultra vires and that the word "Government" should be deleted from the proviso 13 to Rule 12 so as to save it from the vice of discrimination. The respon- dents opposed the appeal on the ground that the appellant was not in Government service. Dismissing the appeal, C HELD: 1.1 There is no doubt that the expression "Government service" mentioned in the proviso to Rule 12 of the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules includes service either under the State Government or the Government of India. Sub-rule (15)(a) of Rule 2 explains that the expression "recruited direct" would refer to a candi- date including a person in the service of Government of India or the D Government of State to be recruited directly subject to service condi· tions mentioned therein. [39A·B] In the instant case, the Hindustan Shipyard, although a fully owned undertaking of the Central Government cannot be equated with the Government or State except for the purpose of part III of the Con- E stitution. The undertaking has a separate legal entity. The expression "State" does not by reason of Article 12 of the Constitution include the undertaking except for the limited purpose which is not attracted in the present case. The appellant who is in the service of Hindustan Shipyard'and is not servillg directly the Union of India cannot take advantage of the proviso. [38E·Fl F 1.2 What is forbidden by the Constitution is discrimination bet- ween persons who are substantially in similar circumstances or condi· tious. An equal treatment does not arise as between persons governed by different conditions and different sets of circumstances. It is obvi- I. ously permissible to classify persous into groups and such groups may G be differently treated if there is a reasonable basis for such difference or distinction. [39C·D] Having regard to the' difference in the nature of service under the Government and that of the other services, therefore, a classifica· tion based on that line caunot be struck down on the ground of illegal discrimination. The Proviso to Rule 12 must be held to be valid and H ef
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.