Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

- 12 -

between the appointees appointed on compassionate ground and the appointees inducted in service through direct recruitment, reason being that the moment a candidate having been appointed on compassionate ground, will have similar status as of the appointees through direct recruitment and hence, there cannot be any discrimination and, therefore, depriving the writ petitioners by inserting a clause that a candidate appointed through direct recruitment will only be eligible to participate in the Limited Competitive Examination, cannot be considered to be a reasonable classification, rather it is unreasonable classification and the same is in the teeth of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(iii) Whether the teachers can be allowed to participate in the process of selection for appointment to the post of Deputy Collector?

25. All the three issues, the ground has been taken of unreasonable classification and, as such, the same hit Article 14 of the Constitution of India, therefore, this Court, in order to consider as to whether the decision of the State Government will fall under unreasonable classification or not, deems it fit and proper to refer about the principle laid down under Article 14 of the Constitution of India as to in which circumstances the classification will be said to be reasonable and unreasonable.

35. As has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court the reasonable and unreasonable classification, as referred hereinabove, this Court, therefore, is now proceeding to examine as to whether

- 66 -

non-insertion of the Government servant working in the State of Jharkhand in the Group-ga service is by way of unreasonable classification?

The fact is not in dispute that the provision of Rule 30 of Jharkhand Service Code has been referred which defines the meaning of ministerial staff, which reads as hereunder:-

39. This Court, in view of the aforesaid discussion and taking into consideration the principle laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court about the unreasonable classification, is of the view that making of such discrimination does not fall under the category of unreasonable classification and, as such, is not in the teeth of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

40. The question has been raised that teachers have not been inducted in the eligibility criteria to participate in the process of selection and, therefore, the provision of Rule 17(k(ii) is invalid also on that ground that the teachers have been discriminated by not allowing them to participate in the process of selection.