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

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: NO. 664950 IM HAVILDAR/CIERK SC BAGARI

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       15/04/1999

BENCH: Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, S.N. Phukan.

JUDGMENT:

S.N.PHUKAN, J.

       This appeal  is  directed  against  the  full  bench decision  dated  24.12.1993  of  the  High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Civil Writ petition No, 747 of 1991.

       For  the purpose of appreciating the points urged in this appeal we may briefly state the facts.

       The respondent appeared in person  before  the  High Court.   In this Court though notices were issued he did not appear hence the matter was taken  up  for  hearing  in  his absence.

       The respondent is a Havildar/Clerk  in  Indian  Army and he was interested in prosecuting his studies further for obtaining   higher   educational   qualifications   such  as post-graduation in law but he felt  handicapped  because  of the  provisions  contained  in  Army Instruction namely Army Order No.  11  of  1987  according  to  which  only  Regular Commissioned  Officers  can  be granted extra-ordinary leave subject to certain  conditions  and  not  persons  like  the petitioner, who is not an officer.  Therefore, he challenged the  said Army Order before the High Court on the grounds of discrimination, without any lawful basis etc.

       Before the High Court the  present  appellants  took the   stand  that  study  leave  is  granted  to  a  Regular Commissioned Officer to get higher studies having  a  direct and close connection with the spheres of his duties.  It was also stated that the nature of duties of Junior Commissioned Officers  and  non-Commissioned  Officers  is  different  as compared to Regular Conimissioned Officers.  The  appellants took  the stand that the matter of grant or refusal of study leave is  purely   discretionary.      The   allegation   of discrimination was  denied.    It  was  also  sated that for Junior Commissioned Officers  and  Noncommissioned  Officers there   are  institutions  of  the  appellants  where  these Officers are trained.

       We find from the judgment  that  &  prayer  made  on behalf  of the present appellants for adjournment was denied on the ground stated in the judgment and the  writ  petition was  disposed of without hearing the learned counsel for the appellants.

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

       The High Court relying  on  the  decisions  of  this Court came to the finding that the duties of clerical nature are  also important and therefore, rejected the stand of the appellants and held that higher educational qualification is also necessary for clerical staff.

       According   to   the   High   Court   the    present classification  for  granting study leave was not founded on an  intelligible  differentia  and  the  same  has  also  no relation  to the object sought to be achieved and benefit of study leave must be made available equally to all classes of above officers of Indian Army.

       We have heard  Mr.    P.N.    Mishra, learned Senior counsel for the appellant.

       Before entering into the reasoning given by the High Court let us now first  consider  the  scope  and  ambit  of Articles 14 and 16 vis-a-vis different classes of employees.

       We may refer to:

       In All India Station Masters’ and Assistant  Station Masters’   Association   Delhi  and  others  Versus  General Manager, General Railway and others AIR 1960 SC 384  =  1960 (Vol.II   SCR  311  while  considering  Article  16  of  the Constitution the Constitution Bench of this Court inter alia held that equality means  -  equality  equality  as  between members  of  the  same  class of employees, and not equality between members of separate, independent classes.

       Similar views were  expressed  by  the  Constitution Bench  of  this  Court in Jagannath Prasad Sharma Versus The State of Uttar Pradesh and others AIR 19661 SC 1245  =  1962 (Vol.I)  SCR  151 and in paragraph 15 it was inter alia held that equal protection of the laws does not  postulate  equal treatment  of  all  persons  without  distinction, it merely guarantees the  application  of  the  same  laws  alike  and without discrimination to all persons similarly situated.

       In  The  State  of  Mysore  and  another  Versus  P. Narasinga Rao AIR 1968 SC 3349 = 1966 (Vol.  I) SCR 407 this Court considered the validity of the Rules and it was  inter alia  held  that  it  is well settled that though Article 14 forbids class legislation, it  does  not  forbid  reasonable classification  for the purposes of legislation and when any impugned rule or statutory  provision  is  assailed  on  the ground  that  it contravenes Article 14, its validity can be sustained if two tests are satisfied  namely  classification on  which  it  is  founded  must be based on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes  persons  or  things  ground together  from  others left out of the group, and the second test is  that  the  differentia  in  question  must  have  a reasonable  relation to the object sought to be achieved and in other words there must be some rational nexus between the basis of  classification  and  the  object  intended  to  be achieved.   It  was  also  held that Articles 14 and 16 form part of the  same  constitutional  code  of  guarantees  and supplement  each other and in other words Article 16 is only an instance of  the  application  of  the  general  rule  of equality  laid down in Article 14 and it should be construed as such and, therefore, 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.

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

       In the decision of this Court in Indian Railway  SAS Staff Association  &  other  Vs.   Union of India and others (1998 (2) SCC 651), it was  held  that  there  can  be  many criteria  for classification of posts such as administrative procedure  and  others  which  have   to   be   taken   into consideration  by  the authorities concerned before deciding on the classification.

       Situated thus, broadly speaking, concept of equality has an inherent limitation arising from very nature  of  the guarantee under the Constitution and those who are similarly circumstanced are  entitled to equal treatment.  If there is a rational classification consistent with  the  purpose  for which   such   classification  was  made,  equality  is  not violated.  Article 16 of the Constitution  does  not  bar  a reasonable  classification  of employees or reasonable tests for selection.  Equality of opportunity of employment  means equality  as  between members of the same class of employees and not equality between  members  of  separate  independent classes.

       Mr.  Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant,  has drawn  our  attention  to Clauses (XII), (XV) and (XVIII) of Section 3 of The Army  Act,  1950.    These  clauses  define ’Junior  Commissioned Officer’, Non-Commissioned Office’ and ’Officer’.  Clause (XVIII) of Section 3  of  The  Army  Act, 1950,  while defining the term ’Officer’, has clearly stated that the Officer or Non-Commissioned Officer.    Relying  on the above  definitions,  Mr.  Mishra has rightly pointed out that legislature has classified the personnel of  the  Armed Forces into different categories and this classification has not been challenged.  We are of the opinion that legislature while  creating different classes of officers has classified them on the basis of the requirement  of  armed  forces  and thus this classification cannot be said to be arbitrary.  If pay,  perks  and  other privileges granted to these officers are different, we are, therefore, of the opinion that  there is no question of violation of provisions of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

       Now the question  is  whether  the  impugned  order, namely, Army Order  No.    11 of 1987 is discriminatory.  We quote below the relevant portion of the order as  quoted  in the impugned judgment of the High Court :-

       Rule 1 and 2 are given below :-

       "1.     All   regular  Officers  will  be         eligible for  the  grant  of  extra  leave         known  as Study Leave for pursuing special         studies in India  or  Ex-India  under  the         conditions specified in para 2 below.

       2.      Conditions for the grant of study         leave are as under :

       (a)     Study leave will be admissible to         Officers of all Arms and Services.

       (b)     Study  Leave may be granted to an         officer enabling him  to  undergo,  in  or         Ex-India, a non academic full time regular         course/programme/doctoral  studies leading

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

       a  recognised  formal  diploma/degree   in         institutions recognised by the Ministry of         Education,    Science    and   Technology,         certified   by   Army   Headquarters    as         enhancing  the  usefulness  as an officer.         Study  Leave  will  not  be  granted   for         correspondence  courses, part time courses         and attending night classes.

       (c)     Study Leave shall not be  granted         to  an  officer  who is due to retire from         service within 5  years  or  the  date  of         return to duty from study leave in respect         of Cols and above, and 7 years for Lt.Cols         and below.     Residual  service  will  be         calculated in the rank of the  officer  at         the  time  of  sanction  of  study  leave.         Study leave shall not  be  granted  to  an         officer  who  has  rendered  less  than 10         years service.    However,   the   minimum         service   can  be  lowered  under  special         service  can  be  lowered  under   special         circumstances on merits of the case by the         sanctioning authority.    Residual service         for battle casualties  and  permanent  low         medical  category  officers whose category         is either attributed or aggravated due  to         uncongenial   military  service  shall  be         three years.

       (d)     The maximum period of study leave         will be upto 24 months. It may be extended         by a period of two months annual leave (if         not  already availed) of the year in which         study leave commences, plus an  additional         two  three  years cycle spanning the study         leave  period,  if  so  required  for  the         specific  study being undertaken. Furlough         rates of pay  will  be  admissible  during         furlough  leave  when granted. The maximum         period of study  leave,  including  annual         leave  and  furlough  will  be  28  months         during the entire service of the officer.

       (e)     Study   leave    Ex-India    will         ordinarily   be   admissible   for   those         non-academic   courses   which   are   not         available at any University or Institution         in India.

       (f)     Study leave  will  be  admissible         not   more   than   twice  throughout  the         service, subject to the over all 28 months         limit prescribed in sub-para (d) above.

       (g)     Study  leave  vacancies  will  be         filled up.

       XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX   X   XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX         XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX   X   XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

       "The application for approving study leave         has to be  scrutinised  by  the  Screening         Committee  as  per  the impugned order and         priorities which are to be followed by the

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

       Screening Committee are quoted below :-

       (a)     Usefulness  off  the  subject  of         study to Arms/Service.

       (b)     Subjects   contributing   to   an         officer’s employability in the service.

       (c)     Residual Service of  the  officer         from  the  point of view of utility of his         education to the service.

       (d)     Officers   who   have    obtained         admission  in  recognised  Universities or         Institutions will be preferred.

       (e)     Officers who have been away  from         regimental  duties  for the last two years         after specialised courses or post graduate         courses will be given lower priority.

       (f)     Officers  with  a   good   career         profile will be given preference.

       (g)     Battle  casualties  and  disabled         officers  who  have  limited   scope   for         furthering  their  career  will  be  given         preference."

       The High Court after stating the law  laid  down  by this  Court in various decisions including Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India and others (AIR 1978 SC 597), Ajay Hasia  vs. Khallid  Mujib Sehravardi and others (AIR 1981 SC 487), R.D. Shetty Vs.  The International Airport Authority of India and others (AIR 1979 SC 1628), Union of India and  another  etc. Vs.  Tulsi  Ram etc.  (1985 (3) SCC 398), held that impugned Army Order is not based  on  reasonable  classification  and denial  of  study  leave  to  Junior  Commissioned Officers, Non-Commissioned  Officers  and  other  ranks  is  not  only irrational  and  arbitrary  and  the  classification  is not founded on an intelligible different but the same  also  has no  rational relation with the object sought to be achieved. According to High Court, benefit of study leave must be made applicable equally to all.

       The Army authorities  have  given  reasons  for  not making  available  the  benefit  of study leave to the other categories of officers except Commissioned Officers.  It has been categorically stated that for officers of  other  rank, there are other institutions where courses are conducted for these  categories of personnel and by sending them for these courses, proper care is taken to ensure  efficiency  in  the armed forces.    In  fact,  the  petitioner has admitted, as stated in the writ petition, that tow weeks’ Computer Course in Jodhpur University was organised by the Army Authorities.

       It has also been stated in the  counter  that  there cannot  be  any  dispute that character and duties of Junior Commissioned  Officers  and  Non-Commissioned  Officers  are different  as  compared  to  that  of  regular  Commissioned officers.  If the competent authority  thought  it  fir  and proper  that  case for study leave for Commissioned Officers should be considered and this benefit should not be given to other categories of officers,  as  for  this  category  Army

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

Authorities  take  adequate  care for training them in their own institutions or outside, it cannot be said that impugned Order No.11 of 1987 is arbitrary or irrational.  The  object as  stated  in  the  counter,  of granting study leave is to enhance the knowledge of Commissioned Officers who  have  an important  role  to play not only to maintain discipline but also for performing their duties as  Commissioned  Officers. Therefore,  it  cannot be said that Army Order No.11 of 1987 was not founded on intelligible differentia and  it  has  no relation  with  the object sought to be achieved and we hold that the Order in question is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

       For the reasons stated above, we find merit  in  the appeal  and  accordingly  it is allowed by setting aside the impugned order. Costs on the parties.