Holding

Rule 6(4)(a) does not violate Article 14; classification based on educational qualifications is constitutionally valid and Draughtsmen and Chargemen constitute separate classes.

Summary

The appellants, Chargemen Grade II of the Defence Research and Development Organisation, were placed in Grade IV of Category I under Rule 6(4)(a) of the DRDO Technical Cadre Recruitment Rules, 1995 because they lacked the qualifications prescribed in Schedule III. They challenged the rule as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, arguing that the rule created two classes of Chargemen and disadvantaged them in promotion prospects. The Supreme Court held that categorisation based on educational qualifications is permissible and does not infringe Article 14, emphasizing that Article 14 applies only within the same class. The Court also rejected the claim of discrimination between Draughtsmen Grade II and Chargemen Grade II, noting they are distinct classes. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether Rule 6(4)(a) of the DRDO Technical Cadre Recruitment Rules, 1995, which classifies Chargemen Grade II based on possession of qualifications, violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether the differential treatment of Draughtsmen Grade II vis‑à‑vis Chargemen Grade II amounts to discrimination prohibited by Article 14.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 16

Subjects

Article 14Article 16classificationeducational qualificationsDRDOtechnical cadrediscriminationpublic service recruitment

Judgment

G.K. MOHAN AND ORS A
V.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

OCTOBER 12, 2007
B
[A.K.MATHURANDMARKANDEYKATJU,JJ.]
~

Constitution ofIndia, 1950-Article 14-Categorization-Class
~
of persons-Under Rule 6(4)(a) chargemen grade II possessing
requisite qualifications in terms ofSchedule Ill placed in grade 2 of c
category II and those not possessing, in Grade 4 of category}--
Challenge to, on the ground ofviolation ofArticle 14-Held: There is
no violation of Article 14-Categorization can be done on basis of
educational qualifications-Article 14 applies within same class-,-Plea
that Draughtsmen grade II have been placed better off vis-a-vis D
erstwhile charge men grade II not having qualification not sustainable
)-.
as both are two different class-Defence Research and Development
Organisation, Technical Cadre Recruitment Rules, 1995-Rule 6(4)(a).
,,)

In terms of Rule 6(4)(a) of the Defence Researc~ and
E
Development Organization, Technical Cadre Recruitment ules,
1995, Chargemen grade II who possessed the qualifications as
prescribed in Schedule III were placed in grade 2 of category :0. while
those who did not possess the same were placed in grade 4 of
category I. Appellants-Chargemen grade II did not possess the
qualifications as prescribed and were placed in grade 4 of category F
__.
I. Appellants filed application seeking quashing ofRule 6(4)(a) being
'r
- violative of Articles 14and16 of the Constitution on the ground that
under the Rules the erstwhile Chargemen grade II were divided into
two categories, namely, those who possessed the qualifica~ions in
schedule III and those who did not. It sought direction to place the G
appellants in grade 2 of category II with all consequential benefits.
Applications as also writ petitions were dismissed. Hence the present
appeals.

193 H
194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 There can be categorization on the basis of
educational qualifications. The erstwhile Chargemen grade II who
had the qualifications mentioned in Schedule III have been placed
in a higher category while those like the appellants who do not have
B the said qualifications have been placed in the lower category. There
is no violation of Article 14 on such a categorization. ~
(Paras 8 and 9] (196-B-D]
1.2. Article 14 applies within the same class. The submission
c that the Draughtsmen grade II have been placed better off by the
Note to Rule 6(4)(a) vis-a-vis the erstwhile Chargemen grade II who
did not have the qualifications in Schedule III cannot be accepted.
Draughtsman and Chargeman are two different classes, and hen~e
there is no question of discrimination between them.
D (Paras 10and11] [196-D-E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 5045-
5100of2001.
From the Final Order dated 15.2.2001 of the High Court of
E Karnataka at Bangalore in W.P. Nos. 11728-55/2000, 11701-727/2000
and 10723/2000.
G. Umapathy, A. Leo G. Rozario and Rakesh K. Sharma for the
Appellants.
F Ashok Bhan, R.S. Rana, Aman Sinha, R.C. Kathia and B.V.
Balaram Das for the Respondents. t-

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
MARKANDEY KATJU, J. I. These appeals have been filed
G against the final judgment and orders of the Karnataka High Court dated
15.2.2001 inW.P.Nos.11728-755/2000,CWW.P.Nos.11701-11727/
2000 & W.P . .No. 10723/2000.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
H 3. The appellants before us filed O.A. Nos. 1040/1998, 1055-1081/
G.K. MOHAN v. UNION OF INDIA 195
(MARKANDEY KATJU, J.]
1998 etc. before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench A
seeking a direction to quash Rule 6(4)(a) of the Defence Research &
Development Organization, Technical Cadre Recruit.Jlent Rules; 1995
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') as being violative of Article 14 &
16 of the Constitution, and for a direction to place the applicants/appellants
in grade II of category II with effect from 26.8.1995 with all consequ,ential B
benefits.
~ 4. The applicants (appellants before us) were Chargemen grade II
in the service of the Union oflndia, Ministry of Defence. The Union of
~ India introduced the aforesaid Rule on 26.8.1995. We are, however, only
concerned with Rule 6(4)(a) which states as under: c
"(4) (a). All persons holding the posts of Chief Glass Blower, Artist-
cum-Photographer, Commercial Artist, Junior Scientific Assistant
Grade I, Chargeman Grade II and Draughtsman Grade II sh~l be
placed in grade 2 of category II provided that they possess the D
qualifications prescribed for recruitment to the grade of Technical
,_
Assistant 'A' as laid down in Schedule III failing which they shall
be placed in grade 4 of category I.
~ NOTE: For this purpose, the existing incumbents of the posts
of Draughtsman Grade II, possessing a certificate or a E
diploma in Draughtsmanship of a minimum duration of one
year shall be deemed to possess the required qualifications"

5. A perusal of Rule 6(4)(a) shows that those Chargemen who
possess the qualifications prescribed in Schedule III shall be placed in F
grade 2 of category II while those who do not possess the same will be
---1 placed in grade 4 of category I.
.,.
6. Admittedly, the applicants/petitioners did not possess the
qualifications in Schedule III to the Rules and hence they were placed in
grade IV of category I. Their grievance is that they have been G
discriminated against because before coming into force of the Rules in
1995 all Chargemen grade II were in the same category, while now under
Rule 6(4)(a) the erstwhile Chargemen grade II have been divided into
two categories, namely, those who possess the qualifications in schedule
H
i
196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 11 S.C.R.

A III and those who do not.
7. Learned coW1Sel for the appellants submitted that this.is violative
of Article 14 of the Constitution because chances of promotion of the
appellants have been adversely affected.
B 8. We regret we cannot agree. It is well settled by a series of
decisions now that there can be categorization on the basis of educational
qualifications. The erstwhile Chargemen grade II who had the qualifications .,...
mentioned in Schedule III have been placed in a higher category while
those like the appellants who do not have the said qualifications have been f

c placed in the lower category. In our opinion, there is no violation of Article
14 on such a categorization.
9. It is well settled that categorization can be done on the basis of
educational qualifications and there will be no violation of Article 14 if
this is done.
D
10. Learned counsel for the appellants then submitted that the
Draughtsmen grade II hwe been placed better off by the Note to Rule ...(

6(4)(a) vis-a-vis the erstwhile Chargemen grade II who did not have the
qualifications in Schedule III. ,,
E 11. In our opinion, this submission too has no merit. It is well settled
that Article 14 applies within the same class. Draughtsman and Chargeman
are two different classes, and hence there is no question of discrimination
between them.

F 12. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in these
appeals. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
r
N.J. Appeals dismissed. ~