REPORTABLE

   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4345-4346 OF 2007

                                              M. JAGDISH VYAS & ORS.                              ….APPELLANTS

 VERSUS                                                   UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ….RESPONDENTS

W I T H

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4349-4350 OF 2007

A N D

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4351 OF 2007

            J U D G M E N T

SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.

1. These appeals have been filed against the judgment of the High  

Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur rendered in DB Civil  

Writ  Petition  No.5193/04  and  DB  Civil  Writ  Petition  No.5638/04  

dated 3.5.2005.  By the aforesaid common judgment the High Court  

had held that the instructions dated 23.07.2002 had not superseded  

the qualifications laid down by Central Government in its letter dated  

24.6.2002.  By virtue of the aforesaid decision of the High Court the  

1

appellants have lost the opportunity for being absorbed in the service  

of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL).  Civil Appeal No.4351/2007  

has been filed against the order of Central  Administrative Tribunal  

(CAT) dated 17.11.2005 in O.A. No.116/2005  whereby the CAT has  

dismissed the O.A. following the decision of the Rajasthan High Court  

which  is  the  subject  matter  of  the  two  above  noted  appeals.  We  

propose  to  dispose  of  all  the  aforesaid  appeals  by  this  common  

judgment.

2. The  appellants  had  challenged  the  declaration  of  results  of  

deputationists  who  had  appeared  in  the  Examination  for  Junior  

Accounts  Officer  (JAO),  Part-II  dated  29.08.2002  in  the  Central  

Administrative  Tribunal  (CAT)  Jodhpur  Bench,  Jodhpur.   It  was  

claimed by the appellants that their names had been wrongly omitted  

from the list of successful candidates in the result dated 29.08.2002  

as they had qualified the examination on the basis of the criteria laid  

down in the letter dated 23.07.2002.  By the aforesaid letter BSNL  

had  declared  the  result  of  candidates  who  had  qualified  in  JAO,  

Part-II  Examination  held  in  December  2000.   In  that  letter,  the  

qualifying standards and the grace marks required to be obtained by  

the successful candidates were as follows:   

“General candidates: (1) 33% in each subject and       35% in aggregate.

2

(2) 6 grace marks in any one       subject.

SC/ST candidates: (1) 25% in each subject and       27% in aggregate.

(2) 6 grace marks in any one       subject.”  

3. The  appellants  were  permanent  employees  of  the  Postal  

Department.   They  had  already  qualified  the  Part-I  and  Part-II  

Examination  of  Junior  Accounts  Officer  (JAO)  in  the  Postal  

Department.  Since the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) was  

having shortage of qualified JAO, the usual practice was to fill  the  

vacant posts by taking JAOs on deputation from other departments in  

Union  of  India.   Large  number  of  employees  from  the  postal  

department  used  to  be  taken  on  deputation  in  DoT  batch-wise  

depending on the particular need of the borrowing department, i.e.,  

DoT.  It seems a policy decision was taken to absorb the employees of  

the Department of Posts who were qualified for the posts of JAOs and  

have passed both Part-I and Part-II examinations.  The Department of  

Telecommunications (DoT) also wanted to appoint/promote its  own  

employees  who  were  working  on  the  lower  ranks  of  Clerks,  

Accountants, and Telephone Operators provided they were prepared  

to pass Part-I and Par-II Examinations for the post of JAO.  Keeping  

in  view  the  aforesaid  objectives,  DoT  framed  a  scheme  dated  

30.9.2000 which inter alia provided as under:   

3

“Due  to  acute  shortage  in  the  grade  of  Junior  Accounts  Officers  in  Department  of  Telecommunications,  this  Department  had  taken  certain officials from other Departments, including the  Department of Posts, on deputation to work as Junior  Accounts Officers and posted them to various Telecom  Circles/Units.  In order to have the services of these  officials on long term basis, in view of large number of  vacancies existing in the Department of Telecom in the  grade of JAO as on date, it has now been decided, with  the approval of competent authority, to absorb these  deputationists  as  Junior  Accounts  Officers  in  DoT/DTS/DTO, as one time measure, after conducting  an examination.  The examination will  be conducted  on certain terms and conditions set out separately in  respect  of  those  officials  who  will  be  working  on  deputation in DOT/proposed BSNL as on 18.10.2000  and for all those who have earlier worked in DoT on  deputation basis  but  have  since  been repatriated  to  their  parent  cadre.   Any  official  holding  any  post  higher  than  JAO  in  his  parent  Department  as  on  30.9.2000  will  not  be  eligible  to  appear  in  the  said  examination.

2.   The  said  examination  will  be  conducted  simultaneously with JAO Telecom Part-II examination  and will be only for Paper-VII and Paper-VIII for these  deputationists,  as  contained  in  ‘syllabus  for  JAO,  Telecom Part-II Examination.  The details of eligibility  conditions  and  also  terms  and  conditions  (ANNEXURE I)  for  regulating their  pay and seniority  etc.,  for the said examination, alongwith proforma of  declaration undertaking (ANNEXURE-II) required to be  given by all the applicants at the time of applying for  the  examination  are  enclosed  herewith.   The  application form is also enclosed.  Photo copy of the  same can be used by the officials for submitting the  application.”   

4. The policy further stated that all the present deputationists who  

were willing to be absorbed in DoT/DTS/DTO as JAOs are requested  

to go through the terms and conditions and submit their applications  

4

in the prescribed proforma latest by 27.10.2000.  Under the aforesaid  

policy,  deputationists  who  had  already  been  repatriated  to  their  

parent departments would also be eligible.  They were also to submit  

their applications by the same day.  It was also made clear that the  

appearance in the examination is purely provisional and subject to  

approval of absorption by the Department of Personnel and Training.  

The  DoT  also  shall  have  the  right  to  cancel  the  examination  or  

withhold the results.   This policy was accompanied by the detailed  

terms and conditions subject to which the deputationists were to take  

the Examination of JAO Part-II for Paper-VII and Paper-VIII.  All the  

deputationists  were  required  to  appear  in  the  examination  in  T.R.  

paper.  The relevant provision of the annexure setting out the terms  

and conditions for absorption of personnel taken on deputation is as  

under:   

“(B) Examination in T.R. Paper:

(1) The  DoT/DTS/DTO  will  have  to  appear  in  Part-VII  and  VIII  of  JAO  (Telecom)  Part-II  syllabus,  which,  inter-alia,  consists  of  theory  and  practical  portion  relating  to  Telecom  Revenue  Accounts.   These  papers  will  be  conducted simultaneously with other papers of  JAO Part-II  exam which will  be held for those  DOT  officials  who  have  already  qualified  DOT  JAO  Part-I  examination.   The  examination  schedule  will  be  announced  by  DE Branch  of  DOT.   It  is,  however,  expected  that  the  said  exam will  be conducted during 2nd fortnight of  December  2000  subject  to  convenience  of  DE  Branch.

5

(2) The syllabus for TR paper set for deputationists  will be same as that for JAO (Part-II) examinees  of Department of Telecommunications.”   

5. It was further provided that even upon qualification in both the  

examinations the absorption will be the sole discretion of DoT both in  

terms of time and number of persons.  It was further provided that  

the  deputationists  who  qualify  in  the  Part-II  Examination  will  be  

repatriated to their parent department before their absorption.  It was  

further made clear that the DoT is on the verge of corporatisation and  

that the service conditions as well as the pay attached to the posts of  

JAOs and above are likely to undergo changes.   

6. Knowing the aforesaid conditions,  the appellants appeared in  

the examination in the two papers on 18.10.2000.  It appears that on  

the  very  same  date  the  examination  was  also  held  for  the  

departmental candidates to be appointed on the posts of JAOs.   

7. The  result  of  the  JAO,  Part-II  Examination  held  in  

December 2000 was declared through Letter dated 23.7.2002. It was  

stated that the candidates mentioned in Annexure-I had qualified the  

JAO,  Part-II  Examination.   It  further  mentioned  the  approved  

qualifying  standards.   General  candidates  were  required  to  secure  

33%  in  each  subject  and  35%  in  aggregate,  6  grace  marks  were  

6

provided in any one subject.  For Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe  

candidate an even lower standard was prescribed.  Significantly, the  

letter  also  mentioned  that  the  names  of  the  candidates  are  not  

arranged in order  of  merit.   Clause 6 of  the letter  stated that  the  

result  in  the  case  of  candidates  on  deputation  from  other  

departments, who were allowed to appear in this examination, will be  

declared separately.   

8.  Thereafter, the results of deputationist candidates were declared  

on  29.08.2002.   The  appellants  who  would  have  been  declared  

successful under the criteria contained in the Letter dated 23.07.2002  

were not included in the list  of successful candidates.   Hence, the  

appellants had moved the CAT as noticed above.  The CAT allowed the  

application with the following observations:  

“We have anxiously considered the submissions  of  both  the  parties.   In  nut-shell,  the  dispute  is  whether or not the relaxation letter dated 23.7.2002  (Annexure A-5) is applicable to the deputationists, or it  is meant only for non-deputationists i.e. officials of the  DoT  etc.   As  per  the  respondents,  the  letter  dated  24.6.2002  (Annexure  R/1)  is  applicable  to  the  deputationists  and  since  the  applicant  could  not  obtain marks at 45% in aggregate (i.e. a total of 90%  marks in both the papers VII and VIII put together) he  was not included in the impugned result.  We observe  while  going  through  the  various  communications/letters/letters  issued  by  the  competent authority from time to time that the basic  bible for absorption of  the deputationists  in DoT is  letter dated 30.9.2000 (Annexure A/3).  We find that  nowhere it has been mentioned that for the purpose of  

7

eligibility for absorption in DoT, the deputationists are  required to clear JAO part-I examination.  We also find  that the relaxation given in the letter dated 23.7.2002  (Annexure A/5) does not prohibit the deputationists to  avail  the  above  relaxations  as  is  available  to  the  officials  of  the  DoT  etc.   We  also  observe  that  the  communication dated 24.6.2002 (Annexure R/1) had  been issued by the DoT wherein the minimum marks  obtained  in  paper  VII  and  VIII  of  JAO  part  II  examination should be 45% in aggregate and 40% in  each paper.  This  minimum prescribed  percentage  of  marks  were  relaxed  by  issuing  of  another  communication/Letter  dated  23.7.2002  (Annexure  A/5)  which  is  also  applicable  in  the  case  of  deputationists.   We  also  anxiously  noticed  that  the  deputationists were required to pass only in JAO Part- II examination in paper VII and VIII only.  As per the  letter  dated  30.9.2000  (Annexure  A/3)  wherein  the  terms and conditions have been laid down in the main  body of the letter as well as in Annexure I to IV thereof,  stand satisfied and fulfilled.  Since the applicant had  already cleared the JAO     Part-II examination before  deputation in DoT therefore only requirement for both  the deputationists in DoT for absorption was to pass in  paper VII and VIII only.”  

9. With  these  observations,  BSNL  was  directed  to  include  the  

names of the appellants in the list of successful candidates as per  

their merit positions and consider their candidature for absorption on  

the posts of JAOs.   

10. The aforesaid  decision of  the  CAT was challenged before  the  

High Court of Judicature at Jodhpur by Union of India/BSNL in two  

writ petitions.  Considering the factual situation as narrated above,  

the Division Bench considered the two letters dated 23.07.2002 and  

24.06.2002 and held that the CAT had not construed the same in the  

8

proper perspective. The Division Bench concluded that deputationists  

who were to be absorbed on the posts of JAOs and the departmental  

employees seeking appointment by way of promotion on the posts of  

JAOs who were required to take the JAO Examination, constituted  

two separate and distinct classes. While the employees of DoT have  

been offered an opportunity for being qualified to become JAO in the  

regular line of promotion, deputationists who had not passed one of  

the  requisite  essential  papers  of  JAO,  Part-II  Examination  were  

permitted to make up the deficiency by passing the necessary paper  

in the examination held by the DoT.  The classification was, therefore,  

on a rational  basis.   It  had a nexus with  the  object  sought  to be  

achieved.  Therefore the appellants could not have complained of any  

violation of their rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of  

India.  The Division Bench concluded that the letter dated 23.07.2002  

was not applicable to the deputationists.  They were governed by the  

conditions laid down in the letter dated 24.06.2002 which had been  

placed before the CAT as Annexure R1.  It  has been held that the  

appellants  failed to place on record any material  to show that  the  

aforesaid letter dated 24.06.2002 which was applicable in the case of  

deputationists, had been superseded by the letter dated 23.07.2002.  

Consequently,  the  writ  petitions  filed  by  the  Union of  India/BSNL  

were allowed and the order passed by the CAT was set aside.  The  

applications  filed  by  the  appellants  were  dismissed.   Hence  the  

9

appellants who were the applicants before the CAT have challenged  

the aforesaid judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in these appeals.  

11. We  have  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the  parties.   It  is  

vehemently  argued  by  Mr.  Sushil  Kumar  Jain,  appearing  for  the  

appellants, that the letter dated 23.07.2002 is fully applicable in the  

case of the deputationists who had appeared in the T.R. paper of the  

JAO Part-II Examination.  The letter dated 24.06.2002 stood modified  

by the letter dated 23.07.2002.  According to the learned counsel, the  

Division  Bench  has  misread  the  relevant  provisions  in  various  

documents.  He submitted that  the appellants had appeared in the  

examination pursuant to the scheme dated 30.09.2000.  In this letter,  

it  was  clearly  provided  that  the  syllabus  for  T.R.  paper  set  for  

deputationists will be same as that for JAO Part-II examinees of the  

DoT.  A combined examination was held in which candidates of DoT  

as also  deputationists  appeared.   The conditions  of  eligibility  were  

prescribed for all the candidates.  He emphasised on the use of the  

expression  “this  examination”  in  the  letter  dated  23.07.2002.  

According  to  the  learned  counsel  the  eligibility  criteria  had  been  

lowered for all  the candidates.   Learned counsel submitted that  in  

view  of  Clause  6,  BSNL was  entitled  to  declare  the  results  of  the  

deputationists separately.  It was so declared on 29.08.2002.  This  

declaration of the result on 29.08.2002 was a mere continuation of  

10

the declaration of result as contained in the letter dated 23.07.2002.  

This mere declaration of the result on 29.08.2002 would not permit  

BSNL to change the qualifying marks for deputationists from 33% in  

individual papers and 35% in aggregate to 40% in each paper and  

45% in aggregate.   Had it  been the intention of  the authorities  to  

provide separate qualifying marks for deputationists,  it  would have  

been mentioned in the letter dated 23.07.2002.  Therefore, according  

to  the  learned  counsel  a  harmonious  reading  of  the  letter  dated  

23.07.2002  and  the  letter  dated  29.08.2002  would  lead  to  the  

inevitable conclusion that the decision communicated in letter dated  

24.06.2002 stood superseded and modified for the petitioners also.  

Learned counsel  further  submitted that  all  the candidates whether  

departmental or deputationists appeared in the same examination for  

the purposes of being qualified to hold the post of JAO in DoT.  All the  

candidates appearing in the examinations formed one class. Therefore  

deputationists cannot be discriminated by providing higher qualifying  

marks  in  comparison  to  the  marks  required  by  departmental  

candidates.   

12. On  the  other  hand,  learned  counsel  for  the  respondents  

submitted that the deputationists cannot claim to be equated with the  

departmental  candidates.   The departmental  candidates were being  

given  an  opportunity  to  get  promotion  in  the  normal  line.   The  

11

qualifying criteria for the departmental candidates was relaxed as a  

one-time measure in view of  the  peculiar  situation that  was being  

faced  by  the  DoT  employees  at  that  time.   The  qualifications  for  

deputationists  were  specifically  laid  down  in  the  Letter  dated  

24.06.2002.  The  aforesaid  criteria  was  not  applicable  to  the  

departmental  candidates.   It  is  submitted  that  there  is  no  

discrimination and the Division Bench had rightly rejected the claim  

of the appellants.   

13. We  have  considered  the  submissions  made  by  the  learned  

counsel for the parties. The only issue that needs determination  

is whether the deputationist candidates could be distinguished  

from the  departmental  candidates  in  the  matter  of  providing  

minimum qualifying marks in the examination in question. In  

order  to  claim  parity  with  the  departmental  candidates,  the  

deputationists have relied upon the language contained in the  

letter  dated  23.7.2002.   The  question  that  arises  for  

consideration,  therefore,  is  whether  the  deputationists  are  

justified  in  claiming  the  parity  with  the  departmental  

candidates on the basis of the above letter.  

14. In  our  opinion,  a  bare  perusal  of  the  Letter  dated  24.06.02  

would make it abundantly clear that the qualifying marks have  

12

been  separately  provided  for  the  deputationists  who  were  to  

appear  in  the  JAO  Part-II  Examination.  The  Letter  dated  

24.06.02 is as under:   

“No.21-31/2001-SEA Government of India, Department  of  Telecommunications,  Sanchar  Bhawan, 20, Ashoka Road, New Delhi – 110001.   

Dated: 24.6.2002

To The  ADG(DE),BSNL,  Dak  Bhawan,  New  Delhi- 110001

Subject:  Qualifying marks of  JAO Part-II  exam in  respect of the exam appeared by deputationists.   Reference:  Your  U.O.  No.10-1/2001-DE,  dated  07.05.2002.

I  am  directed  to  refer  to  your  letter  under  reference and convey that the qualifying marks in  respect of the papers in the JAO Part-II exam taken  by the deputationists will continue to be the same  as  that  of  the  departmental  candidates  i.e.  the  deputationists have to secure 40% in each subject  and 45% in the aggregate provided a minimum of  40% also secured separately in the practical paper  with books. 45% in the aggregate for this purpose  would  mean  90  marks  out  of  200  marks  (200  marks are the maximum marks of  paper VII  and  VIII).  

To  be  precise,  as  (i)  both  papers  VII  and  VIII  appeared  in  by  the  deputationists  fall  under  one  subject,  (ii)  Paper  VII  and  VIII  constitute  the  aggregate papers in the Exam for the deputationists  and (iii) Paper VIII is practical paper with the aid of  books,  the following marks should be secured by  the deputationists to declare him as qualified.

13

(i) 45% aggregate marks i.e. total of 90      marks in both papers VII and VIII put  

   together. (ii)  A  minimum  marks  of  40%  in  paper  VIII   

   (Practical paper with aid of books). (iii) No minimum marks is required in  

    paper VII.

  SD/- (D.  

SELVARAJ)                                                          ADG (SEA)”

15. A perusal of the aforesaid letter clearly shows that it provided  

qualifying marks of JAO, Part-II Examination for deputationists.  The  

information  has  been  given  on  a  request  made  by  BSNL  for  

clarification.

16. The letter specifically refers to “qualifying marks of JAO, Part-II  

Examination in respect of the exam appeared by deputationists”.  It is  

then stated that the qualifying marks in respect of the papers in JAO,  

Part-II exam taken by deputationists will continue to be same as that  

of  the  departmental  candidates.  It  is  further  clarified  that  

deputationists have to secure 40% in each subject and 45% in the  

aggregate.  

17. From the above it becomes clear that the deputationists were  

being treated as a class apart from the departmental candidates.  It  

also  becomes  apparent  that  the  conditions  enumerated  in  the  

aforesaid letter did not apply to the departmental candidates.  In our  

14

opinion there is no merit in the submission of Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain  

that since the letter sated that the marks would be the same as that  

of the departmental candidates, the conditions laid therein also apply  

to  departmental  candidates.   The  aforesaid  expression  was  clearly  

only indicative of the general standard that was expected of all the  

examinees.   No material was placed on the record either before the  

Tribunal or before the High Court to show that there has been any  

relaxation  in  the  standard  or  the  minimum marks  required  to  be  

obtained by the deputationists.  The qualifying marks prescribed in  

the  letter  dated  24.06.02 were  not  in  any manner  affected  by  the  

Letter dated 23.07.02 so far as the deputationists were concerned.  It  

related  only  to  the  declaration  of  result  of  the  departmental  

candidates.  The letter  dated 24.6.2002 issued with the approval  of  

Member –F of BSNL had provided the lower standard of 33% for each  

subject and 35% in aggregate exclusively for the examination held in  

December,  2000.  It  appears  that  a  one  time  concession  had been  

given to the departmental candidates in special circumstances. If the  

standard  had  been  lowered  for  the  deputationists  also,  the  letter  

would have made a specific provision in that regard.   The fact that  

the names of the successful candidates were not arranged in order of  

merit also indicates that the letter related only to the departmental  

candidates. The intention was clearly to induct as many candidates  

from the lower ranks of Clerks, Accountants and Telephone Operators  

15

working in DoT to the higher posts of JAO provided they had reached  

the bare minimum standard. On the other hand, it is clearly stated in  

the letter dated 29.8.2002 that the list of deputationists, who have  

qualified in Paper VII and Paper VIII, have been arranged in order of  

merit.  Therefore,  undoubtedly the intention was to absorb only the  

best from the deputationist candidates.  

18. The expression that the qualifying marks for the deputationists  

will continue to be the same as that of the departmental candidates in  

the letter dated 24.06.2002 would not mean that the deputationists  

would  ipso facto become entitled for any relaxation in the standard  

which may have been given to the departmental  candidates in the  

future.  Condition  No.6  which  provides  that  the  result  of  

deputationists will be declared separately would also indicate that the  

departmental  candidates  had  been  segregated  from  the  

deputationists.  Hence, the criteria for declaration of results for the  

departmental  candidates  is  different  from the  deputationists.   The  

results  of  the  departmental  candidates  have  been  declared  

irrespective of the merit  of the candidate.   On the other hand, the  

result of deputationists has been declared in the order of merit.   

19. The respondents have also given a clear justification for issuing  

the letter  dated 23.7.2002.   The relaxation related to the entire  

16

JAO  Part-II  Examination  in  five  papers.  All  the  departmental  

candidates  had  to  appear  in  five  papers  of  JAO  Part-II  

Examination.   On  the  other  hand,  the  deputationists  appeared  

only  in  one  subject,  i.e.,  Paper  VII  and  VIII  combined.   The  

deputationists  had  already  passed  JAO  Part-II  Examination  in  

their  parent  Postal  Department.   Therefore,  the  requirement  of  

passing Part-I of the departmental examination had been relaxed  

in favour of the deputationists.  They were required only to appear  

in  Paper  VII  and  VIII.   Therefore,  they  could  not  claim  to  be  

equated  with  the  departmental  candidates.  The  rationale  for  

providing the minimum qualifying marks of 40% in each subject  

and 45% in the aggregate for the deputationists is set out in the  

letter dated 24.6.2002. There was no scope for any confusion. This  

criteria has not been relaxed in the case of deputationists in the  

letter dated 23.7.2002.

20. In  our  opinion,  the  final  decision  has  been  taken  by  

Government of India for relaxing the minimum qualifying marks for  

the  departmental  candidates  as  a  one  time  measure  in  order  to  

facilitate the departmental candidates to get promotion to the posts of  

JAO.   Deputationists,  on  the  other  hand,  had  been  provisionally  

allowed to sit in the examination subject to the final decision of the  

competent authority whether to absorb them or not.  These conditions  

17

were made known to the deputationists in the policy decision dated  

30.9.2000.  The categorization of deputationists and the departmental  

candidates into the two categories, in our opinion, has been rightly  

upheld by the High Court. The law has been well settled for many  

years  that  members  of  one  homogenous  group have  to  be  treated  

equally.  At the same time Articles 14 and 16 do not mandate that  

un-equals are to be treated as equals. In this case, the classification  

cannot be said to be either irrational or arbitrary. It had a clear nexus  

with the objects sought to be achieved, i.e., to fill in as many vacant  

posts from the departmental candidates working on the lower ranks  

provided  they  reached  bare  minimum  qualifying  standards  in  the  

JAO, Part-II Examination.  So far as the deputationists are concerned,  

the respondents were entitled to insist  on recruiting the best from  

among  the  deputationists.  Hence,  the  higher  criteria  for  

deputationists cannot be said to be arbitrary or discriminatory. Such  

classification  is  permissible  under  Articles  14  and  16  of  the  

Constitution  of  India.  The  law  that  Articles  14  and  16  permit  

reasonable  classification  of  employees  has  been  settled  for  many  

decades and reiterated in a catena of judgments by this Court. We  

may  notice  here  only  the  observations  made  by  the  Constitution  

Bench in the case of S.G. Jaisinghani Vs. Union of India [AIR 1967  

SC 1427] wherein this Court has held as follows:  

18

“The relevant law on the subject is well-settled. Under  Article 16 of the Constitution, there shall  be equality of  opportunity  for  all  citizens  in  matters  relating  to  employment or appointment to any office under the State  or  to  promotion  from  one  office  to  a  higher  office  thereunder.  Article  16  of  the  Constitution  is  only  an  incident  of  the  application  of  the  concept  of  equality  enshrined  in  Article  14  thereof.  It  gives  effect  to  the  doctrine  of  equality  in  the  matter  of  appointment  and  promotion.  It  follows  that  there  can  be  reasonable  classification  of  the  employees  for  the  purpose  of  appointment or promotion. The concept of equality in the  matter  of  promotion  can  be  predicated  only  when  the  promotees  are  drawn  from  the  same  source.  If  the  preferential  treatment  of  one  source  in  relation  to  the  other is  based on the differences between the said  two  sources,  and  the  said  differences  have  a  reasonable  relation  to  the  nature  of  the  office  or  offices  to  which  recruitment is made, the said recruitment can legitimately  be sustained on the basis of a valid classification.”  

 21. In  view  of  the  above,  we  find  no  merit  in  the  appeals.   We  

accordingly dismiss the appeals. There will be no order as to costs.

               ……..…….……………………….J          ( B. SUDERSHAN REDDY )

      ....…………………………………J                                ( SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR )

NEW DELHI: MARCH 29, 2010

19