Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.41 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Jammu & Kashmir vs Triloki Nath Khosa & Ors on 26 September, 1973
In these appeals by graduate Excise Inspectors, it is
contended that there was good and substantial reason for
maintaining the ratio between graduate and non-graduate
Officers, and the history of the evolution of the service
supported the maintenance of such ratio, and that the High
Court proceeded erroneously in assuming that the observance
of the ratio between graduates and non-graduates produced an
invidious discrimination violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the
Constitution. We are referred to Mohammad Shujat Ali & Ors.
etc. v. Union of India & Ors. etc., [1975] 1 SCR 449 where
this Court upheld the differentiation between graduate
supervisors and non-graduate supervisors for the purpose of
promotion as Assistant Engineers. But it is clear that this
was on the ground that the two categories of supervisors had
been kept distinct and apart under the Cadre Rules from the
beginning, with different pay scales and different treatment
for the purpose of promotion. Reference was also made of
State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa & Ors.,
[1974] 1 SCR 771, but it was held there that having regard
to the object of achieving administrative efficiency in the.
Engineering Service it was a just qualification to maintain
a distinction between Assistant Engineers who were degree
holders and those who were merely diploma holders.
S. L. Sachdev & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 28 October, 1980
In S.L.
Sachdev & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., [1981] 1 SCR 971
again the discrimination between UDCs drawn from Audit
Offices and other UDCs in the matter of the eligibility
qualification for promotion was justified on the basis that
the one enjoyed greater experience and that the distinction
based on length of service was directly related to the
object of the classification. In Col. A.S. Iyer and Others
v.V. Balasubramanyam and Others, [1980] 1 SCC 634 upon which
reliance
208
has been placed by the Appellants, the recruits were from
two different sources which had not completely fused into
one integrated service but were instead allowed to maintain
their separate identity, and regard was had to their basic
functional character, operational capabilities and 'futuris-
tic' uses to support the differential treatment between
military engineers and civilian engineers. H.H. Shri Swamiji
of Shri Admar Mutt, etc.
Motor General Traders & Anr. Etc. Etc vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. Etc. Etc on 26 October, 1983
v. The Commissioner, Hindu Reli-
gious & Charitable Endowments Department & Ors., [1980] 1
SCR 368 is a case where we find it difficult to see any
argument in favour of the appellants, for the passage there-
in to which our attention has been drawn specifically al-
ludes to the circumstance that the passing of time results
in altering a fact situation which has the consequence of
wearing out the basis on which the differentiation is found-
ed. So also in Motor General Traders and Anr. v. State of
Andhra Pradesh & Others, [1984] 1 SCC 222 it was observed by
this Court that an exemption provision initially valid could
become discriminatory where with the passage of time the
nexus with the object did not survive any longer..
We have also heard submissions made by learned counsel
for the appellants in Civil Appeals Nos. 1554 and 1556 of
1981, and they have elaborated on the points raised by
learned counsel in Civil Appeal No. 1553 of 1981 with some
differences of nuance and emphasis. In essence, the conten-
tion remains the same.
1