G.K. MOHAN AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Citation: [2007] 11 S.C.R. 193

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: A.K. MATHUR, MARKANDEY KATJU

Case summary

G.K. MOHAN AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.pdf

Judgment text

G. K. MOHAN AND ORS V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS OCTOBER 12, 2007 [A. K. MATHURANDMARKANDEYKATJU,JJ. ] ~ Constitution ofIndia, 1950-Article 14-Categorization-Class ~ ofpersons-Under Rule 6(4)(a) chargemen grade II possessing requisite qualifications in terms ofSchedule Illplaced in grade 2 of category II and those not possessing, in Grade 4 ofcategory}-- Challenge to, on the ground ofviolation ofArticle 14-Held: There is no violation ofArticle 14-Categorization can be done on basis of educational qualifications-Article 14 applies within same class-,-Plea that Draughtsmen grade II have been placed better offvis-a-vis erstwhile chargemen grade II not having qualification not sustainable )-. as both are two different class-Defence Research and Development Organisation, Technical Cadre Recruitment Rules, 1995-Rule 6(4)(a).

,,) In terms of Rule 6(4)(a) of the Defence Researc~ and Development Organization, Technical Cadre Recruitment ules, 1995, Chargemen grade II who possessed the qualifications as prescribed in Schedule III were placed in grade 2 ofcategory :0. while those who did not possess the same were placed in grade 4 of category I. Appellants-Chargemen grade II did not possess the qualifications as prescribed and were placed in grade 4 ofcategory __. I. Appellants filed application seeking quashing ofRule 6(4)(a) being 'r - violative ofArticles 14and16 ofthe Constitution on the ground that under the Rules the erstwhile Chargemen grade II were divided into two categories, namely, those who possessed the qualifica~ions in schedule III and those who did not. It sought direction to place the appellants in grade 2 ofcategory II with all consequential benefits. Applications as also writ petitions were dismissed. Hence the present appeals. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.

1 There can be categorization on the basis of educational qualifications. The erstwhile Chargemen grade II who had the qualifications mentioned in Schedule III have been placed in a higher category while those like the appellants who do not have the said qualifications have been placed in the lower category. There is no violation ofArticle 14 on such a categorization. ~ (Paras 8 and 9] (196-B-D] 1. 2. Article 14 applies within the same class. The submission that the Draughtsmen grade II have been placed better off by the Note to Rule 6(4)(a) vis-a-vis the erstwhile Chargemen grade II who did not have the qualifications in Schedule III cannot be accepted. Draughtsman and Chargeman are two different classes, and hen~e there is no question ofdiscrimination between them. (Paras 10and11] [196-D-E] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 5045- 5100of2001. From the Final Order dated 15. 2. 2001 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in W. P. Nos.

11728-55/2000, 11701-727/2000 and 10723/2000. G. Umapathy, A. Leo G. Rozario and Rakesh K. Sharma for the Appellants. Ashok Bhan, R. S. Rana, Aman Sinha, R. C. Kathia and B. V. Balaram Das for the Respondents. t- The Judgment ofthe Court was delivered by MARKANDEY KATJU, J. I. These appeals have been filed against the final judgment and orders ofthe Karnataka High Court dated 15. 2. 2001 inW. P. Nos. 11728-755/2000,CWW. P. Nos. 11701-11727/ 2000 & W. P.. No. 10723/2000. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The appellants before us filed O. A. Nos. 1040/1998, 1055-1081/ G. K. MOHAN v. UNION OF INDIA 195 (MARKANDEY KATJU, J. ] 1998 etc. before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench seeking a direction to quash Rule 6(4)(a) of the Defence Research & Development Organization, Technical Cadre Recruit.

Jlent Rules; 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') as being violative ofArticle 14 & 16 ofthe Constitution, and for a direction to place the applicants/appellants in grade II ofcategory II with effect from 26. 8. 1995 with all consequ,ential benefits. ~ 4. The applicants (appellants before us) were Chargemen grade II in the service ofthe Union oflndia, Ministry ofDefence. The Union of ~ India introduced the aforesaid Rule on 26. 8. 1995. We are, however, only concerned with Rule 6(4)(a) which states as under: "(4) (a). All persons holding the posts ofChiefGlass Blower, Artistcum-Photographer, Commercial Artist, Junior Scientific Assistant Grade I, Chargeman Grade II and Draughtsman Grade II sh~l be placed in grade 2 ofcategory II provided that they possess the qualifications prescribed for recruitment to the grade ofTechnical Assistant 'A' as laid down in Schedule III failing which they shall ,_ be placed in grade 4 ofcategory I.

~ NOTE: For this purpose, the existing incumbents ofthe posts of Draughtsman Grade II, possessing a certificate or diploma in Draughtsmanship of a minimum duration ofone year shall be deemed to possess the required qualifications" 5. A perusal of Rule 6(4)(a) shows that those Chargemen who possess the qualifications prescribed in Schedule III shall be placed in grade 2 ofcategory II while those who do not possess the same will be ---1 placed in grade 4 ofcategory I. . ,. 6. Admittedly, the applicants/petitioners did not possess the qualifications in Schedule III to the Rules and hence they were placed in grade IV of category I. Their grievance is that they have been discriminated against because before coming into force ofthe Rules in 1995 all Chargemen grade II were in the same category, while now under Rule 6(4)(a) the erstwhile Chargemen grade II have been divided into two categories, namely, those who possess the qualifications in schedule i III and those who do not. 7.

Learned coW1Sel for the appellants submitted that this. is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution because chances ofpromotion of the appellants have been adversely affected. 8. We regret we cannot agree. It is well settled by a series of decisions now that there can be categorization on the basis ofeducational . ,... qualifications. The erstwhile Chargemen grade II who had the qualifications mentioned in Schedule III have been placed in a higher category while f those like the appellants who do not have the said qualifications have been placed in the lower category. In our opinion, there is no violation ofArticle 14 on such a categorization. 9. It is well settled that categorization can be done on the basis of educational qualifications and there will be no violation of Article 14 if this is done. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants then submitted that the ...

( Draughtsmen grade II hwe been placed better offby the Note to Rule 6(4)(a) vis-a-vis the erstwhile Chargemen grade II who did not have the ,, qualifications in Schedule III. 11. In our opinion, this submission too has no merit. It is well settled that Article 14 applies within the same class. Draughtsman and Chargeman are two different classes, and hence there is no question ofdiscrimination between them. 12. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in these appeals. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. r N. J. Appeals dismissed. ~