http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: ALL  INDIA  STATION  MASTERS’&  ASSISTANT  STATION  MASTER’S

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: GENERAL MANAGER, CENTRAL RAILWAYSAND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/11/1959

BENCH: GUPTA, K.C. DAS BENCH: GUPTA, K.C. DAS SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ) GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. SUBBARAO, K. SHAH, J.C.

CITATION:  1960 AIR  384            1960 SCR  (2) 311  CITATOR INFO :  D          1963 SC 913  (37,38)  F          1967 SC 839  (12)  R          1968 SC  81  (6)  R          1969 SC 212  (8)  D          1976 SC 490  (30,57,58,108)  R          1978 SC 327  (6)  R          1981 SC1829  (29)  R          1984 SC1683  (11)  D          1985 SC1495  (133)

ACT: State  Employment-Equality  of  opportunity  in  matters  of promotion-Concept and meaning of-Constitution of India, Art. 16(1).

HEADNOTE: The   Roadside  Station  Masters  of  the  Central   Railway challenged the constitutionality of promotion for guards  to higher  grade  station  masters’  posts.   The   petitioners contended  that  the  channel of promotions  amounted  to  a denial  of  equal opportunity as  between  Roadside  Station Masters  and  Guards  in the matter of  promotion  and  thus contravened   the   provisions   of  Art.   16(1)   of   the Constitution, as taking advantage of this channel of  promo- tions, guards become station masters at a very much  younger age than Roadside Station Masters and thus block the chances of  higher promotion to Roadside Station Masters  who  reach the scale when they are much older. The  appellant contended that Roadside Station  Masters  and Guards really formed one and the same class of employees. Held,  that the Roadside Station Masters belong to a  wholly distinct and separate class from Guards and so there can  be no  question  of  equality  of  opportunity  in  matter   of promotion  as  between  the  Roadside  Station  Masters  and Guards. The question of denial of equal opportunity requires serious consideration only as between the members of the same class. The  concept of equal opportunity in matters of  employment, does  not  apply  to variations  in  provisions  as  between

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

members  of different classes of employees under the  State. Equality  of  opportunity in matters of  employment  can  be predicated only 312 between persons who are either seeking the same  employment, or   have  obtained  the  same  employment.    Equality   of opportunity  in matters of promotion, must mean equality  as between  members  of  the same class  of  employee  and  not equality  between members of separate, independent  classes. The fact that the qualifications  necessary for  recruitment of one post and another are approximately or even wholly the same can in no way affect the question  whether  they   form one and the same class, or form different classes.

JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petition No. 126 of 1958. Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India,  for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. N. C. Chatterjee and B. V. S. Mani, for the petitioners. B. Sen and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondent. 1959.  November 20.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAS  GUPTA J.-The petitioners who describe them-  selves  as Road-side  Station Masters challenge in this petition  under Art.  32  of the Constitution the constitutionality  of  the channel  of  promotion for Guards to  higher  grade  Station Masters’  posts  as  notified in the issue  of  the  Central Railway  ’Weekly  Gazette  No. 3 dated  November  23,  1951. Under  this Notification Guards have two lines of  promotion open  to them. One is that by promotion, C grade Guards  may become  B  grade  Guards on Rs. 100-185  and  thereafter  by further promotion A grade Guaids on Rs. 150-225. The  second line  of  promotion open to them is that by  an  examination described  curiously enough as Slip 45 examination  C  grade Guards  are  eligible  for promotion  to  posts  of  Station Masters  on  RS.  150-225 scale and thereafter  to  all  the further  promotions  that are open to the  Station  Masters, viz.,  higher ,cales of Rs. 200 to Rs. 300, Rs. 260  to  Rs. 350,  Rs. 300 to Rs. 400 and finally Rs. 360 to Rs.  500;  B grade Guards and A grade Guards are also on passing Slip  45 examination  eligible  for  promotion to  posts  of  Station Masters  on Rs. 200-300 pay scale and thereafter to  further promotions  to  the higher scales in  the  Station  Masters’ line.  The Road side Station Masters on pay scale of Rs.  80 to Rs. 170 313 (the  scale  was  formerly Rs. 64-170)  can  also  reach  by promotion  the  grade of Rs. 150-225 but  only  after  going through  an  intermediate stage of Rs.  100-185.   Similarly Station  Masters  on Rs. 100-185 scale may  also  reach  the stage  of  Rs. 200-300 but only after  passing  through  the intermediate stage of Rs. 150-225.  Obviously the provisions enabling  Guards to become Station Masters on the pay  scale of  Rs.  150-225 places the Station Masters  of  Rs.  80-170 scale at a disadvantage as against Guards on that pay  scale and  also puts the Road-side Station Masters on the  pay  of Rs. 100-185 pay scale at a disadvantage as against Guards on that scale of pay. The petitioners contend that the channel of promotion in  so far  as it enables Guards to be promoted as Station  Masters in  addition to the other line of promotion open to them  as Guards  amounts to a denial of equal opportunity as  between Road-side  Station  Masters  and Guards  in  the  matter  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

promotion and thus contravenes the provisions of Art.  16(1) of the Constitution. It was further alleged in the petition that taking advantage of this channel of promotion, Guards become Station  Masters on  Rs.  150-225 at a very much younger age  than  Road-side Station  Masters  and  thus  block  the  chances  of  higher promotion  to  Road-side Station Masters who reach  the  Rs. 150-225 scale when they are much older.  As instances of how the  impugned  provisions in the channel  of  promotion  are harmful  to the Road-side Station Masters,  the  petitioners state: that while the petitioner No. 2 even after completing 32 years of service has remained in the grade of Rs. 100-185 as Station Master, Guards of equal status and standing  have reached  gazetted  rank within the same period  of  service; that  whereas the petitioner No, 3 has come by promotion  to the  grade  of  Rs.  150225 after putting  in  21  years  of service,  Guards of his standing have risen to the grade  of Rs.  360-500 by virtue of the impugned channel of  promotion and  several of his juniors who entered the Railway  service long after him as Guards have superseded him and are working in the grade of Rs. 360-500; that while the 314 petitioner  No. 4 having entered into service  as  Telegraph Candidate    and   having   passed   all    the    requisite examinations  prescribed  for the higher  grade  of  Station Master within a period of 2 1/2 years after putting in 6 1/2 years of service is still in the grade of Rs. 80-170, Guards of his length of service and departmental qualification  are entitled  for promotion as an Assistant              Station Master  in  the grade of Rs. 150-225 within about  the  same length of service. The  respondents-the  General  Manager,  Central   Railways, Bombay, V.T., the Chairman Railway Board, New Delhi and  the Union of India,-who contest the application contend that the channel of promotion providing these opportunities to Guards does not in any way contravene the provisions of Art.  16(1) of the Constitution.  They also deny the correctness of  the allegation  that as a result of these  opportunities  Guards become Station Masters on Rs. 150-225 pay scale at a Younger age than Road-side Station Masters.  On the material  before us  it  is  not possible to come to  a  firm  conclusion  as regards  the  relative  age at  which  Guards  or  Road-side Station           Masters ordinarily reach the pay scale  of Rs.  150-225.   Assuming,  however, the position  to  be  as stated  in the petition, that may only evoke  some  sympathy for  the Road-side Station Masters, but does not in any  way affect  the decision of the question whether Art.  16(1)  of the   Constitution  is  contravened  by  this   channel   of promotion. Art. 16(1) of the Constitution is in these words:- There  shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens  in matters relating to employment or appointment to any  office under the State’." The  impugned provisions of the channel of promotion are  in respect  of promotion of persons already employed under  the State  and not in respect of the first employment under  the State.         If the "equality of opportunity "  guaranteed to all citizens by Art. 16(1) does not extend to matters  of promotion  the petitioners’ contention that  the  provisions are  void  must  fail  at once.   If,  however,  matters  of promotion are                             315 also " matters relating to employment" within the meaning of Art. 16(1) of the Constitution, the next question we have to consider is whether the impugned provisions amount to denial

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

of  equality  of  opportunity within  the  meaning  of  that Article. We  propose  to consider the second question first,  on  the assumption that matters of promotion are Cc matters relating to  employment ". So multifarious are the activities of  the State  that  employment  of men for  the  purpose  of  these activities  has  by  the  very nature of  things  to  be  in different   departments  of  the  State  and   inside   each department, in many different classes.  For each such  class there  are separate rules fixing the number of personnel  of each  class,  posts to which the men in that class  will  be appointed,  questions of seniority, pay of different  posts, the  manner  in which promotion will be, effected  from  the lower  grades of pay to the higher grades, e.g., whether  on the result of periodical examination or ’by seniority, or by selection or on some other basis-and other cognate  matters. Each  such  class  can  be reasonably  considered  to  be  a separate and in many matters independent entity with its own rules of recruitment, pay and prospects and other conditions of service which may vary considerably between one class and another.  A member joins a particular class on  recruitment; he  leaves  the class on retirement or death  or  dismissal, discharge,  resignation  or other modes  of  termination  of service, or by joining another class of employees whether by promotion  thereto or direct recruitment thereto on  passing some examination or by selection in some other mode. It  is clear that as between the members of the  same  class the  question whether conditions of service are the same  or not may well arise.  If they are not, the question of denial of  equal opportunity will require serious consideration  in such  cases.   Does  the concept  of  equal  opportunity  in matters  of  employment  apply, however,  to  variations  in provisions  as  between  members  of  different  classes  of employees under the State?  In our opinion, the answer  must be in the 316 negative.   The  concept of equality can have  no  existence except    with    reference    to    matters    which    are common  as  between individuals, between  whom  equality  is predicated.     Equality   of   opportunity    in    matters of   employment   can   be  predicated   only   as   between persons, who are either seeking the same employment, or have obtained    the    same   employment.     It    will,    for example,  plainly  make  no sense to say  that  because  for employment  as professors of colleges, a  higher  University degree  is  required  than for  employment  as  teachers  of schools, equality of opportunity is being denied.  Similarly it  is  meaningless  to say that  unless  persons  who  have obtained  employment  as  school  teachers,  have  the  same chances of promotion as persons who have obtained employment as teachers in colleges, equality of opportunity is  denied. There is, in our opinion, no escape from the conclusion that equality  of opportunity in matters of promotion, must  mean equality as between members of the same class of  employees, and  not equality between members of  separate,  independent classes. The  Petitioners’  Counsel did not seriously  challenge  the correctness  of  the  above  proposition.   They   contended however  that  Road-side Station Masters and  Guards  really form  one and the same class of employees.  In our  opinion, there  is  no substance in this contention.  It  has  to  be noticed  first  that  Appendix  11  of  the  Indian  Railway Establishment  Code (Vol. 1) which prescribe rules  for  the recruitment  and  training of subordinate  staff  of  Indian Railways  classify  the subordinate staff  governed  by  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

rules  into  7 branches: (1) Transportation  (Traffic);  (2) Commercial;   (3)   Transportation   (Power);   (4)    Civil Engineering ; (5) Store department Staff; (6) Office clerks and  (7) Medical.  Each branch again has been  divided  into groups.    The  first  branch,  i.e.,   the   Transportation (Traffic) is shown as having 3 groups: (i) Station  Masters, (ii)  Guards,  (iii)  Outdoor Clerical Staff.  Rule  2,  the definition  section defines a " group " to mean a series  of classes  which form a normal channel of promotion.   Rule  8 shows the classes of posts                             317 included  in  the  Station Masters’  group  and  the  normal channels  of  their promotion which are as follows:                Signaller Assist. Head Signallers            Assist.Station Masters                                    (lower grade) Head Signallers                    Station Masters                                    (lower grade) Telegraph Inspectors               Assist.   controllers                                    Assist.  Yard Foreman                                    Station Masters                                    Controllers                                    Yard Foremen                Transportation Inspectors Rule  9  lays  down the  qualifications  necessary  for  the recruitment  to  this  "group".   Rule  10  says  that   the recruitment  will be initially made as students and  further provides that the recruits may be (a) persons to be  trained in telegraphy in railway telegraph training schools and  (b) persons  who  have  completed a training  in  telegraphy  in recognized  private telegraph training schools.  Note  2  of this Rule provides that recruits in either, category will on the  satisfactory completion of their training, be  eligible for  appointment as signallers and will remain on  probation for  one  year  after  such  appointment.  -Provisions   for training appear in Rule 11.  Rule 12 provides for  Refresher and  Promotion  Courses.  Rules 13 to 17 are in  respect  of Guards.   Rule 13 states the classes included in this  group and the normal channels of their promotion thus:- Probationary Guards Goods or passengers guards Assistant Station Masters (higher grades) Assistant controllers Assist.  Yard Foremen Station Masters Controllers Yard Foremen Transportation Inspectors Rule   14  lays  down  the  qualifications   necessary   for recruitment in this line.  Rule 15 provides that the 41 318 recruitment  will normally be to the lower grade of  Guards. Rule  16  provides  that  during  the  one  year  period  of probation recruits will undergo training for a period to  be fixed  by  the  administration.  Rule 17  provides  for  the periodical refresher courses at stated       intervals   and promotion courses as necessary may be prescribed. In  deciding the question whether Road-side Station  Masters and Guards belong to one and the same class  of employees or not,  we  must not be misled by the words " groups  "  or  " classes  of posts " used in the above rules... The  crux  of the  question is the nature of the  differentiation  between Road-side   Station  Masters  and  Guards  in   recruitment, prospects  and  promotion.  We find that  Road-side  Station

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

Masters   and  Guards  are  recruited  separately,   trained separately  and  the  several classes  of  posts  which  are ordinarily open to them are also distinct and separate.  The only  point of contact between them is provided by the  rule that  Guards may become Station Masters by passing the  Slip 45  examination.   If after becoming Station  Masters  these Guards  could  continue also as Guards there might  be  some scope  for suggesting that the two classes  have  coalesced. It  is  not disputed however that Guards  once  they  become Station  Masters cease to be Guards and continue as  Station Masters.   The  fact that the qualifications  necessary  for recruitment  as Guards or Station Masters are  approximately or  even wholly the same can in no way affect  the  question whether they form one and the same class, or form  different classes.   As  on the admitted facts  the  Roadside  Station Masters  and  Guards  are,  as  already  stated,   recruited separately and trained separately and have separate  avenues of promotion, the conclusion is irresistible that they  form two  distinct and separate classes as between whom there  is no   scope  for  predicating  equality  or   inequality   of opportunity in matters of promotion. In view of this conclusion it is unnecessary for the purpose of the present case to decide the other question:    whether matters  of  promotion are included in the words  "  matters relating to employment  in                             319 Article  16(1) of the Constitution.  For even assuming  that they  are  so  included, the  present  application  must  be rejected on the simple ground that the petitioners belong to a  wholly  distinct. and separate class from Guards  and  so there  can  be  no question of equality  of  opportunity  in matters of promotion as between the petitioners and Guards. The  learned Counsel for the petitioners stated  before   us that this channel of promotion for Guards is peculiar to the Central  Railways, and is not now to be found in  the  other Zones  of  Indian Railways.  If that be  the  position,  the matter may well deserve the attention of the Government; but this  has  nothing  to do with the merits  of  the  petition before us. For the reasons mentioned above, we dismiss the application, but in view of all the circumstances, we order that  parties will bear their own costs. Petition dismissed.