http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: DELHI POLICE NON-GAZETTEDKARMCHARI SANGH & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT20/11/1986

BENCH: KHALID, V. (J) BENCH: KHALID, V. (J) OZA, G.L. (J)

CITATION:  1987 AIR  379            1987 SCR  (1) 347  1987 SCC  (1) 115        JT 1986   920  1986 SCALE  (2)872

ACT:     Constitution  of  India,  1950,  Article  19(1)(c)   and 33--Right  to  form  an association by the  members  of  the Police  force--Non-gazetted  Karmachari  Sangh  was  granted recognition  on 12.12.1986 after the coming into  effect  of the  Police  Forces (Restriction of Rights) Act  No.  33  of 1966--The  Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Rules  1966 were  made on the same date which was amended  by  Amendment Rules,  1970-- The Association was derecognised in terms  of Rule   11   of   the  Amended  Rules   by   circular   dated 1.4.1971--Whether  the  Act, the Rules as  amended  and  the circular dated 1.4.1971 are ultra vires the Constitution and opposed to Article 19(1)(c).

HEADNOTE:     The  non-gazetted  members  of the  Delhi  police  Force wanted  to  form an association of their own  and  for  that purpose constituted the Karmachari Union in 1966 and applied for  its  registration under the Trade Union Act,  1926  and this  was  refused.  After  the  coming  into  effect   from 2.12.1966  of the Police Force (Restriction of Rights)  Act, 33  of 1966 another, application for recognition  was  again made on 9.12.1966 which was granted on 12.12.1966. The  non- gazetted members of the Delhi Police Force were permitted to become  members of the Sangh. The Police Force  (Restriction of  Rights)  Rules, 1966 made by the Central  Government  on 12.12.1966 were amended by the Amendment Rules of 1970. Rule 11 thereof provides for revocation of the recognition grant- ed to an association, if the said associations articles  are not  in  conformity  with the Rules or are  not  brought  in conformity with the provisions of the amended Rules within a period of 30 days. Since the Articles of Association of  the appellant  Sangh  contained a number of  provisions  not  in conformity  with  the rules and since the  Sangh  failed  to bring  the same in conformity, by a circular dated  1.4.1971 the recognition granted was revoked. The appellants,  there- fore,  filed  a writ petition before the  Delhi  High  Court challenging  the constitutional validity of the  Act,  Rules and  the  impugned circular. The writ petition  having  been rejected the appellants have come by way of special leave. Dismissing the appeal, the Court,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

348     HELD:  1.1 The Police Force (Restriction of Rights)  Act (33 of) 1966, the Police Force (Restriction of Rights) Rules 1966  (as amended by the 1970 Rules) and the circular  dated 1.4.1971 are all constitutionally valid. They do not  offend the provisions of Articles 14 and 19(1)(c) of the  Constitu- tion. [350 C, 355 E-F]     1.2  The right under Article 19(1)(c) is  not  absolute. Article  19(4) specifically empowers the State to  make  any law  to fetter, abridge or abrogate any of the fights  under Article  19(1)(c) in the interest of public order and  other considerations. While the right to freedom of association is fundamental, recognition of such association is not a funda- mental  fights  and the Parliament can by law  regulate  the working  of  such associations by  imposing  conditions  and restrictions on such functions. [355 E, 356 F]     1.3   The  fundamental  fights  guaranteed  by   Article 19(1)(c) can be claimed by Government servants. A government servant  may not lose his right by joining government  serv- ice.  Article  33 which confers power on the  Parliament  to abridge or abrogate such rights in their application to  the Armed Forces and other similar forces shows that such fights are  available to all citizens, including  government  serv- ants.  What  has  happened in this case is  only  to  impose reasonable  restrictions in the interest of  discipline  and public order. [356 G-H]     1.4  Rule 11 read with Rule 3(c) of the  Amended  Police Force  (Restriction of Rights) Rules, 1966 has to be  judged keeping  in mind the character of the employees to  whom  it applies.  It is true that the rules impose a restriction  on the  right to form association. It virtually compels a  gov- ernment  servant to withdraw his membership of the  associa- tion as soon as recognition accorded to the said association is  withdrawn  or if, after the association  is  formed,  no recognition  is accorded to it within six months.  In  other words,  the right to form an association is  conditioned  by the existence of the recognition of the said association  by the  government. If the association obtains recognition  and continues  to enjoy it, government servants can become  mem- bers  of the said association, if the said association  does not  secure recognition from the government  or  recognition granted  to it is withdrawn, government servants must  cease to  be  members of the said association. That is  the  plain effect  of the impugned role. These rules are  protected  by Articles  33 and 19(4) of the Constitution. Besides,  it  is settled law that the right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(c) to form  associations  does not involve a guaranteed  right  to recognition also. [357 A-C]     1.5  Section  3  of the  Police  Force  (Restriction  of Rights) Act permits the rule making authority to define  any group of Police Force that can form an Association. It  also gives  power to prescribe the nature of activity  that  each such  association of members can indulge in. It,  therefore, follows that if rules can be 349 framed  defining  this  aspect, a rule can  also  be  framed enabling  the  authorities to revoke or  cancel  recognition once accorded, if the activities offended the rules. Besides the  classification based on ranking has its  own  rationale behind it. The Court is dealing with a Force in which disci- pline  is  the  most  important  prerequisite.  Non-gazetted officers  consist of men of all ranks; the lowest cadre  and officers  who are superior to them. If all the  non-gazetted officers  are grouped together irrespective of rank,  it  is bound  to affect discipline. It was perhaps,  realising  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

need  to  preserve discipline that the changes in  the  rule were effected. [357E, G ]     Damyanti Naranga v. The Union of India & Ors., [1971]  3 SCR  840;  Ous Kutilingal Achudan Nair & Ors., v.  Union  of India  &  Ors.,  [1976] 2 SCR 769; and  Raghubar  Dayal  Jai Prakash v. The Union of India & Ors., [1962] 3 SCR 547  fol- lowed.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 222  (N)  of 1973.     From the Judgment and Order dated 13.3.1972 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ No. 731 of 1971. M.K. Dua, Aman Vachher and S.K. Mehta for the Appellants.     B.  Datta, Additional Solicitor General, G.D. Gupta  and Mr. C.V. Subba Rao for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     KHALID,  J.  1. This appeal by certificate  is  directed against  the Judgment of a Division Bench of the Delhi  High Court,  in  C.W.  No. 731 of 1971. The prayer  in  the  Writ Petition  is for the issuance of an appropriate writ,  order or direction declaring (a) the Police Forces (Restriction of Rights)  Act  No. 33 of 1966 (for short the  Act)  as  ultra vires the Constitution, (b) the Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Rules 1966 and Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Amendment Rules,  1970 (for short  the Rules) ultra vires of Act 33 of 1966 and the Constitution of India,      (c) that the Circular dated 1st April, 1971 as invalid, illegal,  ultra vires, null and void and (d) for a  declara- tion  that  the Delhi Police Non Gazetted  Karmchari  Sangh, petitioner  No.  1 in the Writ Petition, is  a  legally  and validly constituted service organisation. 350     2.  The first appellant is the  Non-Gazetted  Karmachari Sangh (for short the ’Sangh’) and the appellant Nos. 2 to 7, its  members. The High Court dismissed the petition  holding that the challenge was not sustainable and that neither  the Act  nor the Rules violated any provisions of the  Constitu- tion.     The  High  Court dealt at length  with  the  preliminary objections  that a challenge based on the violation  of  any fundamental  right was not permissible in view of the  emer- gency declared by the President of India, in December, 1977. This need not detain us now in this Judgment.     3.  The appellants’ case is that the Act referred  above violates  Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India  and that  the  restrictions  imposed by  it.,  being  arbitrary, violates  Article 14 of the Constitution.  The  Non-Gazetted members of the Delhi Police Force wanted to form an  organi- sation  of  their own and for that purpose  constituted  the Karmachari  Union in 1966 and applied for  its  registration under the Trade Union Act, 1926. Initially the  registration asked for was declined. Then Act 33 of 1966 was enacted.  It came  into force on 2nd December, 1966. An  application  for recognition  was again made on 9th December, 1966.  Recogni- tion was granted by the Central Government on 12th December, 1966.  The  Non-Gazetted members of the Delhi  Police  Force were  permitted  to  become members of the  Sangh.  On  12th December, 1966, the Central Government made rules under  the Act  which were amended in December, 1970. The  Circular  in question was issued under these rules. The Circular attempts to derecognise the Sangh. This occassioned the filing of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

writ petition.     4. Before considering the rival contentions urged before us,  it would be useful to refer to the salient features  of the Act to appreciate its ambit and the restrictions imposed by  its  provisions. The Act was enacted  to  delineate  the restrictions imposed of the rights conferred by part III  of the Constitution, in their application to the members of the forces charged with the maintenance of public order so as to ensure the proper discharge of their duties’ and the mainte- nance of discipline among them. The Parliament obviously has this  power under Article 33 of the Constitution  of  India. The provisions of the Act seek to place certain restrictions on  members of the police force in exercise of their  funda- mental rights guaranteed by Article 19(1)(c) to form Associ- ation or Unions. Section 3 of the Act reads as follows:               "3(1) No member of a police force shall  with-               out  the express sanction of the Central  Gov-               ernment or of the prescribed authority-- (a)be               a member of, or be associated in any way with,               any  trade  union,  labour  union,   political               association or with any class of trade unions,               labour unions or political               351               associations;  or  (b) be a member of,  or  be               associated in any way with, any other society,               institution, association or organisation  that               is  not  recognised as part of  the  force  of               which  he  is a member or is not of  a  purely               social,  recretional or religious  nature;  or               (c)  communicate with the press or publish  or               cause  to  be published any  book,  letter  or               other document except where such communication               or  publication is in the bona fide  discharge               of  his  duties or is of  a  purely  literary,               artistic  or scientific character or is  of  a               prescribed nature.               Explanation:  If  any question  arises  as  to               whether any society, institution,  association               or organisation is of a purely social,  recre-               tional or religious nature under clause (b) of               this  subsection, the decision of the  Central               Government thereon shall be final.               (2) No member of a police force shall partici-               pate  in or address, any meeting or take  part               in any demonstration organised by any body  of               persons for any political purposes or for such               other purposes as may be prescribed."     Section 4 of the Act provides for penalties if Section 3 is  contravened by any person. Section 5 gives power to  the Central Government by notification in the official  gazette, to amend the schedule by including therein any other  enact- ment  relating  to a force charged with the  maintenance  of public order or omit therefrom any enactment already  speci- fied  therein. Section 6 gives the rule making power to  the Central Government.     5. The only contention that now survives is whether  the impugned  statute,  rules and orders are  violative  of  the fights  of the appellants guaranteed under Article  19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India. This appeal could be  disposed of by a short Order. Appellants No. 2 to 7 are no longer  in service. They have been dismissed. As such they do not  have the necessary locus standi to sustain this petition. But the appellants’ counsel submitted that the first petitioner--the Sangh, was still interested in pursuing this appeal and that persuaded us to hear the appeal on merits.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

   6.  It is true that recognition was given to  the  Sangh originally.  Subsequently by order dated 1 st  April,  1971, the Sangh was derecognized. This was pursuant to the amended rules. Rule 3 provided that "no member of the police  forces shall  participate in, or address, any meeting or take  part in any demonstration organised by any body of persons (a)for the  purpose of protesting against any of the provisions  of the Act or these rules or any other 352 rules made under the Act; or (b)for the purpose of  protest- ing  against  any disciplinary action taken proposed  to  be taken  against him or against any other member of  a  police force;  or  (c)for  any purpose connected  with  any  matter pertaining to his remuneration or other conditions of  serv- ice  or  his condition of work or living condition,  or  the remuneration,  other  conditions,  of any  other  member  or members of a police force.     "Provided  that  nothing contained  in  clause(c)  shall preclude a member of a police force from participating in  a meeting  convened by an association of which he is a  member and  which has been accorded sanction under sub-section  (1) of  section3 of the Act, where such meeting is in  pursuance of  or for the furtherance of, the objects of such  associa- tion."     The  above  rules were amended by a  notification  dated 19th  December,  1970 the material change  for  our  purpose being  an amendment in the proviso to clause (c) of rule  3. The original proviso to clause(c) was substituted by another proviso which reads as follows:               "Provided that nothing contained in clause (c)               shall preclude a member of a police force from               participating  in  a  meeting--(i)  which   is               convened by an association of  police-officers               of  the the same rank of which he is a  member               and  which has been granted recognition  under               clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 3  of               the Act;               (ii) which has been specifically provided  for               in  the  articles of  association  or/and  has               been,  by general or special order,  permitted               by  the  Inspector General  of  Police  having               regard’  to  the object of  such  meeting  and               other relevant factors; and               (iv)  which has been convened to consider  the               agenda  circulated to all concerned  according               to the relevant provisions of the articles  of               association,  after giving intimation  in  ad-               vance to the ’ Inspector General of Police  or               an  officer nominated by him." (Emphasis  sup-               plied).     Rule 5 was added to the Rules by virtue of which minutes had to be recorded of the meetings of a recognised  associa- tion.  The Inspector General of Police could send  observers by virtue of rule 6 to such meetings. Outsiders were prohib- ited from attending the meetings of the association  without permission  of  the Inspector General of Police by  Rule  7. Rules 8, 9 & 11 may also be usefully read: 353               "8.  Recognition:  Members  of  police   force               belonging to the same rank desiring to form an               association  may make an application  for  the               grant of recognition under clause (b) of  sub-               section (1) of section 3 and such  application               shall be in writing under the hand of a repre-               sentation of such association addressed to the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

             Inspector  General of Police who shall be  the               authority  to  grant, refuse  or  revoke  such               recognition;                         Provided  that  before  refusing  or               revoking recognition, the Association shall be               given  a  reasonable  opportunity  of   making               representation against the proposed action."               "9.  Suspension of recognition: The  Inspector               General of Police may in the interests of  the               general  public  or  for  the  maintenance  of               discipline  in the police-force and  with  the               prior approval of the Central Government,  the               State  Government  or as the ease may  be  the               Administrator  of the Union Territory  suspend               the  recognition  granted under rule 8  for  a               period not exceeding three months which may be               extended for a further period of three  months               by the Central Government, State Government or               as  the case may be the Administrator  of  the               Union  Territory  so however  that  the  total               period  for  which  such  recognition  may  be               suspended shall, not, in any case, exceed  six               months."               "11.  Special provision regarding  recognition               already granted:                         Recognition  granted  prior  to  the               commencement of the Police Forces (Restriction               of  Rights)  Amendment  Rules,  1970,  to  any               association  the  articles of  association  of               which  are not in conformity with these  rules               shall, unless the said artides of  association               are brought in conformity with the  provisions               of these rules within a period of thirty days,               stand revoked on the expiry of the said  peri-               od."     7. It is the change effected by the new Proviso to  Rule 3(c) which has come in for attack at the hands of the appel- lants.  Previously  all non-gazetted officers of  the  Delhi Police  Department could be members of the Sangh.  Now,  the amended  proviso to rule 3(c) mandates that only members  of the  Police  Force  having the same  rank  could  constitute themselves into one Association. The effect of this  amended rule  is that the Sangh will have to be composed of  various splinter associations consisting of members holding  differ- ent  ranks.  This according to the appellants  violates  not only Article 19(1)(c) which protects freedom of association, but also the provisions of the Act. 354     The  immediate provocation for filing the writ  petition was  the  Circular by which the recognition granted  to  the Sangh was revoked. The operative part of the Circular  reads as follows:               "Rule  11  of the  Police  Force  (Restriction               of  Rights)  Amendment Rules,  1970  published               vide extraordinary Gazette of India  notifica-               tion  No.  GSR-2049 dated 19-12-70  lays  down               that  recognition  granted prior to  the  com-               mencement  of these rules, to any  association               the  articles of which are not  in  conformity               with these rules shall unless the articles are               brought  in conformity with the provisions  of               these rules within a period of 30 days,  stand               revoked on the expiry of the said period.                          2. Whereas the Constitution of  the               Delhi Police NonGazetted Karmchari Sangh which

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

             was  granted  recognition vide  Government  of               India,   Ministry  of  Home   Affairs   letter               No.8/70/66-P.I.,  dated  12-12-66  and   which               contains  a number of provisions not  in  con-               formity with the above rules, the  recognition               already granted to the Delhi Police Non-Gazet-               ted Karmachari Sangh, stands revoked.               3.  This may be brought to the notice  of  a11               ranks.                          4.  A copy of this circular may  be               published in the Delhi Police Gazette."     The appellants’ counsel Submits that recognition of  the association carries with it the right to continue the  asso- ciation  as  such. It is a right flowing from  the  fact  of recognition.  To derecognise the association in  effect  of- fends  against the freedom of association. It is urged  that once  the Government had granted recognition to  the   Sangh and approved its constitution neither the Parliament nor any delegated  authority can take away that recognition or  dic- tate to the association who could be its members. The  right available to the members of the association at the commence- ment should continue as such without any hindrance.     8. Before considering the questions of law raised by the appellants’ counsel with reference to the decided cases,  it would be useful to bear in mind the fact that this  associa- tion  consists of members of Police Force who by  virtue  of this  fact  alone stands on a different footing  from  other associations.  The Constitution of India has taken  care  to lay  down limitations on such, associations from  exercising rights under Article 19(1)(c). Article 33 read with 355 Article 19(4) of the Constitution offers an effective  reply to the contention raised by the appellants. Article 33 reads as follows:               "Parliament  may,  by law, determine  to  what               extent  any  of the rights conferred  by  this               Part  shall, in their application to the  mem-               bers of the Armed Forces or the Forces charged               with  the  maintenance  of  public  order,  be               restricted  or abroagated so as to ensure  the               proper  discharge  of  their  duties  and  the               maintenance of discipline among them." Article 19(4) reads as follows:               "Nothing in sub clause (c) of the said  clause               shall affect the operation of any existing law               in so far as it imposes, or prevent the  State               from making any law imposing, in the interests               of  the sovereignty and integrity of India  or               public order or morality, reasonable  restric-               tions  on the exercise of the right  conferred               by the said sub-clause."     That the Sangh and its members come within the ambit  of Article 33 cannot be disputed. The provisions of the Act and rules  taking away or abridging the freedom  of  association have  been made strictly in conformity with Article 33.  The right under Article 19(1)(c) is not absolute. Article  19(4) specifically  empowers the State to make any law to  fetter, abridge or abrogate any of the rights under Article 19(1)(c) in  the interest of public order and  other  considerations. Thus the attack against the Act and rules can be successful- ly  met with reference to these two Articles as  members  of the Police Force, like the appellants herein, are at a  less advantageous  position,  curtailment of whose  fights  under Article  19(1)(c)  comes squarely within Article 33  in  the interest of discipline and public order. This conclusion  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

ours  is sufficient to dispose of this appeal.  However,  we will  deal with the submissions made before us for the  com- pleteness of the Judgment.     9. The scope of Article 19(1)(c) came up for  considera- tion  before this Court in Damyanti Naranga v. The Union  of India & Ors., [1971] 3 SCR 840. The question related to  the Hindi  Sahitya  Sammelan,  a Society  registered  under  the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The Parliament enacted the Hindi  Sahitya Sammelan Act under which outsiders were  per- mitted  to become members of the Sammelan without the  voli- tion  of the original members. This was challenged and  this Court  held  that any law altering the  composition  of  the Association  compulsorily will be a breach of the  right  to form the association because it violated the composite right of  forming an association and the right to continue  it  as the original members desired it. 356     10.  Here we have an entirely different situation  since we  are  dealing  with a group distinct in  its  nature  and composition  from others. Here we are dealing with  a  force that  is  invested  with powers to  maintain  public  order. Article  33 enables Parliament to restrict or  abrogate  the fundamental  rights  in their relation to the  Armed  Forces including  Police  Force. In Ous Kutilingal Achudan  Nair  & Ors., v. Union India & Ors., [1976] 2 SCR 769 this Court had to  consider  two questions; whether the  employees  of  the defence establishment such as cooks, barbers and like  civil employees  were  "members  of the Armed Forces"  and  if  so whether  they  could be validly deprived of their  right  to form  unions  in violation of Article 19(1)(c).  This  Court held  that they fell within the category of members  of  the Armed  Forces and that the Central Government was  competent by  notification  to make rules  restricting  or  curtailing their  right  to  form associations,  Article  19(1)(c)  not withstanding.     11. In Raghubar Dayal Jai Prakash v. The Union of  India and Ors., [1962] 3 SCR 547. this Court had to deal with this question  in  relation to the functions of  an  incorporated body  the  objects  of which were,  interalia,  to  regulate forward  transactions  in the sale and purchase  of  various commodities, Freedom of association is a fundamental  right. It was contended that if a law regulated the recognition  of an  association  under certain conditions subject  to  which alone  recognition  could  be accorded  or  continued,  such conditions were bad. This Court had to consider whether  the freedom  of  association implied or  involved  a  guaranteed right  to recognition also. The contention was that  if  the object of an association was lawful, no restriction could be placed  upon it except in the interest of public  order  and that  freedom  to form an association carried  with  it  the right to determine its internal arrangements also. Repelling this contention this Court held that restrictions cannot  be imposed by statute for the purpose of regulating control  of such associations. While the right to freedom of association is  fundamental,  recognition of such association is  not  a fundamental right and the Parliament can by law regulate the working  of  such associations by  imposing  conditions  and restrictions on such functions.     12.  It cannot be disputed that the  fundamental  rights guaranteed by Article 19(1)(c) can be claimed by  Government servants.  A  Government servant may not lose its  right  by joining  Government service. Article 33 which confers  power on  the  Parliament to abridge or abrogate  such  rights  in their  application  to the Armed Forces  and  other  similar forces shows that such rights are available to all citizens,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

including Government servants. But it is, however, necessary to remember that Article 19 confers fundamental rights which are not absolute but are subject to reasonable restrictions. What has happened in this case is only to impose  reasonable restrictions in the interest of discipline and public order. 357     13.  The validity of the impugned rule has to be  judged keeping in mind the character of the employees we are  deal- ing with. It is true that the rules impose a restriction  on the  right to form association. It virtually compels a  Gov- ernment  servant to withdraw his membership of the  associa- tion as soon as recognition accorded to the said association is  withdrawn  or if, after the association  is  formed,  no recognition  is accorded to it within six months.  In  other words,  the right to form an association is  conditioned  by the existence of the recognition of the said association  by the  Government. If the association affairs recognition  and continues  to enjoy it, Government servants can become  mem- bers  of the said association; if the said association  does not  secure recognition from the Government  or  recognition granted  to it is withdrawn, Government servants must  cease to  be  members of the said association. That is  the  plain effect  of the impugned rule. These rules are  protected  by Articles  33 and 19(4) of the Constitution. Besides,  it  is settled law that the right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(c) to form  associations  does not involve a guaranteed  right  to recognition also.     14.  The  main grievance of the appellants is  that  the first  appellant-Sangh when recognised, comprised of  Police Officers of various ranks, the common factor being that  all its members were non-gazetted police officers. This composi- tion  was  changed by the impugned rules. Not  only  is  the composition changed; the entire Sangh stood derecognised for failure  to  alter its constitution complying with  the  new rules. This attack cannot be sustained. Section 3 of the Act permits  the  rule making authority to define any  group  of Police  Force  that can form an Association. It  also  gives power  to prescribe the nature of activity that  each’  such association  of members can indulge in. It, therefore,  fol- lows  that  if rules can be framed defining this  aspect,  a rule can also be framed enabling the authorities to  revoked or  cancel  recognition  once accorded,  if  the  activities offended the rules.     15. The further grievance of the appellant is that  non- gazetted  officers who once formed one block have been  fur- ther divided with reference to ranks and that this again  is an  inroad  into their right under  Article  19(1)(c).  This submission  has been already met. Besides, this  classifica- tion  based on ranking has its own rationale behind  it.  We are  dealing  with a Force in which discipline is  the  most important  pre-requisite. Non-gazetted officers  consist  of men  of  all ranks; the lowest cadre and  officers  who  are superior  to  them.  If all  the  nongazetted  officers  are grouped together irrespective of rank, it is bound to affect discipline.  It was perhaps, realising the need to  preserve discipline  that the changes in the rule were  effected.  We are  not satisfied that there has been violation of any  law in doing so. 358     On a careful consideration of the questions involved  in this  appeal, we hold that the High Court was right  in  its decision. We accordingly dismiss the appeal. S.R.                                                  Appeal dismissed. 359

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10