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 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
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
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
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
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.