(1.) THE following Judgment of the court was delivered by; :
(2.) THE petitioners who describe themselves 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 23/11/1951. 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. 100.00-185.00 and thereafter by further promotion A grade Guaids on Rs. 150.00-225.00. 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. 150.00-225.00 scale and thereafter to all the further promotions that are open to the Station Masters, viz., higher ,cales of Rs. 200.00 to Rs. 300.00, Rs. 260.00 to Rs. 350.00, Rs. 300.00 to Rs. 400.00 and finally Rs. 360.00 to Rs. 500.00; B grade Guards and A grade Guards are also on passing Slip 45 examination eligible for promotion to posts of Station Masters on Rs. 200.00-300.00 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. 80.00 to Rs. 170.00 (the scale was formerly Rs. 64.00-170.00) can also reach by promotion the grade of Rs. 150.00-225.00 but only after going through an intermediate stage of Rs. 100.00-185.00. Similarly Station Masters on Rs. 100.00-185.00 scale may also reach the stage of Rs. 200.00-300.00 but only after passing through the intermediate stage of Rs. 150.00-225.00. Obviously the provisions enabling Guards to become Station Masters on the pay scale of Rs. 150.00-225.00 places the Station Masters of Rs. 80.00-170.00 scale at a disadvantage as against Guards on that pay scale and also puts the Road-side Station Masters on the pay of Rs. 100.00-185.00 pay scale at a disadvantage as against Guards on that scale of pay.
(3.) 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 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.