STATE OF ASSAM Vs. TARANIDHAR CHOUDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ appellants herein, impugn the single Bench judgment in Civil Rule No. 355 of 1979 (reported in 1982 Lab IC 1607) striking down the proviso (b) to Clause (d) of Rule 6 of the Assam Taxation Service Rules, 1962, shortly called "the Rules", as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The instant respondent who was the writ petitioner in the said Civil Rule was appointed as a Lower Division Assistant in 1948 and was promoted as Upper Division Assistant and ultimately as Head Assistant in the office of the Superintendent of Taxes, Gauhati. The Commissioner of Taxes, Gauhati on 14-7-77 provisionally approved the gradation list of the amalgamated ministerial staff of the Taxation Department (Annexure 'A' to the writ petition) wherein the instant respondent's name appeared at No. 2 while those of the respondents 5 to 17 of the writ petition at serial Nos. 118, 119, 120, 122, 124, 125, 126, 127, 130, 131, 132, 133 and 135 respectively.

(3.) The instant respondent's grievance was that his name having been in serial No. 2, he ought to have been promoted before the Respondents 5 to 17 of the writ petition were promoted as Inspectors of Taxes. However, by order No. FEB. 117/77/PT/75 Dated 15-3-79 the said respondents 5 to 17 were promoted as Inspectors of Taxes in supersession of the instant respondent who was told that it was so done because of the proviso (b) to Clause (d) of Rule 6 of the Rules whereunder the maximum age limit of 42 years was prescribed for Ministerial Government servants and the petitioner having already crossed that age he could not be considered for promotion. Hence, he challenged the vires of the said proviso as being discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. His contention was that fixation of the maximum age limit at 42 years was discriminatory as it differentiated between those who had crossed that age and those who had not; and it had no reasonable or rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved and it was done on arbitrary basis among the employees of the same class. This contention found favour with the learned single Judge who accordingly held the proviso to be ultra vires Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India and struck it down. Hence this appeal.