This writ petition challenged Rule 16 of the Bihar Excise Constables Cadre Rules 2014. The Court held that the rule granting seniority to trained Home Guards and Ex-Army Men is valid, reasonable, and satisfies the test of equality under Article 14.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1605 of 2022
======================================================
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Majid Mahboob Khan, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sheo Shankar Prasad, SC-8 Mr. Sanjay Kumar, AC to SC-8
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD CAV JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 03-05-2023
The challenge in the above writ petition is to Rule 16 of the Bihar Excise Constables Cadre (Recruitment And Service-Condition) Rules 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 2014’). By Rule 16 of the rules, the inter se seniority of directly recruited candidates are fixed in such a manner as to enable the Home Guards of Bihar and Ex-Army Men, who have
Patna High Court CWJC No.1605 of 2022 dt.03-05-2023 2/10
been set apart 25% vacancies each, to be seniors in the cadre of Excise Constables appointed in a calendar year. The claim of the petitioners, who are directly recruited candidates in the 50% vacancies considered for direct recruitment from the eligible candidates is that the such classification visits them with hostile discrimination and there is no intelligible differentia with the object sought to be achieved.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1605 of 2022 dt.03-05-2023 3/10
6 SCC 624 and Union of India v. N.S. Rathnam; (2015) 10 SCC 681.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1605 of 2022 dt.03-05-2023 4/10
entitled and eligible to seek such admission. The University excluded employees of private/public establishments/institutions on grounds of (i) possibility of production of bogus certificates, (ii) the need to impart legal education to Government/SemiGovernment Institutional employees, in public interest, (iii) continuity of the employment during the three year period of study and (iv) elimination of wastage of seats.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1605 of 2022 dt.03-05-2023 5/10
object sought to be achieved; which was lacking in the classification made for admission, by the University. The test was held to be the position in which the employees are placed at a disadvantage in attending regular classes for career advancement or acquiring higher qualifications. The source being identified, from employed persons, there cannot be a further classification between Government and privately employed persons merely on the speculation that there could be production of bogus certificates and there would be lack of job security in private establishments. It was hence held that any bonafide employee without reference to the nature of his employment and the character of his employer would be eligible for admission and the classification made would be discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1605 of 2022 dt.03-05-2023 6/10
enjoys a greater latitude and that Article 351 of the Constitution of India has no application; all the same interfered with the classification finding it to be in contravention of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The taxing event in the Andhra Pradesh Entertainments Tax Act was found to be the entertainment of a person and the classification was only on the ground of language of the film. While considering the issue from a social angle it was held that there cannot be any object emanating from a statute which would result in divisive trends within society; which would fall foul of the broad constitutional scheme enshrined under Articles 19 and 21 as also the Preamble of the Constitution. A classification made taking refuge of the exception of reasonable differentia, under Article 14 of the Constitution of India should stay clear from the broad constitutional mandate, was the binding declaration. The classification was found to be arbitrary, since it was made solely on the basis of the language of the film, the entertainment quotient of which would be similar insofar as the viewers who voluntarily purchased tickets to see the movies; which entertainment quotient leads to the measure of tax.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1605 of 2022 dt.03-05-2023 7/10
payment of customs duty. The test of reasonable classification and aspects therein were reiterated and two conditions were highlighted, 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 the differentia must have a rational relation to the objects sought to be achieved by the statute in question.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1605 of 2022 dt.03-05-2023 8/10
candidates recruited from the general public to the 50% posts are equal to the trained Home Guards and Ex-Army Men; who already are familiar with the rigors and discipline of a uniformed force. There is hence an intelligible differentia between the directly recruited candidates; i.e. those from the general candidates and those recruited from the source of trained Home Guards and Ex-Army Men. We also find that in appointments made to the Excise Department there is a reasonable object sought to be achieved by giving seniority to the trained Home Guards and Ex-Army Men.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1605 of 2022 dt.03-05-2023 9/10
sources. It cannot be urged that the same seniority rule should apply across the board to all State Government employees. The Excise Constable Cadre Recruitment Rules and the Warder in Prisons Rules being distinct and separate there can be no claim of hostile discrimination between the two cadres and the persons appointed to the said distinct cadres.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1605 of 2022 dt.03-05-2023 10/10
(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)
( Madhuresh Prasad, J)
aditya/-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | 24.04.2023. |
| Uploading Date | 04.05.2023. |
| Transmission Date | N/A |
3 issues framed by the court
Whether Rule 16 of the Bihar Excise Constables Cadre (Recruitment And Service-Condition) Rules 2014 which grants inter se seniority to trained Home Guards and Ex-Army Men violates Article 14 of the Co
Whether the classification between directly recruited candidates and trained Home Guards/Ex-Army Men possesses an intelligible differentia and rational nexus to the object sought.
Whether the petitioner can claim hostile discrimination based on seniority rules not applied to a distinct cadre of Warders of Prisons.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Deepak Sibal v. Punjab UniversityExplained¶21
Deepak Sibal v. Punjab University; (1989) 2 SCC 145 · Who else cites this
Aashirwad Films v. Union of IndiaExplained¶22
Aashirwad Films v. Union of India; (2007) 6 SCC 624 · Who else cites this
Union of India v. N.S. RathnamReferred¶23
Union of India v. N.S. Rathnam; (2015) 10 SCC 681 · Who else cites this
Om Prakash Sah and others
The State of Bihar
K. Vinod Chandran
Madhuresh Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
