{"id":226316,"date":"1967-09-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1967-09-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-a-rajendran-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-29-september-1967"},"modified":"2015-03-18T10:48:07","modified_gmt":"2015-03-18T05:18:07","slug":"c-a-rajendran-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-29-september-1967","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-a-rajendran-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-29-september-1967","title":{"rendered":"C. A. Rajendran vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 September, 1967"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
C. A. Rajendran vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 September, 1967<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1968 AIR 507, \t\t 1968 SCR (1) 721<\/div>\n
Author: V Ramaswami<\/div>\n
Bench: Wanchoo, K.N. (Cj), Bachawat, R.S., Ramaswami, V., Mitter, G.K., Hegde, K.S.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nC. A. RAJENDRAN\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n29\/09\/1967\n\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMI, V.\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMI, V.\nWANCHOO, K.N. (CJ)\nBACHAWAT, R.S.\nMITTER, G.K.\nHEGDE, K.S.\n\nCITATION:\n 1968 AIR  507\t\t  1968 SCR  (1) 721\n CITATOR INFO :\n F\t    1976 SC 490\t (25,26,106,210,212)\n RF\t    1981 SC 298\t (92)\n E&R\t    1985 SC1495\t (59)\n R\t    1992 SC   1\t (87,88,92,121)\n\n\nACT:\nConstitution of India, Arts. 14 and 16(4)-Whether Art. 16(4)\nconfers\t a right on scheduled castes and tribes or  only  an\nenabling   provision-Provision\tmade for no  reservation  of\nposts  for backward classes in Class I and II posts only  in\nlower class service whether discriminatory.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nBy an office memorandum of the Central Government issued  on\nthe  4th  January  1957,  in  respect  of  posts  filled  by\npromotion   through  competitive  examinations\tlimited\t  to\ndepartmental candidates, reservations at 12-1\/2% and  5-1\/2%\nof   vacancies\twere  provided\tfor  Scheduled\tCastes\t and\nScheduled   Tribes  respectively.   By\tan  earlier   office\nmemorandum  of the 7th May 1955, in regard to promotions  on\nthe  basis  of\tseniority subject to fitness  and  those  by\nselection,   no\t reservations  were  provided  but   certain\nconcessions were allowed to members of the backward classes.\nAfter  the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of\t the\nGeneral\t Manager, Southern Railway v. Rangachari,<\/a>  [1962]  2\nS.C.R.\t 586,  the  matter  was\t reviewed  by  the   Central\nGovernment  and\t it was advised that there  was\t no  consti-\ntutional  compulsion  to  make\treservations  for  Scheduled\nCastes and Scheduled Tribes in posts filled by promotion and\nthe question whether the reservation should be continued  or\nwithdrawn   was\t  entirely  a  matter  of   public   policy.\nSubsequent  to\tthe review, by a further  office  memorandum\nissued on the 8th November 1963 the Government notified\t its\ndecision inter alia, that there would be no reservation\t for\nScheduled  Castes and Scheduled Tribes in appointments\tmade\nby promotions to Class I and II services as these required a\nhigher\tdegree\tof efficiency and responsibility;  but\tthat\nsuch  reservations  would  continue in\tcertain\t grades\t and\nservices in Class III and Class IV.\nThe petitioner was a class III employee of the Railway Board\nSecretariat  Service and claimed promotion to the post of  a\nSection\t Officer in Class II on the basis of  the  provision\nfor  reservations  made in the\tGovernment's  Memorandum  of\nJanuary\t 4, 1957.  By a writ petition under Art. 32  of\t the\nConstitution  he challenged the latest office memorandum  of\nNovember   8,  1963  and  prayed  for  a  restoration\twith\nretrospective  effect of the office memoranda issued on\t May\n7,  1955  and  January 4, 1957.\t It  was  contended  on\t his\nbehalf, inter alia (i) that the impugned order violated\t the\nguarantee given to the backward classes under Art. 16(4)  of\nthe Constitution; Art. 16(4) was not an exception  engrafted\non Art. 16 but was in itself a fundamental right granted  to\nthe  Scheduled\tCastes and Scheduled Tribes. (ii)  that\t the\norder\twas   discriminatory,,\tbecause\t (a)   it   made   a\ndiscrimination\tby  making  Provision  for  reservation\t  in\ncertain\t types of Class III and Class IV services  only\t and\nnot  in\t Class II and I Services, (b) reservation  was\tkept\nwithin\tClass  III and Class IV for appointments  for  which\nthere was direct recruitment and for promotions made by\t (1)\nselection, or (2) on the\n\t\t\t    722\nresult of a competitive examination limited to\tdepartmental\ncandidates,  but no reservation was provided for in  respect\nof appointments made by promotion on the basis of seniority-\ncum-fitness;  and (c) there was discrimination\tbetween\t the\nemployees belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes\nin the Railway Service and similar employees in the  Central\nSecretariat  Service  on  the  ground  that  a\t competitive\ndepartmental  examination  for\tpromotion to  the  grade  of\nSection\t Officers was not held by the Railway Board for\t the\nyears  1955-63\tbut  such an examination was  held  for\t the\nCentral\t Secretariat Service and 74 employees  belonging  to\nthe  Scheduled\tCastes\tand  Scheduled\tTribes\tsecured\t the\nbenefit of the provisions for reservation.\nHeld:\t  (i) Article 16(4) does not confer any right on the\npetitioner  and there is no constitutional duty\t imposed  on\nthe  Government to make a reservation for  Scheduled  Castes\nand  Scheduled\tTribes,\t either\t at  the  initial  stage  of\nrecruitment or at the stage of promotion.  Article 16(4)  is\nan  enabling provision and confers a discretionary power  on\nthe State to make a reservation of appointments in favour of\na  backward class of citizens which, in its opinion, is\t not\nadequately represented in the Services of the State [734  B-\nD].\nGeneral\t Manager, Southern Railway v. Rangachari,<\/a>  [1962]  2\nS.C.R. 586, referred.\n(ii) The impugned order was not discriminatory.\n(a)  In view of the requirement of efficiency in the  higher\nechelons of    service it is obvious that the classification\nmade in the impugned\t order\tbetween\t Classes  I  and  II\nwhere  no reservation was made and Classes III and IV  where\nreservation was provided for, was reasonable. [735 B, C].\n(b)  It\t is well-established that there can be a  reasonable\nclassification\tof employees for the purpose of\t appointment\nby  promotion  and  the\t classification\t as  between  direct\nrecruits and promotees is reasonable [734 H-735 A].\nMervyn\tCoutindo v. Collector of Customs, Bombay,<\/a>  [1966]  3\nS.C.R 600 and S. G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India, [1967]  2\nS.C.R. 703 referred to.\n(c)  The  petitioner being an employee of the Railway  Board\nwas governed by the rules applicable to the officers in\t the\nService to Which he belonged.  The employees of the  Central\nSecretariat  Service  belonged to a different class  and  it\ncould not be said that there was any discrimination  against\nthe petitioner in violation of Art. 14. [734 F-G].\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 11 of 1967.
\nPetition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for\t the
\nenforcement of fundamental rights.\n<\/p>\n
N.   C.\t ChatterJee, K. B. Rohtagi and S. BalakriShnan,\t for
\nPetitioner.\n<\/p>\n
C.   K. Daphtary, Attorney-General, A. S. Nambiar, R. H.
\nDhebar\t  and S. P. Nayar, for the respondents.
\nK.   B. Rohtagi, for the interveners.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    723<\/span><\/p>\n
Ramaswami,  J. In this case the petitioner, C. A.  Rajendran
\nhas   obtained\trule  from  this  Court\t calling  upon\t the
\nrespondents  to\t show  cause why a writ\t in  the  nature  of
\nmandamus  under\t Art. 32 of the Constitution should  not  be
\nissued for quashing the office Memorandum dated November  8,
\n1963  which  is Annexure C’ to the Writ\t Petition,  and\t for
\ndirecting  respondent No. 1 to restore the orders passed  by
\nit in Office Memorandum No. 2 \/11\/ 55-RPS dated May 7,\t1955
\nand  No.  5\/4\/55-SCT-(1) dated January 4, 1957.\t  Cause\t has
\nbeen  shown  by\t the  Attorney-General\ton  behalf  of\t the
\nrespondents  to\t whom notice of the rule was ordered  to  be
\ngiven.\n<\/p>\n
The  petitioner is a permanent Assistant in Grade IV  (Class
\n11,   non-gazetted-ministerial)\t  of   the   Railway   Board
\nSecretariat Service.  He was initially appointed as Accounts
\nClerk  on  February  6, 1953 in Southern  Railway.   He\t was
\nappointed as an Assistant on October 22, 1956 in the Railway
\nBoard and confirmed as Assistant on April 1, 1960.  The pay-
\nscale  of  the Assistant’s grade is Rs. 210-530.   The\tnext
\npost to which the petitioner claims promotion is that of the
\nSection\t Officer in the same service.  The post\t of  Section
\nOfficer is classified as Class II, Grade 11, Gazetted and it
\ncarries\t a  pay-scale  of Rs. 350-900.\t The  Railway  Board
\nSecretariat   Service  (Reorganisation\tand   Reinforcement)
\nScheme\twas  drawn up in consultation with the\tMinistry  of
\nHome Affairs and introduced with effect from December 1, 954
\nwith  the approval of the Union Public\tService\t Commission.
\nAccording  to the new Scheme the Railway  Board\t Secretariat
\nService consists of the following grades:
\n“Grade IV-Assistants in the scale of Rs. 210-530
\n\t (Class III non-gazetted) (to which Petitioner
\n\t      belongs).\n<\/p>\n
Grade III-Section Officers    in the scale of Rs. 350-\n<\/p>\n
\t  900 (Class II gazetted)-with effect from 1-7-1959.
\n(Section Offcers grade).\n<\/p>\n
Grade II-Amalgamated with effect from 1-7-1959 as Section
\n\t  Officers grade.\n<\/p>\n
Grade\tI-Assistant  Directors\/Under  Secretaries   in\t the
\nscale\tof   Rs.   900-1,250.\t(Grade\t III   was   called,
\nbefore 1-7-59, Assistant Superintendent in the scale of\t Rs.
\n275-500\t and the scale of Grade II Superintendents  was\t Rs.
\n530–800).”\n<\/p>\n
L\/P(N)7SCI-7
\n724<\/span>
\nRecruitment to permanent vacancies of Grade III of the Rail-
\nway  Board  Secretariat Service are made  by  the  following
\nthree\tmethods\t as  per  para\t18  of\tthe  Railway   Board
\nSecretariat Service Scheme:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “(a)  33-1\/3%  by direct\trecruitment  on\t the
\n\t      results  of the combined Examinations held  by
\n\t      the  UPSC\t for the IAS, IPS  &  other  Central
\n\t      Services Class I and Class 11.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   33-1\/3%  by\t promotion on the  basis  of
\n\t      seniority\t subject  to the  rejection  of\t the
\n\t      unfit.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (c)   33-1\/3%    by    limited\t competitive
\n\t      examination  on  the  basis of a\ttest  to  be
\n\t      prescribed  and  conducted, by  the  UPSC\t for
\n\t      Assistants\/Stenographers\tGrade 11  between  5
\n\t      years and 10 years of service in the grade  in
\n\t      the Board’s office.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Note-For\tthe  years 1961-65 only 1\/4  of\t the
\n\t      substantive  vacancies were to be\t filled-  by
\n\t      direct  recruitment  on  the  results  of\t the
\n\t      competitive examination under item (a) above.
\n\t      In   1955\t  the\tGovernment   issued   Office
\n\t      Memorandum dated May 7, 1955 (Annexure ‘E’  to
\n\t      the  Writ Petition) whereby it reaffirmed\t its
\n\t      decision that there will be no reservation for
\n\t      Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in posts
\n\t      filled   by   promotion\tbut   that   certain
\n\t      concessions  were\t to be\tgiven  to  Scheduled
\n\t      Castes  and Scheduled Tribes in the matter  of
\n\t      promotion.  The concessions were as follows:
\n\t      “(i)  While there would be no reservation\t for
\n\t      Scheduled\t Castes\t and  Scheduled\t Tribes\t  in
\n\t      regard to vacancies filled by promotion, where
\n\t      the passing of tests or examinations had\tbeen
\n\t      laid  down as a condition for  promotion,\t the
\n\t      authority prescribing the rules for the  tests
\n\t      or examinations\tmight\tissue\t suitable
\n\t      instructions  to ensure that the\tstandard  of
\n\t      qualification   in  respect  of\tmembers\t  of
\n\t      Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes was\t not
\n\t      unduly high.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (ii)  Where promotions were made on the  basis
\n\t      of  seniority  subject to\t fitness,  cases  of
\n\t      persons  belonging  to  Scheduled\t Castes\t and
\n\t      Scheduled\t Tribes\t were  to  be  judged  in  a
\n\t      sympathetic manner without applying too  rigid
\n\t      a\t standard  and\tcases  of  supersession\t  of
\n\t      Scheduled\t  Castes   and Scheduled   Tribes
\n\t      employees reviewed at a high level viz., if a,
\n\t      Scheduled Caste\/Scheduled Tribes employee\t was
\n\t      superseded in the matter of promotion to Class
\n\t      I\t and  II  posts\t filled\t on  the  basis\t  of
\n\t      seniority subject to fitness, the prior orders
\n\t      of the Minister or
\n\t\t\t\t   725<\/span>
\n\t      Deputy  Minister concerned were to  be  taken.
\n\t      If,  however, the supersession was in a  Class
\n\t      III  or  IV  post\t filled\t on  the  basis\t  of
\n\t      seniority\t subject to fitness, the matter\t was
\n\t      to  be  reported\tto the\tMinister  or  Deputy
\n\t      Minister\tconcerned  within  a  month  of\t the
\n\t      decision.\t (Ministries  were given  powers  to
\n\t      modify   this   procedure\t  to   suit    their
\n\t      requirements with the approval of the Minister
\n\t      in charge)”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In  1957  the  Government  decided  that  there\t should\t  be
\nprovision   for\t reservations  for  Scheduled\tCastes\t and
\nScheduled  Tribes  in  all  grades  of\tservices  filled  by
\npromotion   through  competitive  examination\tlimited\t  to
\ndepartmental  candidates, the quantum of  reservation  being
\n12-1\/2%\t for Scheduled Castes and 5% for  Scheduled  Tribes.
\nThe   order  of\t the  Government  is  contained\t in   Office
\nMemorandum  dated January 4, 1957, Annexure ‘D’ to the\tWrit
\nPetition.  In April, 1959 the Ministry of Railways issued an
\norder  laying  down that in the case of any  promotion\tfrom
\nClass IV to Class III and from Class III to Class 11 and for
\nany promotion from one grade to another in Class 111,  where
\nsuch  promotions  were made by “selection” and\tnot  on\t the
\nbasis\tof   ”\tseniority-cum-fitness”,\t there\t should\t  be
\nreservation for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes on
\nthe same scale as in the direct recruitment.  This order was
\nchallenged  by Rangachari by a Writ Petition under Art.\t 226
\nof  the\t Constitution which was allowed by the\tMadras\tHigh
\nCourt  and  a  writ in the nature of  mandamus\twas  granted
\nrestraining  the Railway Authorities from giving  effect  to
\nthe  order  of the Railway Board  directing  reservation  of
\nselection  posts  in  Class III of the\tRailway\t service  in
\nfavour of the members of the Scheduled Castes and  Scheduled
\nTribes.\t An appeal was brought to this Court by the  General
\nManager,  Southern  Railway (The General  Manager,  Southern
\nRailway v. Rangachari)<\/a>(1) against the judgment of the Madras
\nHigh Court and it was held in the majority judgment of\tthis
\nCourt that the impugned circulars of the Railway Board\twere
\nwithin\tthe ambit of Art. 16(4) of the Constitution and\t the
\nappeal\tmust succeed.  Consequent upon the judgment in\tthis
\ncase the matter was reviewed by the Union Government and  it
\nwas  advised that there was no constitutional compulsion  to
\nmake reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled  Tribes
\nin  posts filled by promotion and the question\twhether\t the
\nreservation should be continued or withdrawn Was entirely  a
\nmatter\tof public policy.  The Union Government came to\t the
\nconclusion that there should not be any special treatment of
\nGovernment  servants  belonging\t to  Scheduled\tCastes\tand-
\nScheduled Tribes in the matter of promotions particularly in
\npromotion  to  Class I and Class II services  which  require
\nhigher degree of efficiency and
\n(1) [1962] 2 S.C.R. 586.\n<\/p>\n
L\/P(W)78CI-7(a)
\n726<\/span>
\nresponsibility.\t  As a result of this review of\t the  matter
\nthe Central Government issued a memorandum dated November 8,
\n1963  (Annexure\t ‘C’ to the Writ Petition)  which  reads  as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “In   posts   filled  by\t promotion   through
\n\t      competitive     examinations    limited\t  to
\n\t      departmental  candidates, reservations at\t 12-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      1\/2  per cent and 5-1\/2 per cent of  vacancies
\n\t      were   provided  for  Scheduled\tCastes\t and
\n\t      Scheduled\t  Tribes  respectively\t vide\tthis
\n\t      Ministry’s  O.M. No. 5\/4\/ 55-SCT(1) dated\t 4th
\n\t      January, 1957 and para 3(iii) of the  Brochure
\n\t      issued with O.M. No. 1\/2\/61-SCT(1) dated\t27th
\n\t      April,  1962.  In regard to promotions on\t the
\n\t      basis  of\t seniority subject to  fitness,\t and
\n\t      those   by  selection  no\t reservations\twere
\n\t      provided, but certain concessions were allowed
\n\t\t\t    to\tpersons belonging to scheduled\tca
\nstes  and
\n\t      scheduled tribes vide Ministry of Home Affairs
\n\t      Office  Memorandum No. 2\/11\/55-RPS  dated\t 7th
\n\t      May, 1955 (as amended from time to time),\t No.
\n\t      1\/1\/59-RPS  dated\t 17th March,  1958  and\t No.
\n\t      1\/4\/60-RPS  dated 5th March 1960 and paras  20
\n\t      and 21 of the aforesaid brochure.\n<\/p>\n
\t      2.    The\t Government of India  have  reviewed
\n\t      their  policy  in regard to  reservations\t and
\n\t      other concessions granted to scheduled  castes
\n\t      and  scheduled  tribes  in  posts\t filled\t  by
\n\t      promotion\t and  have, in supersession  of\t all
\n\t      previous\torders\tin this regard,\t decided  as
\n\t      follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (1)   Class I and Class II appointments:\n<\/p>\n
\t      (a)   There   will  be  no   reservation\t for
\n\t      Scheduled\t Castes\t and  Scheduled\t Tribes\t  in
\n\t      appointments  made by promotion to a Class  11
\n\t      or  a  higher service of post whether  on\t the
\n\t      basis of seniority-cum-fitness, selection,  or
\n\t      competitive     examination     limited\t  to
\n\t      departmental candidates.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (b)   In the case of promotions made in or  to
\n\t      Class I or Class II on the basis of  seniority
\n\t      subject\t to   fitness,\t  cases\t   involving
\n\t      supersession of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
\n\t      Tribe Officers, will, however, continue to  be
\n\t      submitted\t for prior approval of the  Minister
\n\t      or Dy.  Minister concerned.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (2)   Class III and Class IV appointments:\n<\/p>\n
\t      (a)   In\tthe cases of Class III and Class  IV
\n\t      appointments,  in grades or services to  which
\n\t      there is no direct recruitment whatever, there
\n\t      will  be\treservation at 121 and, 5  per\tcent
\n\t      vacancies\t for Scheduled Castes and  Scheduled
\n\t      tribes respectively in promotions made by\t (i)
\n\t      selection\t  or   (ii)  on\t  the\tresults\t  of
\n\t      competitive     examinations    limited\t  to
\n\t      departmental candidates.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t   727<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      (b)   Lists of Scheduled Castes and  Scheduled
\n\t      Tribes Officers should be drawn up  separately
\n\t      to  fill\tthe  reserved  vacancies;   officers
\n\t      belonging\t to these classes will\tbe  adjudged
\n\t      separately  and not along with other  officers
\n\t      and  if  they should be included in  the\tlist
\n\t      irrespective  of\ttheir merit as\tcompared  to
\n\t      that  of\tthe  other  officers’.\t  Promotions
\n\t      against reserved vacancies will continue to be
\n\t      subject  to  the\tcandidates  satisfying\t the
\n\t      prescribed minimum standards.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (e)   There   will   be  no   reservation\t  in
\n\t      appointments made by promotion on the basis of
\n\t      seniority\t  subject  to  fitness;\t but   cases
\n\t      involving supersession of Scheduled Caste\t and
\n\t      Scheduled\t Tribe Officers, if any, will as  at
\n\t      present  be  reported within a  month  to\t the
\n\t      Minister\tor  Deputy  Minister  concerned\t for
\n\t      information.\n<\/p>\n
\t      3.    The above decisions take effect from the
\n\t      date
\n\t      of   issue  of  these  orders   except   where
\n\t      selections   by  the  Departmental   Promotion
\n\t      Committee\t under the old orders  have  already
\n\t      been   made,  or\trules  for   a\t competitive
\n\t      examination published.\n<\/p>\n
\t      The contention of the petitioner is that\tthis
\n\t      Office  Memorandum (Annexure ‘C’ to  the\tWrit
\n\t      Petition)\t violates  the\tguarantee  given  to
\n\t      backward\tclasses\t under\tArt.  16(4)  of\t the
\n\t      Constitution  and is illegal and ultra  vires.
\n\t      It  was  alleged\tthat  the  impugned   Office
\n\t      Memorandum     (Annexure\t  ‘C’)\t  made\t   a
\n\t      discrimination   by   making   provision\t for
\n\t      reservations in certain types of Class III and
\n\t      IV  Services  only and not in Class II  and  I
\n\t      Services,\t   and\t the   classification\t was
\n\t      discriminatory and there was no rational nexus
\n\t      sought  to be achieved by the impugned  Office
\n\t      Memorandum.   The argument was  also  stressed
\n\t      that,   Art’  16(4)  was\tnot   an   exception
\n\t      engrafted\t on  Art. 16, but was  in  itself  a
\n\t      fundamental right granted to Scheduled  Castes
\n\t      and Scheduled Tribes and backward classes\t and
\n\t      as  such\tit  was\t untrammeled  by  any  other
\n\t      provision of the Constitution.  The petitioner
\n\t      accordingly  prays for the grant of a writ  in
\n\t      the  nature  of mandamus quashing\t the  Office
\n\t      Memorandum   (Annexure  ‘C’)   and   directing
\n\t      respondent  No. 1 to  restore  retrospectively
\n\t      the orders made in its Office Memoranda No. 2\/
\n\t      11\/55-R.PS  dated May 7, 1955 and No.  5\/4\/55-
\n\t      SCT-I  dated January 4, 1957 and, to  consider
\n\t      the  claim of the petitioner as member of\t the
\n\t      Scheduled\t taste\tfor  promotion\tas   Section
\n\t      Officer  in  the\tRailway\t Board\t Secretariat
\n\t      Service.\n<\/p>\n
\t       Article 14 of the Constitution states:
\n\t      “The  State  shall  not  deny  to\t any  person
\n\t      equality\t before\t  the  law  or\t the   equal
\n\t      protection of the laws within the territory of
\n\t      India.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t   728<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      Article 15 provides:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “(1).    The  State  shall  not\tdiscriminate
\n\t      against\tany  citizen  on  grounds  only\t  of
\n\t      religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth  or
\n\t      any of them.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (2)<\/span>
\n\t      (3)<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      (4)   Nothing in this article or in clause (2)
\n\t      of  Article  29 shall prevent the\t State\tfrom
\n\t      making   any   special   provision   for\t the
\n\t      advancement of any socially and  educationally
\n\t      backward classes of citizens or for the  Sche-
\n\t      duled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.”
\n\t      Article 16 is to the following effect:
\n\t      “(1)  There shall be equality  of\t opportunity
\n\t      for  all\tcitizens  in  matters  relating\t  to
\n\t      employment or appointment to any office  under
\n\t      the State.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (2)   No\tcitizen\t shall, on grounds  only  of
\n\t      religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place ‘of
\n\t      birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible
\n\t      for,  or discriminated against in respect\t of,
\n\t      any employment or office under the State.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (3)<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      (4)   Nothing  in this article  shall  prevent
\n\t      the  State from making any provision  for\t the
\n\t      reservation of appointments or posts in favour
\n\t      of  any backward class of citizens  which,  in
\n\t      the  ‘opinion of the State, is not  adequately
\n\t      represented in the services under the State.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (5)<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      Article 335 reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The  claims of the members of  the  Scheduled
\n\t      Castes and the Scheduled Tribes shall be taken
\n\t      into  consideration,  consistently  with\t the
\n\t      maintenance  of efficiency of  administration,
\n\t      in the making of appointments to services\t and
\n\t      posts  in connection with the affairs  of\t the
\n\t      Union or of a State.”\n<\/p>\n
The first question to be considered in this case is  whether
\nthere  is a constitutional duty or obligation  imposed\tupon
\nthe  Union  Government to make\treservations  for  Scheduled
\nCastes\tand Scheduled Tribes either at the initial stage  of
\nrecruitment  and  at the stage of promotion in\tthe  Railway
\nBoard Secretariat Service Scheme.\n<\/p>\n
The  relevant law on the subject ‘is  well-settled,.   Under
\nArt.  16  of the Constitution, there shall  be\tequality  of
\nopportunity   for  all\tcitizens  in  matters  relating\t  to
\nemployment  or appointment to any office under the State  or
\nto promotion from one office to a higher office\t thereunder.
\nArticles 14, 15 and 16 from part of the
\n729<\/span>
\nsame  constitutional code of guarantees and supplement\teach
\nother.\tIn other words, Art. 16 of the Constitution is\tonly
\nan  incident of the application of the concept\tof  equality
\nenshrined.  in\tArt.  14 thereof.  It gives  effect  to\t the
\ndoctrine  of  equality\tin the\tmatter\tof  appointment\t and
\npromotion.   It\t follows  therefore  that  there  can  be  a
\nreasonable  classification of the employees for the  purpose
\nof  appointment and promotion.\tTo put it  differently,\t the
\nequality  of  opportunity  guaranteed by  Art.\t16(1)  means
\nequality as between members of the same class of  employees,
\nand  not equality between members of  separate,\t independent
\nclasses.   Dealing  with the extent of\tprotection  of\tArt.
\n16(1)  of  the Constitution, this Court\t stated\t in  General
\nManager, Southern Railway v.  Rangachari<\/a>(1) at pages 596-597
\nof the Report as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “It  would, be clear that matters relating  to
\n\t      employment  cannot  be confined- only  to\t the
\n\t      initial\tmatters\t  prior\t to   the   act\t  of
\n\t      employment.   The\t narrow\t construction  would
\n\t      confine  the application of Art. 16(1) to\t the
\n\t      initial employment and nothing else; but\tthat
\n\t      clearly is only one of the matters relating to
\n\t      employment.   The\t other matters\trelating  to
\n\t      employment  would inevitably be the  provision
\n\t      as  to  the salary and  periodical  increments
\n\t      therein, terms as to leave, as to gratuity, as
\n\t      to   pension   and   as\tto   the   age\t  of
\n\t      superannuation.\t These\t are   all   matters
\n\t      relating to employment and they are, and\tmust
\n\t      be.  deemed to be included in  the  expression
\n\t      ‘matters\trelating to employment’\t in  Article
\n\t      16(1).   What  Article  16(1)  guarantees\t  is
\n\t      equality\tof  opportunity to all\tcitizens  in
\n\t      respect\tof  all\t the  matters  relating\t  to
\n\t      employment illustrated by us as well as to  an
\n\t      appointment to any office as explained by\t us.
\n\t      The  three provisions Article 16(1),  Art.  14
\n\t      and Art. 15(1) form part of the same constitu-
\n\t      tional code of guarantees and supplement\teach
\n\t      other.   If  that\t be so, there  would  be  no
\n\t      difficulty   in  holding\tthat   the   matters
\n\t      relating\t to  employment\t must  include\t all
\n\t      matters  in relation to employment both  prior
\n\t      and  subsequent, to the employment  which\t are
\n\t      incidental to the employment and form part  of
\n\t      the terms and conditions of such employment.”
\n\t      The Court further observed in that case:
\n\t      “Article\t16(2) prohibits\t discrimination\t and
\n\t      thus assures the effective enforcement of\t the
\n\t      fundamental  right of equality of\t opportunity
\n\t      guaranteed  by Article 16(1).  The  words,  in
\n\t      respect  of  any employment used in  Article
\n\t      16(2)  must,  therefore, include\tall  matters
\n\t      relating to employment as specified in Article
\n\t      16(1).   There  fore, we\tare  satisfied\tthat
\n\t      promotion to selection posts is included\tboth
\n\t      under Article 16(1) and (2)”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(1) [1962] 2 S.C.R. 586,
\n730<\/span>
\nIt  is manifest that the scope of cl. (4) of Art. 16 is\t not
\nco-extensive with the guarantee of equality offered to\tall
\ncitizens  by cl. (1) of that Article.  In other\t words,\t cl.
\n(4)  of Art. 16 does not cover the entire field\t covered  by
\ncls. (1) and (2) of that Article.  For instance, some of the
\nmatters relating to employment in respect of which  equality
\nof  opportunity has been guaranteed by cls. (1) and  (2)  do
\nnot  fall within the mischief of the exception cl. (4).\t  As
\nregards\t the  conditions of service relating  to  employment
\nsuch  as  salary, increment, gratuity, pension\tand  age  of
\nsuperannuation, there can be no exception even in regard  to
\nthe backward classes of citizens.  The only matter which cl.
\n(4)   covers   is  a  provision\t for  the   reservation\t  of
\nappointments in favour of a backward, class of citizens.  It
\nis  well-settled  that\tcl. (4) of Art.16  is  an  exception
\nclause and is not an independent provision and it has to  be
\nstrictly  construed  (See  the judgment\t of  this  Court  in
\nGeneral Manager, Southern Railway v. Rangachari)<\/a>(2).  It  is
\nalso  apparent\tthat the language of Art. 16(4)\t has  to  be
\ninterpreted in the context and background of Art. 335 of the
\nConstitution.\tIn  other words, in making a  provision\t for
\nreservation  of appointments or posts the Government has  to
\ntake  into consideration not only the claims of the  members
\nof  the\t backward  classes  but\t also  the  maintenance\t  of
\nefficiency of administration which is a matter of  paramount
\nimportance.   In this connection, GaJendragadkar, J., as  he
\nthen  was,  speaking for the majority  in  General  Manager,
\nSouthern  Railway v. Rangachari,<\/a>(1) observed at page 606  of
\nthe Report as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “It   is\ttrue  that  in\tproviding  for\t the
\n\t      reservation  of  appointments or\tposts  under
\n\t      Art.   16(4)  the\t State\thas  to\t take\tinto
\n\t      consideration the claims of the members of the
\n\t      backward\t classes   consistently\t  with\t the
\n\t      maintenance     of    the\t   efficiency\t  of
\n\t      administration.  It must not be forgotten that
\n\t      the  efficiency of administration is  of\tsuch
\n\t      paramount\t importance that it would be  unwise
\n\t      and  impermissible to make any reservation  at
\n\t      the  cost\t of  efficiency\t of  administration.
\n\t      That  undoubtedly is the effect of  Art.\t335.
\n\t      Reservation  of  appointments  or\t posts\t may
\n\t      theoretically   and,  conceivably\t mean\tsome
\n\t      impairment   of  efficiency;  but\t  the\trisk
\n\t      involved\t in   sacrificing   efficiency\t  of
\n\t      administration  must always be borne  in\tmind
\n\t      when  any State sets about making a  provision
\n\t      for reservation of appointments or posts.\t  It
\n\t      is also true that the reservation which can be
\n\t      made  under Art. 16(4) is intended  merely  to
\n\t      give   adequate  representation  to   backward
\n\t      communities.  It cannot be used for creating
\n\t      monopolies  or  for unduly  or  illegitimately
\n\t      disturbing  the legitimate interests of  other
\n\t      employees.   In  exercising the  powers  under
\n\t      Art.    16(4)   the   problem   of    adequate
\n\t      representation  of  the  back-ward  class\t  of
\n\t      citizens must be fairly and
\n\t      (1)   [1962) 2 S.C.R. 586.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t\t   731<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      objectively  considered  and an  attempt\tmust
\n\t      always be made to strike a reasonable  balance
\n\t      between the claims of backward classes and the
\n\t      claims  of  other\t employees as  well  as\t the
\n\t      important\t consideration of the efficiency  of
\n\t      administration.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      The  same view has been reiterated in a  later
\n\t      case,  M.\t R. Balaji and Others  v.  State  of
\n\t      Mysore<\/a>(1), in which Gajendragadkar, J., as  he
\n\t      then  was,  speaking for the  unanimous  Court
\n\t      stated as follows:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “Whilst we are dealing with this question,  it
\n\t      would  be relevant to add that the  provisions
\n\t      of  Art.\t15(4) are similar to those  of\tArt.
\n\t      16(4) which fell to be considered in the\tcase
\n\t      of  The General Manager, Southern\t Railway  v.
\n\t      Rangachari<\/a>  ([1962]  2 S.C.R. 586).   In\tthat
\n\t      case, the majority decision of this Court held
\n\t      that   the  power\t of  reservation  which\t  is
\n\t      conferred on the State under Art. 16(4) can be
\n\t      exercised\t by the State in a proper  case\t not
\n\t      only   by\t  providing   for   reservation\t  of
\n\t      appointments,   but  also\t by  providing\t for
\n\t      reservation   of\t selection   posts.\tThis
\n\t      conclusion  was reached on the basis  that  it
\n\t      served to give effect to the intention of\t the
\n\t      Constitution-makers    to\t   make\t    adequate
\n\t      safeguards  for  the advancement\tof  Backward
\n\t      Classes  and to securer their adequate  repre-
\n\t      sentation in the Services.  The judgment shows
\n\t      that  the only point which was raised for\t the
\n\t      decision\tof  this  Court\t in  that  case\t was
\n\t      whether the reservation made was outside\tArt.
\n\t      16(4)  and that posed the bare question  about
\n\t      the   construction   of\tArt.   16(4).\t The
\n\t      propriety, the reasonableness or the wisdom of
\n\t      the impugned order was not questioned, because
\n\t      it  was not the respondent’s case that if\t the
\n\t      order was justified under Art. 16(4), it was a
\n\t      fraud  on the Constitution.  Even so,  it\t was
\n\t      pointed\tout   in  the  judgment\t  that\t the
\n\t      efficiency  of  administration is\t of  such  a
\n\t      paramount importance that it would be  unwise.
\n\t      and  impermissible to make any reservation  at
\n\t      the  cost\t of  efficiency\t of  administration;
\n\t      that,  it\t was  stated,  was  undoubtedly\t the
\n\t      effect  of Art. 335.  Therefore, what is\ttrue
\n\t      in  regard  to Art. 15(4) is equally  true  in
\n\t      regard  to Art. 16(4).  There can be no  doubt
\n\t      that the Constitution-makers assumed, as\tthey
\n\t      were  entitled to, that while making  adequate
\n\t      reservation  under Art. 16(4), care  would  be
\n\t      taken   not  to  provide\t for   unreasonable,
\n\t      excessive or extravagant reservation, for that
\n\t      would, by eliminating general competition in a
\n\t      large   filed  and  by  creating\t wide-spread
\n\t      dissatisfaction\t amongst   the\t  employees,
\n\t      materially affect efficiency.  Therefore,
\n\t      (1) [1963] Supp.\t1 S.C.R. 439.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      732<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      like  the\t special provision  improperly\tmade
\n\t      under Art. 15(4), reservation made under\tArt.
\n\t      16(4)  beyond the permissible  and  legitimate
\n\t      limits  would be liable to be challenged as  a
\n\t      fraud on the Constitution.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      In  the  present\tcase  the  respondents\thave
\n\t      alleged in the counteraffidavit that after the
\n\t      decision\tof  Rangachari’s(1) case  the  Union
\n\t      Government  reviewed  the whole  position\t and
\n\t      decided  that there should not be any  special
\n\t      treatment to Government servants belonging  to
\n\t      the  Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes  in
\n\t      the  matter of promotion to Class I and  Class
\n\t      II  Services  which require higher  degree  of
\n\t      efficiency and responsibility.  It was  stated
\n\t      in   the\tcounter-affidavit  that\t the   Union
\n\t      Government  was  satisfied  that\t reservation
\n\t      quotas  of  promotion were  harmful  from\t the
\n\t      point of view of efficiency of Railway Service
\n\t      and   therefore  the  Government\tissued\t the
\n\t      memorandum dated November 8, 1963\t withdrawing
\n\t      the  reservation quotas for  Scheduled  Castes
\n\t      and  Scheduled  Tribes officers  made  in\t the
\n\t      previous Government orders.  On behalf of\t the
\n\t      petitioner Mr. N. C. Chatterjee submitted\t the
\n\t      argument that the provision contained in\tArt.
\n\t      16(4)  of\t the Constitution was  in  itself  a
\n\t      fundamental  right  of Scheduled\tCastes\tand,
\n\t      Scheduled\t Tribes and it was not open  to\t the
\n\t      Government to withdraw the benefits  conferred
\n\t      on  Scheduled Castes and Scheduled  Tribes  by
\n\t      the  Government orders dated May 7,  1955\t and
\n\t      January  4, 1957.\t The learned  Counsel  based
\n\t      his argument on the following observations  of
\n\t      Subba Rao, J., as he then was, in the minority
\n\t      judgment of this Court in T. Devadasan v.\t The
\n\t      Union of India and Another<\/a>(1):\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “The expression ‘nothing in this article’ is a
\n\t      legislative device to express its intention in
\n\t      a\t most emphatic way that the power  conferred
\n\t      thereunder  is not limited in any way  by\t the
\n\t      main  provision but falls outside it.  It\t has
\n\t      not  really carved out an exception,  but\t has
\n\t      preserved\t a power untrammelled by  the  other
\n\t      provisions of the Article.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
But  the majority judgment of this Court in that  case\ttook
\nthe  view that Art. 16(4) was an exception and it could\t not
\nbe  so\tconstrued  as to render\t nugatory  or  illusory\t the
\nguarantee conferred by Art. 16(1).  It was pointed out\tthat
\nthough under Art. 16(4) of the Constitution a reservation of
\na  reasonable  percentage  of  posts  for  members  of\t the
\nScheduled Castes and Tribes was within the competence of the
\nState, the method evolved by the Government must be such  as
\nto  strike  a reasonable balance between the claims  of\t the
\nbackward classes and claims of other employees, in order  to
\neffectuate the guarantee contained in Art. 16(1). and for
\n(1)  [1962] 2 S.C.R. 586.\n<\/p>\n
 (2) [1964] 4 S.C.R, 680, at page 700.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    733<\/span><\/p>\n
this  purpose  each  year of recruitment would\thave  to  be
\nconsidered  by itself.\tAccordingly, the Court\tstruck\tdown
\nthe  “Carry forward rule” on the ground that it\t contravened
\nArts. 14, 16 and 335 of the Constitution.  In any case, even
\nthe minority judgment of Subba Rao, J. does not support\t the
\ncontention of Mr. N. C. Chatterjee that Art. 16(4) confers a
\nright  on the backward classes and not merely a power to  be
\nexercised  at the discretion of the Government for making  a
\nprovision  for\treservation  of\t appointments  for  backward
\nclasses\t  which,   in  its  opinion,  are   not\t  adequately
\nrepresented  in the Services of the State.   Our  conclusion
\ntherefore  is that Art. 16(4) does not confer any  right  on
\nthe  petitioner and there is no constitutional duty  imposed
\non the Government to make a reservation for Scheduled Castes
\nand  Scheduled\tTribes,\t either\t at  the  initial  stage  of
\nrecruitment  or at the stage of promotion.  In other  words,
\nArt.   16(4)  is  an  enabling\tprovision  and\t confers   a
\ndiscretionary  power on the State to make a  reservation  of
\nappointments in favour of backward class of citizens  which,
\nin  its\t opinion,  is  not  adequately\trepresented  in\t the
\nServices  of the State.\t We are accordingly of\tthe  opinion
\nthat the petitioner is unable to make good his submission on
\nthis aspect of the case.\n<\/p>\n
We  shall  next deal with the contention of  the  petitioner
\nthat there is discrimination between the employees belonging
\nto  Scheduled  Castes and Scheduled Tribes  in\tthe  Railway
\nService\t and  similar employees in the\tCentral\t Secretariat
\nService.   It  was said that  the  competitive\tdepartmental
\nexamination  for promotion to the grade of Section  Officers
\nwas  not held by the Railway Board for the years  1955-1963.
\nOn the contrary, such examinations were held for the Central
\nSecretariat Service and 74 employees belonging to  Scheduled
\nCastes\tand  Scheduled\tTribes secured the  benefit  of\t the
\nprovisions  of\treservation.  In our opinion,  there  is  no
\nsubstance  in  this  contention.  The  petitioner  being  an
\nemployee  of  the Railway Board’ is governed  by  the  rules
\napplicable  to\tthe  officers in the  Service  to  which  he
\nbelongs.   The employees of the Central Secretariat  Service
\nbelong to a different class and it is not possible to accept
\nthe  argument that there is any discrimination\tagainst\t the
\npetitioner  and violation of the guarantee under Art. 14  of
\nthe Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
It  was also contended by Mr. N. C. Chatterjee that the\t im-
\npugned order, Annexure ‘C’, arbitrarily discriminates  among
\nClass III employees themselves and Class IV employees  them-
\nselves.\t  Under the impugned order reservation is  kept\t for
\nappointments  for which there is direct recruitment and\t for
\npromotions made by (1) selection, or (2) on the result of  a
\ncompetitive examination limited to departmental\t candidates.
\nThere  is no reservation for appointments made by  promotion
\non  the\t basis of seniority-cum-fitness.   In  our  opinion,
\nthere  is no justification for this argument as it is  well-
\nestablished that there can be a reasonable
\n734<\/span>
\nclassification\tof employees for the purpose of\t appointment
\nby  promotion  and  the\t classification\t as  between  direct
\nrecruits  and promotees is reasonable (See the decisions  of
\nthis  Court in Mervyn Coutindo v. Collector  of\t Customs<\/a>(1),
\nBombay, and in S. G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India(2).
\nA grievance was also made by Mr. N. C. Chatterjee that there
\nis discrimination as between Classes I and II where there is
\nno reservation and Classes III and TV where reservation\t has
\nbeen  made for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled  Tribes.\t The
\nrespondent stated in the counter-affidavit that in Classes I
\nand   II   posts   a  higher  degree   of   efficiency\t and
\nresponsibility\twas required and therefore  reservation\t was
\nconsidered harmful so far as  Classes\tI   and\t  II\twere
\nconcerned.  In view of the requirement of efficiency in\t the
\nhigher\t echelons  of  Service\tit  is\tobvious\t  that\t the
\nclassification made in the impugned order is reasonable and-
\nthe  argument of Mr. Chatterjee on this point must  also  be
\nrejected as untenable.\n<\/p>\n
For  the reasons expressed we hold that the  petitioner\t has
\nmade  out no case for the grant of a writ under Art.  32  of
\nthe Constitution.  The application accordingly fails but, in
\nthe circumstances of the case, we do not propose to make any
\norder as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
R.K.P.S.\t       Appeal dismissed.\n(1) [1966] 3 S.C.R. 600.\n(2)  [1967] 2 S.C.R. 703.\n735<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India C. A. Rajendran vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 September, 1967 Equivalent citations: 1968 AIR 507, 1968 SCR (1) 721 Author: V Ramaswami Bench: Wanchoo, K.N. (Cj), Bachawat, R.S., Ramaswami, V., Mitter, G.K., Hegde, K.S. PETITIONER: C. A. RAJENDRAN Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-226316","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nC. A. Rajendran vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 September, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-a-rajendran-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-29-september-1967\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"C. A. Rajendran vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 September, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-a-rajendran-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-29-september-1967\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1967-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-18T05:18:07+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"28 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-a-rajendran-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-29-september-1967#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-a-rajendran-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-29-september-1967\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"C. A. Rajendran vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 September, 1967\",\"datePublished\":\"1967-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-18T05:18:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-a-rajendran-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-29-september-1967\"},\"wordCount\":4706,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-a-rajendran-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-29-september-1967#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-a-rajendran-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-29-september-1967\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-a-rajendran-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-29-september-1967\",\"name\":\"C. A. Rajendran vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 September, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1967-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-18T05:18:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-a-rajendran-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-29-september-1967#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-a-rajendran-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-29-september-1967\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-a-rajendran-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-29-september-1967#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"C. A. Rajendran vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 September, 1967\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"C. A. Rajendran vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 September, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-a-rajendran-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-29-september-1967","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"C. A. Rajendran vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 September, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-a-rajendran-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-29-september-1967","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1967-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-18T05:18:07+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"28 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-a-rajendran-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-29-september-1967#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-a-rajendran-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-29-september-1967"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"C. A. Rajendran vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 September, 1967","datePublished":"1967-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-18T05:18:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-a-rajendran-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-29-september-1967"},"wordCount":4706,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-a-rajendran-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-29-september-1967#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-a-rajendran-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-29-september-1967","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-a-rajendran-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-29-september-1967","name":"C. A. Rajendran vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 September, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1967-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-18T05:18:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-a-rajendran-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-29-september-1967#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-a-rajendran-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-29-september-1967"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-a-rajendran-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-29-september-1967#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"C. A. Rajendran vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 September, 1967"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/226316","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=226316"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/226316\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=226316"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=226316"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=226316"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}