- (1.) The petitioner No. 1. A. K. Banerii. is working as a Senior Welfare Inspector in the Office of the Chief Personnel Officer which is in class III grade in the personnel department. Petitioner No. 2 B. P. Pandev is also working as Office Superintendent in the Chief Personnel Officer's Office a post borne in grade III of the Personnel Branch. Both the officers were eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Personnel Officer in grade II. a gazetted Post. The Detitioners have challenged the validity of the Indian Railways Personnel Officer (Class II). Recruitment Rules. 1965. as amended in 1967. 1973 and 1974
(2.) The Indian Railways Personnel Officers (Class II) Recruitment Rules. 1965 as amended in 1967. 1973 and 1974 lav down field of eligibility for promotion from grade III to grade II posts in the Personnel Branch. The manner of selection is also laid down in the said rules. The petitioners contend that the field of eligibility as laid down for promotion to class II posts in the Personnel Branch is violative of Article 16 of the Constitution as it practises discrimination against the petitioners in the' matter of promotion. Rule 2 of the said rules lays down that recruitment to class II post in the Personnel Branch shall be made bv promotion through selection which includes viva voce and written test. Permanent employees of class III grade of the personnel Branch and the ministerial staff of the Civil Engineering. Transportation (Traffic) and Commercial. Transportation (Power) and Mechanical Engineering. Signal and tele-communication. Electrical Engineering. Medical Departments and Railway Protection Force and General Administration are eligible to appear at the selection. All the permanent and ministerial staff of the aforesaid departments who fulfil the field of elisiblity with regard to the period of service and scale of pav etc. as laid down in the rules are eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Personnel Officer class II Dost in the Personnel Branch. The petitioners' grievance is that even though the ministerial staff of grade III of the aforesaid departments is eligible for Promotion in the Personnel Branch the petitioners and other similarly situated persons belonging to class III grade of personnel Branch are not eligible for promotion to class II Posts borne on the cadre of the aforesaid departments as a result of which discrimination is being practised against the oetitioners in violation of Article 16 of the Constitution in matters relating to promotion
(3.) Article 16 is wide enough to include the matter of promotion and if there is discrimination in the matter of promotion between the persons holding position in the same grade. Article 16 would be attracted. But for purposes of promotion to a selection post a reasonable classification is permissible having regard to the nature of duties and functions of the post for which promotion may be made. This principle was laid down bv the Supreme Court in General Manager. Southern Railway V/s. Rangachari, 1962 AIR(SC) 36. Applying the said principle in Fashori Mohan Lal Bakshi V/s Union of India, 1962 AIR(SC) 1139. the Supreme Court laid down that if some of the Income-tax Officers of the same grade are eligible for promotion to a superior grade and others are not. the question of contravention of Article 16 mav well arise. But no such auestion can arise at all when the rules make Incometax Officer of Class I eligible for appointment as Assistant Commissioner but make Income-tax Officers class II eligible for promotion as Income Tax Officers of class I but not for promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioners. There is no denial in such a case of eaualitv of opportunity as among citizens holding posts of the same grade. As between persons holding posts in different grades in Government service there can be no auestion of eaualitv of opportunity. Art. 16 does not forbid the creation of different grades in the Government service.;