THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY versus RANGACHARI

Citation: [1962] 2 S.C.R. 586 · Decided: 28-04-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 26 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1961 
George Orihes 
(P.) Ltd. 
v. 
State of Madras 
S. f(, Das j. 
196c 
April z8. 
586 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1962] 
he may turn it over again and again till he finally 
hands it to Government. 
There is thus nothing ano-
ma.lous in the law treating it as part of the amount 
on which tax must be paid by him. This conception 
of a turnover is not new. It is found in England and 
America and there is no reason to think that when 
the legislatures in India defined 'turnover' to include 
tax also, they were striking out into something quite 
unknown aud unheard of before. 
The only question which has been raised in these 
appeals is regarding the validity of the impugned 
Act. That question having been decided against the 
appellants, the appeals fail and are dismissed with 
costs. One hearing foe. 
Appeals dismissed. 
THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN 
RAILWAY 
v. 
RANG A CHARI 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR, 
K. N. W ANCHOO, K. C. DAS GUPTA and 
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.) 
State Service-Power of Stale to reserve appointments and 
posts for backward classes-Scope of such reservation-"Appoint-
ments or posts", Meaning of-Posts. if include selection posts in 
tlze services-Constitution of India, Arts. 16(4), 335. 
This appeal was directed against an order of the Madras 
High Court issuing a writ of mandamus at the instance of the 
respondent restraining the appellants from giving effect to two 
circulars issued by the Railway Board reserving selection posts 
in Class Ill of the Railway service in favour of the members of 
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes with retrospective 
operation. It was urged on behalf of tbe respondent tl1at the 
Constitution made a clear distinction between backward classes 
on the one hand and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes on 
the other, and th.at Art. 16(4) applied only to reservation of 
posts at the stage of appointment and not to posts for promo-
tions after appointment and, therefore, the circulars which fell 
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
587 
outside the scope of Art. 16(4) and contravened Art. 16(1). This 
r96r 
was denied by the appellant who pleaded the contrary. The 
first circular, inter alia, prescribed a quota of reservation for General Man.ager, 
selection posts and gave retrospective effect to it and the second S"uthern Railway 
gave guidance and directions as to how the first should be im-
v. 
p!emented. 
A subsequent clarification issued by the Board 
Rangachari 
stated that no reversion of staff already promoted to selection 
posts was contemplated. The High Court held that the expres-
sion "backward classes" in Art. 16(4) included members of the 
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, but that the word 
'appointments' did not denote promotion and the word 'posts' 
meant posts outside the civil services and thus the impugned 
circulars were not covered by Art. 16(4) and wen' ultra vires. 
Held, (per Gajendragadkar, Sarkar, and Das Gupta, JJ.), 
that the impugned circulars were well within the ambit of Art. 
16(4) of the Constitution and the appeal must succeed. 
Articles 16(1) and 16(2) of the Constitution are intended 
to give effect to Art. 14 and Art. 15(1) of the Constitution and 
these Articles form parts of the same constitutional code of 
guarantees and supplement each other. Article 16(1) should, 
therefore, be construed in a broad and general, and not pedan-
tic and technical way. So construed, "matters relating to em-
ployment" cannot mean merely matters prior to the act of 
appointment nor can 'appointment to any office' mean merely 
the initial appointment but must include all matters relating to 
employment, whether prior or subsequent to the employment, 
that are either incidental to such employment or form part of 
its terms and conditions and also include promotion to a 
selec~ 
lion post. 
Although Art. 16(4), which in substance is an exception to 
Arts. 16(1) and 16(2) and should, therefore, be strictly con-
strued, the court cannot in construing it overlook the extreme 
solicitude shown by the Constitution for the advancement of 
socially and educationally backward classes of citizens. 
The scope of Art. 16(4), though not as extensive as that of 
Art. 16(1) and (2),-and some of the matters relatinr; to employ-
ment such as salary, increment, gratuity, pension and the age 
of superannuation, must fall outside its non-obstantc clause, 
there can be no doubt that it must include appointments and 
posts in the services. 
To put a narrowe

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