UNION OF INDIA AND ORS versus NO. 664950 IM HA VILDAR/CLERK SC BAGARI

Citation: [1999] 2 S.C.R. 690 · Decided: 15-04-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
NO. 664950 IM HA VILDAR/CLERK SC BAGARI 
APRIL 15, 1999 
B 
[S.S. MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
Army Order No 11 of 1987, Rules I & 2-Grant of Study Leave to 
Regular Commissioned Officers-Non grant to Junior Commissioned Officers, 
Non-Commissioned Officers and Other Ranks-Order founded on intelligible 
C · differentia and has relation to the object sought to be achieved-Classification 
held not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution. 
Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 14 and 16. 
Validity of Army Order No. 11of1987 regarding grant of Study Leave 
D to certain Officers only-Classification based on different charqcter and 
. duties-Army Order held not violative of Article 14. 
· 
Equality of opportunity of employment-Means, equality as between 
members of the same class of employees, and not equality between members 
E of separate, independent classes. 
F 
Equal Protection of law-does not postulate equal treatment of all 
persons without distinction-merely guarantees application of same laws 
alike and without discrimination to all persons similarly situated. 
Reasonable Classification-Tests-Classification must be based on 
intelligible differentia and such d.ifferentia should have a rational nexus 
between the basis of classification and object intended to be achieved. 
Army Act, 1950, Section 3-0fficer-Officers classified on the basis of 
requirement of Armed Forces-Officer does not include Junior Commissioned 
G Officer Warrant Officer, Petty Officer or Non-Commissioned Officer-
Classification held not arbitrary. 
Respondent, a Havildar in the Army Challenged Army Order No. 11 
of 1987 in his writ petition contending that there was discrimination without 
any lawful basis as it provided that only Regular Commissioned Officers 
H might be granted study leave and not to persons like him who were not 
690 
-
"lllJ 
r 
U.0.I. v. NO. 664950 IM HAVILDAR/CLERK SC BAGARI 
691 
officers. He submitted that he was interested in prosecuting his studies A 
further for obtaining higher educational qualification such as post Graduation 
in Law and that he was handicapped because of the said provision. 
Union of India contested the Writ Petition, taking the stand that study 
leave is granted to a Regular Commissioned Officer to get higher studies 
having a direct and close connection with spheres of his duties and that the B 
nature of duties of Junior Commissioned Officers and Non-Commissioned 
Officers is different as compared to that of Regular Commissioned Officers. 
The High Court allowed the Writ Petition finding that the Classification 
for granting study leave is not founded on an intelligible differentia and that 
the same has also no relation to the object sought to be achieved and that C 
the benefit of study leave must be made available equally to all classes of 
officers of the Indian Army. 
In the appeal by the Union of India on the question whether Army Order 
No. 11 of 1987 was discriminatory, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. Army Order No. 11 of 1987 is not violative of ArtiCie 14 
of the Constitution. [698-FJ 
D 
1.2. Broadly speaking, the concept of equality has inherent limitation 
arising from the very nature of the guarantee under the Constitution and 
those who are similarly circumstances are entitled to equal treatment. If E 
there is a rational classification consistent with the purpose for which such 
classification is made, equality is not violated. [695-DJ 
2. Article 16 of the Constitution does not bar a reasonable classification 
of employees or reasonable tests for selection. Equality of opportunity of F 
employment means equality as between members of the same class of 
employees and of equality between members of separate independent classes. 
(695-D-E) 
3. Section 3 of the Army Act, 1950 defines 'Junior Commissioned 
Officer' 'Non-Commissioned Officer' and 'Officer'. While defining the term G 
'Officer' it is clearly stated that the Officer does not include a Junior 
Commissioned Officer, Warrant Officer, Petty Officer or Non-Commissioned 
Officer. The legislature while creating different classes of officers has 
classified them on the basis of the requirement of armed forces and that 
classification cannot be said to be arbitrary and if pay, perks and other 
privileges granted to the officers are different there is no question of violation H 
692 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1999] 2 S.C.R. 
A of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. (695-F·H] 
I 
4. Ther

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