N SRINIVASULU Vs. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Govardhan Reddy for the respondents and Sri N. Srinivasulu, party-in-person.

(2.) This writ petition is filed by an unemployed youth belonging to the Other Backward Classes. It appears that he is age-barred for applying to the Civil Services Examination to be conducted by the Union Public Service Commission. His grievance is that the Government of India having granted age relaxation of five years in the case of candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, acted illegally in not extending similar age relaxation in favour of candidates belogning to the Other Backward Classes. According to the petitioner, this has resulted in invidious discrimination offending the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. This is the only ground taken in the writ petition and urged by the petitioner in person at the time of hearing.

(3.) I do not find any merit in the writ petition. What Article 14 prohibits is class Legislation and not reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation. If the State takes care to reasonably classify persons for legislative purposes and if it deals equally with all persons belonging to a 'well defined class', it is not open to the charge of denial of equal protection guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution on the ground that the law does not apply to other persons. However, in order to pass the test of permissible classification two conditions must be satisfied, namely, (i) that the classification must be founded on an" intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group; and (ii) that differentia must have a rational relation to the objectives sought to be achieved by the Statute in question. Article 14 does not insist that the classification should be scientifically perfect or logically complete. The difference which will warrant a reasonable classification need not be great. What is required is that it must be real and substantial and must bear some just and reasonable relation to the object of the Legislation. To attract the operation of the equality clause under Article 14, it is necessary to show that the selection or differentia is unreasonable or arbitrary and that it does not rest on any rational basis having regard to the object which the Government has in view.