http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  5045-5100 of 2001

PETITIONER: G.K. Mohan and others

RESPONDENT: Union of India and others

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/10/2007

BENCH: A.K. Mathur & Markandey Katju

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

MARKANDEY KATJU, J.

1.      These appeals have been filed against the final judgment and orders of  the Karnataka High Court dated 15.2.2001 in W.P. Nos. 11728-755/2000,  CW W.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, 1055-1081/1998  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 Recruitment Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred  to as the \021Rules\022) as being violative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution,  and for a direction to place the applicants/appellants in grade II of category  II with effect from 26.8.1995 with all consequential benefits.

4.      The applicants (appellants before us) were Chargemen grade II in the  service of the Union of India, Ministry of Defence.  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:       \023(4)  (a).  All persons holding the posts of Chief Glass Blower,  Artist-cum-Photographer, Commercial Artist, Junior Scientific  Assistant Grade I, Chargeman Grade II and Draughtsman Grade  II shall be placed in grade 2 of category II provided that they  possess the qualifications prescribed for recruitment to the  grade of Technical Assistant \021A\022 as laid down in Schedule III  failing which they shall be placed in grade 4 of category I.       NOTE:  For this purpose, the existing incumbents of the posts  of Draughtsman Grade II, possessing a certificate or a diploma  in Draughtsmanship of a minimum duration of one year shall  be deemed to possess the required qualifications\024   

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 of  category II while those who do not possess the same will be placed in grade  4 of category 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 of the 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

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

categories, namely, those who possess the qualifications in schedule III and  those who do not.

7.      Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that this is violative of  Article 14 of the Constitution because chances of promotion 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 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.  In our opinion, there is no violation of Article 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 have been placed better off by the Note to Rule  6(4)(a) vis-‘-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 of discrimination  between them.       12.     For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in these appeals.  The appeals are accordingly dismissed.  No order as to costs.