RAM JANM RAM Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There are two branches of the U. P. Subordinate Educational Service (Non-Gazetted). The first branch consists of Sub-Deputy Inspectors of Schools. The officers in this branch are recruited under and governed by Sub-Deputy Inspectors of Schools Service Rules, 1945. The second branch consists of Assistant Masters. There are nostatutory rules governing them and their appointments and conditions of service are governed by administrative orders. The Sub-Deputy Inspectors of Schools have avenue of promotions to the posts in the Subordinate Educational Service (Inspection Branch) (Gazetted). The Assistant Masters have an avenue of promotions to the posts in Special Subordinate Educational Service (Non-Gazetted). These posts are posts of Lecturer in the intermediate Colleges. The dispute in the present case relates to appointment to the Subordinate Educational Service (Gazetted). This service consists, inter alia, of" Headmasters of High Schools and Normal Schools. The promotion to these posts of Headmasters is governed by a G. O. dated December 3, 1947. The relevant portion of this G. O. reads thus:

(2.) Respondent No. 4, who filed the writ petition, was recruited as an Assistant Master in the year 1949. He has challenged what he calls 40% reservation in favour of Sub-Deputy Inspectors of Schools on the ground that it violates Article 16 of the Constitution. His complaint is that some Sub-Deputy Inspectors of Schools, who were appointed Headmasters of Normal Schools in the year 1974, were recruited to the post of Sub-Deputy Inspector of Schools in the year 1959 and were, thus ten years junior to Mm. He contends that the appointment of these persons, who are very much juniors and the non-appointment of respondent No. 4 amounts to hostile discrimination leading to violation of the provisions of Article 16 of the Constitution. His contentions found favour with the learned "Single Judge, with- the result he quashed the G. O. dated December 3, 1947 and directed the Government to consider the claim of respondent No. 4 for promotion disregarding the 40% reservation in favour of Sub-Deputy Inspectors of Schools. Against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, two of the Sub-Deputy "Inspectors of Schools, who had been promoted Headmaster of Normal Schools and whose appointments had been challenged "by respondent No. 4, preferred Special Appeal No. 246 of 1976. The State Government has preferred Special Appeal "No. 301 of 1976. In both the appeals identical questions arise and it is convenient to dispose them of by a common judgment.

(3.) The real question which we have to decide is whether the provision in the impugned G. O. that 40% of the post of Headmasters of Government Normal Schools will be filled by promotion of Sub-Deputy Inspectors of Schools is discriminatory and offends Article 16 of the Constitution. The decision will turn on the question. whether the Assistant Masters and the Sub-Deputy Inspectors of Schools fall in one class or in two distinct classes. The question of discrimination can only arise if the Assistant Masters and Sub-Deputy Inspectors of Schools are similarly situated and one is placed by the G. O. in a more advantagepus position than the other.