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

PETITIONER: RAMESH PRASAD SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT04/11/1977

BENCH: SINGH, JASWANT BENCH: SINGH, JASWANT FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA

CITATION:  1978 AIR  327            1978 SCR  (1) 787  1978 SCC  (1)  37  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1981 SC1041  (11)  R          1981 SC1829  (34)

ACT: Constitution  of India, 1950, Articles 14  and  16-Appellant appointed as an Executive Engineer temporarily by  promotion by virtue of his specialised qualification in the absence of any  rule  made prescribing qualification for  the  post  of Executive  Engineer-Powers of the authorities in such  cases to appoint persons to posts-Whether non-consideration of the cases  of  respondents 3 to 28 who were  mere  graduates  in Engineering violates Arts. 14 and 16.

HEADNOTE: The  appellant, a B.Sc. Engineering degree-holder  in  Tele- Communication was appointed as an Assistant Engineer  (Tele- Communication)   in  September  1963  by  the  Bihar   State Electricity Board and was sent abroad to the headquarters of M/s.  Brown Boveri and Co. Ltd., Badan, Switzerlind for  six months’  specialised training in power line  carrier,  tele- metering  and  tele-control equipment in  the  modern  power system.   On  his return the appellant was deputed  to  look after the entire telecommunication system of the Board.   In June  1968, the Board felt the necessity of  maintenance  of efficient communication service between the vital centres of generation,  utilisation  and  administration  for  ensuring reliability  and  continuity  in power  supply  which  would facilitate  quick  supervision  and  checking  of  the  then existing arrangements oil the generating stations  receiving sub-stations and distributing areas as also the necessity of proper  supervision  and handling by trained  and  qualified personnel   of   I   large   number   of    wave-change-over communication  equipments on 33 KW Transmission  line  which had been installed in the Tele-Communication SubDivision  of the Board at Patna and were maintained and aligned with  the help   of  special  electronic  instruments.    The   Board, therefore, accorded Sanction to the creation of a  temporary Tele-Communication  Division with headquarters at Patna  and also  to  the  creation of a  temporary  post  of  Executive Engineer (Tele-Communication).  As per the recommendation of its  expert  Selection  Committee to  the  effect  that  the appellant  was  fit  to  be promoted  to  the  rank  of  the

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

Executive Engineer (Tele-Communication) in view of the  fact that  he had consistently good record of service,  possessed the degree in Tele-Communication Engineering, had  undergone special  training in Switzerland in  TeleCommunication,  had ever  since his return from Switzerland been  satisfactorily performing  the onerous and complex duties assigned  to  him and  had  been looking after the  entire  Tele-Communication system  of  the  Board  and had  thus  acquired  a  valuable practical  experience in that field which was  necessary  to man the post of Executive Engineer (Tele-Communication), the appellant was appointed temporarily on promotion to the post of Executive Engineer    (Tele-Communication).Thereupon respondents 3 to 28 who areAssistant Electrical Engineers appointed, as such. earlier to the appellant challenged  the said  appointment in the Patna High Court averring that  the promotion of the appellant was mala fide; they were  seniors to the appellant and possessed the requisite qualifications; their  cases  must have been considered by  the  Board;  and their supersession is in violation of guarantee of  equality of  opportunity  enshrined  in Articles 14  and  16  of  the Constitution.   The High Court quashed the said  orders  and held  that the case of respondents 3 to 28 who were  seniors to  and had better experience and academic career  than  the appellant  bad  been  unjustifiably  ignored  by  the  Board violating  the  protection of equal  opportunity  guaranteed under  Arts.  14 and 16 of the Constitution.  In  appeal  by certificate.  respondents  3  to 28 though  served  did  not choose to appear.  Respondents 1 and 2 contended : (i)  that Tele-Communication  is  a highly specialized  subject  quite distinct  from  that  of  general  electricity-,  (ii)  that respondents 5 to 28 who were merely graduates of Science in Electrical  Engineering were not qualified for the  post  of Executive Engineer (Tele-Communication).  Respondents 788 3 and 4 who had only studied telecommunication as one of the subjects  in their final B.Sc. Engineering Examination  also were not equally qualified; (iii) that they had no right  to maintain  the  writ  petition; and (iv) that  there  was  no question  of  any breach or violation of  the  guarantee  of equality  of opportunity contained in Articles 14 and 16  of the Constitution. Allowing the appeal, the Court, HELD  : (1) The process of rule making is a  protracted  and complicated   one   involving  consultation   with   various authorities  and  compliance  with  mani  fold  formalities. Exigencies  of  administration at  times  require  immediate creation of service or posts and any procrastination in that behalf  cannot  but  prove detrimental  to  the  proper  and efficient  functioning of public departments.  In such  like situations,  the authorities concerned would have the  power to  appoint or terminate administrative personnel under  the general  power  of administration vested in  them.   In  the absence  of rules, qualifications for a post can validly  be laid  down  in the self same executive  order  creating  the service  or  post  and filling it  tip  according  to  those qualifications.  [792 A-D] B.   N. Nagarajan & Ors. v. State of Mysore & Ors. [1966]  3 SCR 682 and T. Cajee v. U. Jormanik Siem & Anr. [1961] 1 SCR 750 at 764, followed. (2)The   doctrine  of  equality  before  law   and   equal protection of laws and equality of opportunity in the matter of employment and promotion enshrined in Articles 14 and  16 of the Constitution which is intended to advance justice  by avoiding  discrimination is attracted only when  equals  are treated as unequals or where unequals are treated as equals.

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

The guarantee of equality does not imply that the same rules should  be made applicable in spite of differences in  their circumstances  and conditions.  Although Articles 14 and  16 of  the Constitution forbid hostile discrimination, they  do not   forbid  reasonable  classification  and  equality   of opportunity  in  matters  of  promotion  means  equality  as between members of the same class of employees and not equal between members of separate independent classes.  Though the concept   of   equal  protection   and   equal   opportunity undoubtedly permeate the whole spectrum of. an  individual’s employment  from appointment through promotion and  termina- tion  to  the  payment of gratuity and pension,  it  has  an inherent   limitation  arising  from  the  very  nature   of constitutional guarantee.  Equality is for equals, that  is, who  are  similarly circumstanced are entitled to  an  equal treatment but the guarantee enshrined in Articles 14 and  16 of the Constitution cannot be carried beyond the point which is well-settled by a catena of decisions of this Court. [792 H. 793 A-D] Md.  Usman  & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1971]  2  SCC 188; AIR 1971 SC 1801; Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. The  Union of India & Ors. [1950] SCR 869 at 911 and All India  Station Masters’ & Assistant Station Masters’ Association & Ors.  v. General  Manager, Central Railway & Ors. [1960] 2  SCR  311, 316--AIR 1960 SC 384, 386, referred to. (3)  In the instant case : (a)  The   High  Court  was  in  error  in   thinking   that respondents  3 to 28 possessed qualifications equal  to  the appellant or that they were-eligible for the job. [792 G] (b)It  is  evident from the perusal of  the  proposal  for creation  of a TeleCommunication Division at Patna  and  the aforesaid recommendation made by the Selection Committee  in favour  of the appellant that for ensuring  reliability  and continuity in power supply it was absolutely essential  that maintenance    of   the    sophisticated    wave-change-over communication equipments of 33 KW installed by the Board  in the  Tele-Communication Sub-Division should be entrusted  to specially   trained   experienced  and   qualified   officer possessing  specialised theoretical and practical  knowledge of Tele-Communication which is a subject quite distinct from that of general electricity.  It was only the appellant  who possessed degree in B.Sc. Engineering in Tele-Communication, was separately recruited and specially trained in that  line in  Switzerland  and  thus  acquired  specialised  knowledge therein and acquitted himself creditably in the field for 789 five  years  who  could be said  to  possess  the  requisite qualification and be considered fit and suitable for the job in  question and not any one of the respondents 5 to 28  who were mere graduates in electrical engineering or respondents 3  and 4 who had studied tele communication only as  one  of the  subjects in their final B.Sc. Engineering  Examination. [792 A-G] (c)The  qualification required for the post  of  Executive Engineer  (Telecommunication) as demonstrably  reflected  in the  proposal  for creation-of that post and  the  aforesaid recommendation  of  the  Selection  Committee  setting   out various factors which went in favour of the promotion of the appellant appear to be founded on reasonable  classification having an intelligible differential which distinguished  the appellant from respondents 3 to 28 and the differentia had a reasonable  relation  to the object sought to  be  achieved. [795 D-E] Respondents  3  to 28 had no. legal right which  they  could claim to have been denied to them by an authority which  had

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

a legal duty to do something.  The High Court was not  right in issuing the writ of mandamus. [795 E] Mani Subrat Jain & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. [1977]  1 SCC 486, applied. The  criterion  employed  by  the  concerned  authority   in promoting the appellant was not arbitrary or capricious  but was  intended to increase the efficiency in the  functioning of  the  department.   It was not  based  on  extraneous  or irrelevant  considerations or suffered from any other  vice. [796 A]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal  No.  1825  of 1969. From  the Judgment and Decree dated 13-5-1969 of  the  Patna High Court, in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 460/68. S. C. Agarwala and R. K. Garg for the Appellant. Sarjoo Prasad and U. P. Singh for Respondent No. 2 For respondents 1 and 3-28 Ex parte. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JASWANT SINGH, J.-This appeal by certificate granted by  the High  Court of Judicature at Patna under  Article  133(1)(a) and  (b)  .of  the  Constitution  is  directed  against  the judgment and order dated May 13, 1969 of that Court  whereby Civil  Writ Petition No. 460 of 1968 filed by respondents  3 to  28  herein  was  allowed,  Notification No.    SS/A-1- 103/68/2676/EB  dated  June  24, 1968 issued  by  the  Bihar ’State  Electricity Board, respondent No. 2, appointing  the appellant as officiating temporary Executive Engineer (Tele- Communication),   Tele-Communication  Division,  Patna   was quashed  and a writ of mandamus commanding respondent No.  2 to  fill  up  the  post of  the  Executive  Engineer  (Tele- Communication)  after considering the case of respondents  3 to  28 and specially of respondents 3 and 4 along  with  the case  of  the  appellant  or with  the  case  of  any  other Assistant  Engineer whose case in the opinion of  the  Board may  be  fit  to be ’Considered in the  light  of  the  said judgment was issued. The circumstances giving rise to this appeal lie in a  short compass.   It  appears that the appellant  who,  passed  the final  examination of ’Bachelor of Science (Engineering)  in Tele-Communication of the Ranchi University held in  August, 1962 was appointed by the Bihar 790 State  Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to,  as  ’the Board’)   as  Assistant  Engineer  (Tele-Communication)   in September,  1963 on a salary of Rs. 245/- per month  in  the pay scale of Rs. 220-25-320EB-25-670-EB-30-750.  A few weeks after  his recruitment, the appellant was sent by the  Board to  the  headquarters  of Messrs Brown  Boveri  and  Company Limited,  Baden,  Switzerland for  six  months’  specialized training in power line carrier, tele-metering and  tele-con- trol  equipment  in the modem power system.  On  his  return from  Switzerland  and  resumption by him  of  his  duty  as Assistant  Engineer (Tele-Communication) the  appellant  was deputed to look after the entire telecommunication system of the  Board.  In June, 1968, the Board felt the necessity  of maintenance  of efficient communication service between  the vital centres of generation, utilization and  administration for  ensuring  reliability and continuity  in  power  supply which would facilitate quick supervision and checking of the then  existing  arrangements  at  the  generating  stations, receiving  sub-stations and distributing areas as  also  the

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

necessity of proper supervision and handling by trained  and qualified  personnel of a large number of  wave  change-over communication  equipments on 33 KW Transmission  line  which had been installed in the Tele-Communication Sub-Division of the Board at Patna and were maintained and aligned with  the help  of special electronic instruments.   Accordingly,  the Board  accorded  sanction to the creation  of a  temporary Tele-Communication  Division with head-quarters at Patna  as also  to  the  creation of a  temporary  post  of  Executive Engineer  (Tele-Communication) in the replacement  scale  of pay  of  Rs. 730-35-870-40-1070-EB-45-1250,  for the  said Tele-Communication  Division with effect from June 22,  1968 to  February 28, 1969.  Acting on the recommendation of  its expert selection committee to the effect that the  appellant was  fit  to,  be  promoted to the  rank  of  the  Executive Engineer Tele-Communication) in view of the fact that be had a consistently good record of service, possessed the  degree in  Tele-Communication  Engineering, had  undergone  special training  in  Switzerland in  Tele-Communication,  had  ever since  his  return  from  Switzerland  been   satisfactorily performing  the onerous and complex duties assigned to,  him and  had  been looking after the  entire  Tele-Communication system  of  the  Board  and had  thus  acquired  a  valuable practical  experience in that field which was  necessary  to man the post of Executive Engineer (Tele-Communication)  and that the Assistant Electrical Engineers of 1960 batch,  were being considered for promotion as Electrical Executive  Eng- ineers,   the  Board  issued  the   aforesaid   notification temporarily promoting the appellant to the post of Executive Engineer (Tele-Communication).  Thereupon, respondents 3  to 28, who had been appointed as Assistant Electrical Engineers in September, 1960 moved the High Court at Patna by means of a  writ  petition  under Article  226  of  the  Constitution challenging  the aforesaid notification averring inter  alia that  the  promotion. of the appellant was mala  fide,  that though  they were senior to the appellant and possessed  the requisite  qualification  and two of them  viz.   Harkishore Singh  and Dina Nath Singh had studied telecommunication  as one  of their subjects in the final examination of B.Sc.  in Electrical Engineering, they had not even been considered by the Board for appointment to the aforesaid post of Executive Engineer and that they bad been superseded 791 and  unreasonably discriminated against in violation of  the guarantee  of equality of opportunity enshrined in  Articles 14  and 16 of the Constitution.  The petition was  contested by  the appellant as also the State of Bihar and  the  Board who contended that the appellant was holding an  extra-cadre post  of Assistant Engineer (Tele-Communication)  which  was created   separately  from  that  of  the  other   Assistant Electrical  Engineers;  that respondents 3 to 28  not  being holders  of degree in Tele-Communication (Engineering)  were not  qualified for appointment as Executive Engineer  (Tele- Communication) and had no right to maintain the petition and that  there  was  no question of violation  of  equality  of opportunity  guaranteed  under  Articles 14 and  16  of  the Constitution.   On a consideration of the rival  contentions of  the  parties,  the High Court while  granting  that  the appellant possessed the degree of B.Sc. Engineering in Tele- Communication;  that the post of Executive  Engineer  (Tele- Communication)  might be an extra cadre post as  claimed  by the  Board  and that it was net for the Court  but  for  the Board  to, decide on the basis of the opinion of experts  or selection committee as to who was fit and suitable for  that post,  quashed  the  aforesaid  notification  promoting  the

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

appellant  mainly  on the grounds that neither  a  separate, cadre  of Executive Engineer (Tele-Communuication) had  been constituted nor had any special qualification been laid down by the; Board for the post in question and that respondents 3  to 28 who were seniors to and had better  experience  and academic  career than the appellant had  been  unjustifiably ignored  by  the  Board violating the  protection  of  equal opportunity  guaranteed to them under Articles 14 and 16  of the ’Constitution.  It is this judgment that is impugned  in this appeal. We  have  beard  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant   and respondents  ’1  and 2 viz. the State of Bihar and  and  the Board but have had not :the advantage of hearing respondents 3 to 28 or any one on their behalf, as they have chosen  not to appear despite personal service. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and respondents  1  and  2  have  vehemently  urged  that  Tele- Communication is a highly specialized subject quite distinct from  that of general Electricity: that respondents 3 to  28 who were mere graduates of Science in Electrical Engineering were not qualified for the post of Executive Engineer (Tele- Communication)  and  had  no right  to  ,maintain  the  writ petition out of which the present appeal has arisen and that in  the facts and circumstances of the instant  case,  there was no question of any breach or violation of the  guarantee of  equality of opportunity contained in Articles 14 and  16 of the Constitution as was contended by them.  There, is, in our opinion, considerable force in these submissions. Regarding  the  observation of the High Court  that  in  the absence of rules laying down qualifications for  appointment and  promotion  to  the post of  Executive  Engineer  (Tele- Communication),  respondents 3 to 28 could not  be  excluded from consideration for, appointment to that post, we  would like  to say that though it cannot be gain said that  before initiation  of  the  proposal for creation of  the  post  of Executive 792 Engineer  (Tele-Communication), respondents 1 and 8 bad  not framed  any rules prescribing qualifications for that  post, it  cannot be overlooked that it is not obligatory  to  make rules of recruitment etc. before a service is constituted or a  post  is  created or filled up.  As is  well  known,  the process  of rule-making is a protracted and complicated  one involving  consultation  with various authorities  and  com- pliance  with  manifold  formalities.   It  cannot  also  be disputed that exigencies of administration at times  require immediate   creation   of   service   or   posts   and   any procrastination in that behalf cannot but prove  detrimental to  the proper and efficient functioning of  public  depart- ments.   In such like situations, the authorities  concerned would have the power to appoint or terminate  administrative personnel  under the general power of administration  vested in them as observed by this Court in B. N. Nagarajan &  Ors. v. State of Mysore & Ors(1) and T. Cajee v. U. Jormani  Siem &  Anr.(2)  It follows, therefore, that in  the  absence  of rules, qualifications for a post can validly be laid down in the  self same executive order creating the service or  post and filling it up according to those qualifications.  In the instant  case, it is evident from a perusal of the  proposal for  creation of a Tele-Communication Division at Patna  and the   aforesaid,  recommendation  made  by   the   Selection Committee  in  favour  of the appellant  that  for  ensuring reliability and continuity in power supply it was absolutely essential that maintenance of the sophisticated wave-change- over  communication  equipments of 33 KW  installed  by  the

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

Board in the Tele-Communication Sub-sion should be entrusted to  specially  trained, experienced and  qualified  officers possessing  specialized theoretical and practical  knowledge of Tele-Communication which is a subject quite distinct from that  of  general Electricity and covers  according  to  New Encyclopaedia Britannica (15th Edition) and Webster’s  Third New International Dictionary all types of communication at a distance   as   by  cable,  radio,   telegraph,   telephone, teletypewriter and fascimile.  Judged in this background, it is  obvious,  that it was only the appellant  who  possessed degree  in  B.Sc.  Engineering  in  Tele-Communication,  was separately recruited and specially trained in that, line  in Switzerland  and  had thus  acquired  specialized  knowledge therein  and acquitted himself creditably in the  field  for five  years,  who  could be said to  possess  the  requisite qualification and be considered fit and suitable for the job in question and not any one of respondents 5 to 28 who  were mere   graduates   in  Electrical  Engineering,   nor   even respondents 3 and 4 who had studied Tele-Communication  only as  one  of the subjects in their  final  B.Sc.  Engineering Examination.   It is patent, therefore, that the High  Court was in error in thinking that respondents 3 to 28  possessed qualification  equal  to  the appellant or  that  they  were eligible for the job. Turning  to  the other ground on which  the  judgment  under appeal  rests  viz. the violation of guarantee  of  equality enshrined  in  Articles 14 and 16 of  the  Constitution,  we would  like to reiterate and reemphasize what has  been  oft repeated  by this Court viz. that the doctrine  of  equality before  law  and equal protection of laws and  equality  ’of opportunity  in  the  matter  of  employment  and  promotion enshrined in Articles (1)[1966] 3 S.C.R. 682. (2)[1961] 1 S.C.R. 750, 764. 793 14  and 16 of the Constitution which is intended to  advance justice  by avoiding discrimination is attracted  only  when equals are treated as unequals or where unequals are treated as  equals.  (See  Md.   Usman & Ors.  v.  State  of  Andhra Pradesh(1).   The guarantee of equality does not imply  that the  same rules should be made applicable to all persons  in spite of differences in their circumstances and  conditions. (See Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. The Union of India & Ors.(2) It is also well recognised that although Articles 14 and  16 of  the Constitution forbid hostile discrimination, they  do not   forbid  reasonable  classification  and  equality   of opportunity  in  matters  of  promotion  means  equality  as between  members  of  the same class of  employees  and  not equality  between  the members of separate  and  independent classes.  (See  ,111  India  Station  Masters’  &  Assistant Station  Masters’  Association & Ors.  v.  General  Manager, Central Railway & Ors,(3) It must always be remembered  that though the concept of equal protection and equal opportunity undoubtedly permeates the whole spectrum of an  individual’s employment  from  appointment through promotion  and  termi- nation  to  the payment of gratuity and pension, it  has  an inherent  limitation  arising from the very  nature  of  the constitutional guarantee Equality is for equals, that is  to say those who are similarly circumstanced are entitled to an equal  treatment but the guarantee enshrined in Articles  14 and  16  of the Constitution can not be carried  beyond  the point which is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court. The  instant case, in our opinion, is completely covered  by the  decisions of this Court in State of Jammu & Kashmir  v.

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

Triloki  Nath Kliosa & Ors. (4) (with which both of  us  had ’something to do at one stage or the other), State of Mysore v.  P. Narasing Rao,(5) Ganga Ram v. Union of  India(6)  and the Union of India v. Dr. (Mrs.) S. B. Kohli(T) In  the  State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Triloki Nath  Khosea  & Ors.  (supra) where after integration of diploma holder  and degree  holder  Assistant  Engineers in one  class,  it  was provided  by the J&K Engineering (Gazetted)  Service  Rules, 1970  that  only those Assistant Engineers who  possessed  a degree in Engineering would be eligible for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer and the diploma holder  Assistant Engineers who were rendered ineligible for promotion to  the post of Executive Engineer filed a writ petition challenging the constitutionality of the rule and the classification  on which it was claimed to be based on the ground that once the employees  are  integrated into one class, they  cannot  for purposes of promotion be classified again into two different classes on the basis of educational differences existing  at the  time  of  recruitment,  the  Constitution  Bench   held rejecting  the  contention of the diploma  holder  Assistant Engineers  that  formal  education may  not  always  produce excellence   but   a  classification  founded   on   variant educational qualifications is, for purposes of promotion  to the post of an Executive Engineer, to (1) [1971] 2 S.C.C. 188. (2) [1950] S.C.R. 869, 91 1. (3) [1960] 2 S.C.R. 311, 316. (4) [1974] 1 S.C.R. 771. , (5) [1968] 1 S.C.R. 407. (6) [1970] 3 S.C.R. 481.(7)  A.I.R. 1973. S.C. 811. 794 say  the  least, not unjust on the face of it and  the  onus therefore cannot shift from where it originally lay. The following passages occurring in the leading judgment  of our  learned brother Chandrachud, J. in that case are  worth quoting:-               "In order to establish that the protection  of               the  equal opportunity clause has been  denied               to them, it is not enough for the  respondents               to,  say that they have been  treated  differ-               ently  from  others, not even  enough  that  a               differential  treatment has been  accorded  to               them  in  comparison  with  others   similarly               circumstanced.  Discrimination is the  essence               of  classification  and does violence  to  the               constitutional  guarantee of equality only  if               it  rests  on an unreasonable basis.   It  was               therefore  incumbent  on  the  respondents  to               plead  and  show that  the  classification  of               Assistant   Engineers  into  those  who   hold               diplomas   and  those  who  hold  degrees   is               unreasonable and bears no rational nexus  with               its purported object .... On the facts of  the               case,   classification   on   the   basis   of               educational qualifications made with a view to               achieving administrative efficiency cannot  be               said  to rest on any  fortuitous  circumstance               and  one has always to bear in mind the  facts               and  circumstances  of the case  in  order  to               judge  the validity of a  classification  ....               Educational    qualifications    have     been               recognized  by this Court as a safe  criterion               for     determining    the     validity     of               classification.   In  State of  Mysore  v.  P.               Narasing  Rao  (supra)  where  the  cadre   of               Tracers   was   reorganized  into   two,   one               consisting  of  matriculate  Tracers  with   a

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

             higher  scale  of pay and the  other  of  non-               Matriculates  in the lower scale, it was  held               that  articles  14 and 16 do not  exclude  the               laying  down  of selective tests nor  do  they               preclude  the  Government  from  laying   down               qualifications  for  the  post  in   question.               Therefore,  it was open to the  Government  to               give  preference to candidates  having  higher               educational  qualifications.  In Ganga Ram  v.               Union  of India (supra), it was observed  that               "the  State which encounters diverse  problems               arising  from  a variety of  circumstances  is               entitled to lay down conditions of  efficiency               for  promotion in its different  departments".               In  the  Union of India v. Dr.  (Mrs.)  S.  B.               Kohli (supra), as refined a classification  as               between an F.R.C.S. in general surgery and  an               F.R.C.S.   in  Orthopaedics  was   upheld   in               relation  to  appointment  to the  post  of  a               Professor  of Orthopaedics on the ground  that               the  classification  made  on  the  basis   of               requirement  of  a  post  graduate  degree  in               particular   speciality   was   not   "without               reference  to  the  objectives  sought  to  be               achieved  and  there  can be  no  question  of               discrimination".               The  following observations made in  State  of               Mysore  v. P. Narasing Rao (supra)  will  also               amply repay perusal :-               "it  is  well settled that though  Article  14               forbids class legislation, it does not  forbid               reasonable  classification for the purpose  of               legislation.   Where  any  impugned  rule   or               statutory provision is assailed on the  ground               that it contravenes               795               Article  14, its validity can be sustained  if               two  tests are satisfied.  The first  test  is               that the classification on which it is founded               must  be based on an intelligible  differentia               which distinguishes persons or things  grouped               together  from others left out of tile  group,               and the second test is that the differentia in                             question must have a reasonable relation to th e               object  sought to be achieved by the  rule  or               statutory provision in question.    In   other               words,  there  must be sonic  rational   nexus               between the     basis  of  classification  and               tile object intended to be achieved by     the               statute  or  the  rule.  As  we  have  already               stated,  Articles 14 and 15 form part  of  the               same  constitutional  code of  guarantees  and               supplement each other. In other words, Art. 16               is only an instance of the application of tile               general rule of equality laid down in Art.  14               and  it  should be construed as  such.   Hence               there is no denial of equality of  opportunity               unless    the   person   who   complains    of               discrimination  is equally situated  with  the               person or persons who are alleged to have been               favoured.   Articles  16(1)  does  not  bar  a               reasonable  classification  of  employees   or               reasonable tests for their selection." In  the  instant case, the qualifications required  for  the

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

post   of   Executive   Engineer   (Tele-Communication)   as demonstrably  rejected in the proposal for creation of  that post  and  the  aforesaid recommendation  of  the  Selection Committee  setting out various factors which went in  favour of  the promotion of the appellant appear to be founded  oil reasonable classification having an intelligible differentia which  distinguished the appellant from respondents 3 to  28 and the differentia had a reasonable relation to the  object sought to be achieved.  It is, therefore, crystal clear that respondents 3 to 28 did not stand at par with the  appellant and  had no legal right which they could claim to have  been denied to them by an authority which had a legal duty to  do something.   With  all  respect the High Court  was  in  our judgment  therefore,  not  right  in  issuing  the  writ  of mandamus.   It would be useful in this context to  refer  to the following observations made by this Court in Mani Subrat Jain & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.(1)               "It is elementary though it is to be  restated               that  no one can ask for a mandamus without  a               legal  right.   There  must  be  a  judicially               enforceable,  right  as  well  as  a   legally               protected  right before one suffering a  legal               grievance  can ask for a mandamus.   A  person               can be said to be aggrieved only when a person               is  denied a legal right by someone who has  a               legal duty to do something or to abstain               from doing something. [See Halsbury’s Laws  of               England, 4th Ed.  Vol. 1, Paragraph 122; State               of   Haryna  v.  Subhash  Chander   Marwaha(2)               Jasbhai  Motibhai Desai v. Roshan  Kumar  Haji               Bushuur Ahmmed(3) and Ferris :  Extra-Ordinary               Legal Remedies. paragraph 198]". (1)  [1977] 1 S.C.C. 486. (3)  [1976] 3 S.C.R. 58. (2) [1974] 1. S.C.R. 165. 796 in  view  of the foregoing, we, are unable to  hold  on  the material,  before  us  that the criterion  employed  by  the concerned authority in promoting the appellant was arbitrary or capricious or was not intended to increase the efficiency in  the  functioning  of  the department  or  was  based  on extraneous or irrelevant considerations or suffered from any other  vice.  In the result, we allow the appeal, set  aside the  judgment  of the High Court and  uphold  the  aforesaid Notification  No. SS/AI-103/68/2676-EB dated June  24,  1968 issued  by the Board promoting the appellant as  officiating temporary   Executive  Engineer  (Tele-Communication).    As respondents  3  to 28 have not appeared  and  contested  the appeal, we make no order as to costs. S.R.                                Appeal allowed. 797