GOVIND SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a direction that the respondent State be directed to include officers of the Rajasthan Accounts Service in the Schedule appended to the Rajasthan Civil Services (Special Selection and Special Conditions of Service of Project Directors and Project Officers) Rules, 1975 or otherwise to quash the Schedule being discriminatory and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution and also prayed for a direction not to proceed with the selection till its decision.

(2.) THE facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner, a member of Rajasthan Accounts Service, was initially appointed as Accounts Officer on 24. 11. 82 and presently he is posted at Jaisalmer in Indira Gandhi Canal Project in Senior Scale. It is also alleged that he remained as Accounts Officer in the District Rural Development Agency (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRDA') from 5. 6. 1986 to 10. 8. 87, and worked as Officer Incharge of some of the projects/works viz. Desert Development Programme, Co-ordinator Panchayat Samiti, Luni and Mandore; Officer Incharge, Purchase Committee as deputed by ADM (Dev.), Jodhpur, Officer Incharge, Family Planning Ward No. 17 at Jodhpur etc. THE main grievance of the petitioner is that the members of the Rajasthan Accounts Service have not been included in the Schedule which has been appended to the Rajasthan Civil Services (Special Selection and Special Conditions of Service of Project Directors and Project Officers) Rules, 1975 whereas the members of other services have been included and made eligible for appointment to the post of Project Director and Project Officers, thus this is discriminatory and violative of Article 34 and 16 of the Constitution of India. THE respondent in its reply has denied the execution of works alleged to have been done by the petitioner as Officer Incharge and submitted that he discharged only those functions which were related to his cadre as an Accounts Officer. It is also denied that the DRDA is concerned with the milk producers and collection of milk. THE respondent has admitted that under the Rules of 1975, for the recruitment to the tenure posts of Project Officers and Project Directors, the Rajasthan Accounts Service has not been included. It is also stated that since the personnel of this service are exclusively dealing in accounts works, which in itself is a special work, the State Government did not include this service in the Schedule appended to the Rules of 1975. It is further submitted in the reply that the persons like the petitioner are not entrusted with the duties of monitoring particular works, and they are taken on deputation to look after the accounts work. THE petitioner also fried a rejoinder stating that the pay scales and status of the persons belonging to Rajasthan Accounts Service is higher than quite a few services, members of which have been made eligible, for consideration for appointment to the post of Project Director and Project Officer.

(3.) THE enqualiry clause contained in Article 14 requires that all persons subjected to any legislation should be treated alike under like circumstances and conditions. Equals have to be treated equally and unequals ought not to be treated equally. This article forbids class legislation, but it does not forbid classification for purposes of implementing the right of equality guaranteed by it. THE classification must not be arbitrary but must be rational, and there must be {illegible) object of the Act under consideration.