Holding

The classification of deputationist and departmental candidates with different qualifying marks is a reasonable classification permissible under Articles 14 and 16, and the relaxation letter of 23 July 2002 does not apply to deputationists.

Summary

The appellants, permanent employees of the Postal Department, sought inclusion in the list of successful candidates for Junior Accounts Officer (JAO) positions in the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) after appearing in the JAO Part‑11 examination for deputationists. The dispute centered on whether the relaxation letter dated 23 July 2002, which lowered qualifying marks for departmental candidates, also applied to deputationist candidates who were required to meet the higher marks prescribed in the letter dated 24 June 2002. The High Court held that the two groups formed distinct classes and that the higher criteria for deputationists were not arbitrary. The Supreme Court affirmed this view, stating that the classification had a rational nexus with the objective of filling vacancies and was permissible under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the separate qualifying standards for deputationists.

Issues considered

Whether the relaxation of qualifying marks in the letter dated 23 July 2002 applies to deputationist candidates for the JAO Part‑11 examination.
Whether the classification of deputationist and departmental candidates violates the equality provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Whether the higher qualifying marks prescribed for deputationists are arbitrary, discriminatory, or unreasonable.

Subjects

Service lawDeputationJunior Accounts OfficerQualifying marksArticles 14Article 16EqualityClassificationPromotionCentral Administrative TribunalDepartment of TelecommunicationsBSNL

Judgment

[2010] 3 S.C.R. 1086

A M. JAGDISH VYAS AND ORS.
V. , .
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS..
( (Civi_
l Appeal Nos.4345-4346 of 2007)
. .-- . ~

MA~CH 29, 2010
8 \

[8.' s'UDERSHAN REDDY AND SURINDER SINGH
NIJJAR, JJ.]

Service law:
c ·-
Deputation 7" Past of JAO in DoT~ Filling up of vacant :-
post of JAO by ·deputation
\ .'
and by .appointment/promotion
- .
of
departmental candidates_- Deputationists to appear in two
' '· papers of JAO Par{)/ examination - The Jetter dated
0· 24.6.2002 issued by DoTprescnbing minimum marks to be
_.._ obtained by deputationists in the two papers - In the letter
. dated .23. 7.2002, the minir;wm prescribed percentage_ o(
marks relaxed .- The letter stated that the result of-
,. deputation_ists would be declared separately- Claim of paritY .
·E by dejJUtationists with the· departmental candidates, for
relaxation of minimum ·qualifying marks in the examination
- Held: The letter dated 23.7.2002 related only to· declaration .
of result of departmental candidates - Deputationists to be.
absorbed orf the posts of JAOs and the departmental
employees seeking appointment by way of promotion on the
F posts of JAOs who were required to take the JAO Examination,
·~ .... constituted two separate and distinct class - The classification
had a clear nexus with the objects sought to lie achieved, i.e.,
to fill in as many vacant posts from the departmental
candidates working on the lower ranks provided they reached
G bare minimum qualifying standards in the JAO, Part-If
Examination - Moreover, result of deputationists was declared
separately. which also indicated thflt the. departmental
candidates were segregated from the deputationists- Hence,
the criteria for declaration of results for the departmental.
H 1086 -~ :
-·

M. JAGDISH VYAS AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA 1087
AND ORS.

candidates was different from the deputationists - DoT was A
entitled to insist on recruiting the best from among the
_deputationists - Hence, the higher criteria foi-deputationists
cannot be said to be arbitrary_ or-discriminatory - Such
classification -is permissible under Article-s~ 14 and 16-
Constitution of India, ·1950- Articles 14 and. 16. ' ·
~ .... ·
B

The Department of Telecommunication (DoT) was
following a practice of filling the vacant post of Junior
Accounts Officer (JAOs) by deputing employees of the
Department of posts who were qualified for the posts of
JAOs after conducting an examination. The departmental C
candidates were also eligible for appointment/promotion
to the post of JAO provided they were prepared to pass
Part I and Part II examination held for the post of JAOs.
As per the Scheme, the examination was to be ~onducted
simultaneously with the JAO telecom Part II examination D
and would be only for paper VII and Paper VIII for
deputationists. · ·

Appellants were permanent employees of the Postal
Department. They had already qualified the Part·l and Part E
II· examination of JAO in the Postal Department. They
appeared in the examination in two papers on 18.10.2000.
On the same day, the examination was held for the
departmental candidates for the post o:
.::lAOs. The
communication dated 24.6.2002 was issued by DoT F
wherein the minimum marks to be obtained in Paper VII
and VIII of JAO_part II examination were 45% in aggregate
and 40% in each paper•.. ..

The result of the JAO, Part-11 Examination held in
December 2000 was declared through letter dated G
23. 7.2002. In that letter, the minimum prescribed
percentage of marks was relaxed. The letter also
mentioned that the General candidates were required to
secure 33% in each subject and 35% in aggregate, 6
grace marks were provided in any one subject. The letter H I
i
1088 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010} 3 S.C.R.

J
A also mentioned that the names of the candidates were
hot arranged in the order of. merit The letter stated that
the result of de'p~utationist candidates would be declared
separately. Thereafter, t _ h e results of deputationist
candidates were declared on 29.08.2002. The appellants
B who would .have be(m' declared successful under the
criteria contained in the Letter dated 23.07.2002 were not
induded in the .list of successful ·candidates. ·
· ;· _·

.
Aggrieved appellants filed ·application before CAT
. I

" .....
c which was allowed with directions to employer to include
the names of appellants. in the list of· successful
......
..
candidates as per their, merit positions and consider their. I
· candidature for absorption on the posts of JAO. Union
of India filed writ petitions before High_Court. High Court
allowed the writ petition~· holding that deputationists who
D were to be absorbed on the posts of JAOs .and the
departmental employees seeking appointment by way of
l
I
---- on
promotion the posts of JAOs who were required to
take the JAO Examinatio..n, constituted two separate and
distinct classes. While the employees of.DoT were
E offered an opportunity for being qualified to become JAO
in the regular line of promotion, deputationists who had
not" passed one of the requisite essential papers of JAO,
Part-11 Examination were permitted to make up the
deficiency by' passing the necessary paper in the.
F examination held by the DoT.. The classification was,
i . therefore, on. a rational basis. The High Court concluded ·
! that the letter 'da.ted 23.07.2002 was not applicable to the
i
deputationists. They were governed by the conditions··.
lard
-- - down . in the letter dated 24.06.2002. Hence these
> '
G appE7als. · · · · . '

· Dismis~ing_ the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. A bare perusal of the letter dated 24.06.02 ·
made it clear that the qualifying marks were separately·
H provided for the deputationists who were to appear in the
...
M. JAGDISH VYAS AND ORS. 'v. UNION OF INDIA 1089
.AND- ORS.

JAO Part·ll Examination. The letter specifically referred to A
qualifying marks of JAO, Part·ll Examination in respect of
the examination appeared by deputationists. It was then
stated that the qualifying mar~s in_ re~pect of the papers
in JAO, Part~ll -examination taken by deputationists would
' --- .
continue to be. same as that of · the departmental B
candidates. It further clarified that deputationists have to
secui'e ~0% in each subject and 45% in the aggregate.
From this,· it' became clear that the deputationists were
being treated as a· class' apart from the departmental
candidates. It also becomes apparent that the conditions c
enumerated in the said letter did not apply to the
departmental candidates. No material \was placed on
record either
.. .
before
.
the Tribunal or before theI.High Court
I

to show that there was any relaxation in the- standard or
the minimum marks required to be ob~ained by the 0
deputationists. The qualifying marks prescribed in the
letter 'dated 24.06.02 were not in any manner affected by-
the letter dated 23.07.02 so far as the deputationists were
concerned. It related only to the declaration of result of
the departmental candidates. The letter dated 24.6.2002
E
provided the lower standard of 33% for each subject and
35% in aggregate exclusively for the examination held in
December, 2000. If the standard had been lowered for the
deputationists also, the. letter would have made a specific
. provision in that regard. The fact that therr.1imes of the
successful candidates were not arranged in order of F
merit also indicated that the letter related only to the
departmental· candidates. The intention was clearly_ to
induct as many candidates from the lower ranks of.
Clerks~; Accountants · and Telephone Operators working
in DoT to the higher posts of JAO provided they had G
reached the bare minimum standard. On the other hand,
it was clearly stated in the letter dated 29.8.2002 that the
list of deputationists, who have qualified in Paper VII and _
Paper .VIII, have been_ arranged in order of merit.
Therefore, undoubtedly the intention was to absorb only H
1090 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 3 S.C.R.

A the best from the deputationist candidates. [Paras 14-:17]
[11 00-G-H; 11 02-C-H; 11 03-A-D]

2. The expression that the qualifying marks for the
deputationists ,would continue to_ be' the same as that Of
the departmental candidates in the letter dated 24.06.2002
B would. not mean that the deputationists would ipso facto
become entitled for any relaxation in the standard which
may hilVe been 'given to the departmental candidates iri,
the future. Condition No.6 which provided that the result
of deputationists would be declared separately .would
c also indicate that the departmental candidates. had been ·.
segregated ~rom the deputationists. Hence, the criteria for
declaration· of results for the departmental candidates.
was different from the deputationists. The result of the
departmental candidates was declared Irrespective.of ttl~·
r'. D merit of the candidate. On the other hand, the resu·lt of .
deputationists was declared ~ in. the order of merit' The
respondents have also given a. clear jusUfication for
issuing the letter dated 23.7.2002. The relaxation rehited
to the entire JAO Part-11 Examination in five papers. All th~
E departmental candidates were to appear in· five papers of
JAO Part-11 Examination. On the other hand," the
deputationists appeared only in one subject, i.e., Paper
VII and VIII combined. The deputationists had already
passed JAO Part-11 Examination in their parent Postal
F Department. Therefore, the requirement of_passing Part-
. 1. of the departmental examination had been relaxed in
favour of the deputationists. They were required only to
appear in Paper VII and VIII. Therefore, they could not
claim to 'be equated with_the departmental candidates.
G The rationale for providing the minimum qualifying marks
. of 40% in each· subject and 45% in th~ aggregate for the
deputationists'is set out in the letter dated 24.6.2002.
There was no scope for any confusion. This criteria was
not relaxed in the case of deputationistS in the letter dated
H 23.7:2002. [Paras 18 and 19] [1103-E-H; 1104-A-C]
M. JAGDISH VYAS AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA 1091
AND ORS.

3. The final decision was taken by Government of A
India for relaxing the minimum qualifying marks for the
departmental candidates as a one time measure in order
to facilitate the departmental candidates to get promotion
to the posts of JAO. Deputationists, on the other hand,
were provisionally allowed to sit in the examination B
subject to the final decision of the competent authority
whether to absorb them or not. These conditions were
made known to the deputationists in the policy decision
dated 30.9.2000. The categorization of deputationists and
the departmental candidates into the two categories was c
rightly upheld by the High Court. The law is well settled
fqr many years _that members of one homogenous group
have to be treated equally. At the same time, Articles 14
and 16 do not mandate that un-equals are to be treated
as equals. In this case, the classification cannot be said D
to be either irrational or arbitrary. It had a clear nexus with
the objects sought to be achieved, i.e., to fill in as many
vacant posts from the departmental candidates working
on the lower ranks provided they reached bare minimum
qualifying standards in the JAO, Part-11 Examination. So E
far as the deputationists were concerned, the
respondents were entitled to insist on recruiting the best
from among the deputationists. Hence, the higher criteria
for deputationists cannot be said to be arbitrary or
discriminatory. Such classification is permissible under
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. [Para 20] F
[1104-D-H; 1105-A-8]
S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India AIR 1967 SC 1427,
relied on.
Case Law Reference: G
AIR 1967 SC 1427 relied on Para 20
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
4345-4346 of 2007.

From the Judgment & Order dated 3.5.2005 of the High H
1092 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 3 S.C.R.

A Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur, in D. B. Civil writ
Petition Nos. 5193 and 5638 of 2004.

WITH

C.A. No. 4349-4350, 4351 of 2007.
B
Sushi! Kumar Jain, Puneet Jain, Eshita Baruah, Pratibha
Jain for the Appellants.

Amita Arora , Sumit Kaul, Meera Bhatia, Rishi Kesh for
Respondents.
c
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J. 1. These appeals have
been filed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature
-'
0 for Rajasthan at Jodhpur rendered in DB Civil Writ Petition
No.5193/04 and DB Civil Writ Petition No.5638/04 dated
3.5.2005. By the aforesaid common judgment the High Court
had held that the instructions dated 23.07.2002 had not
superseded the qualifications laid down by Central Government
E in its letter dated 24.6.2002. By virtue of the aforesaid decision
of the High Court the appellants have lost the opportunity for
being absorbed in the service ·of Bharat Sanchar Nigam
Limited (BSNL). Civil Appeal No.4351 /2007 has been filed
against the order of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated
17 .11. 2005 in 0 .A. No. 116/2005 whereby the CAT has
F
dismissed the O.A following the decision of the Rajasthan High
Court which is the subject matter of the two above noted
appeals. We propose to dispose of all the aforesaid appeals
by this common judgment.

G 2. The appellants had challenged the declaration of results
of deputationists who had appeared in the Examination for
Junior Accounts Officer (JAO), Part-11 dated 29.08.2002 in the
Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur.
It was claimed by the appellants that their names had been
H wrongly omitted from the list of successful candidates in the
M. JAGDISH VYAS AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA 1093
AND ORS. (SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]

result dated 29.08.2002 as they had qualified the examination A
on the basis of the criteria laid down in the letter dated
23.07.2002. By the aforesaid letter BSNL had declared the
result of candidates who had qualified in JAO , Part-11
Examination held in December 2000. In that letter, the qualifying
standards and the grace marks required to be obtained by the B
successful candidates were as follows:

"General candidates: (1) 33% in each subject and
35% in aggregate.

(2) 6 grace marks in any one C
subject.

SC/ ST candidates: (1) 25% in each subject and
27% in aggregate.
0
(2) 6 grace marks in any one
subject."

3. The appellants were permanent employees of the
Postal Department. They had already qualified the Part-1 and
Part-11 Examination of Junior Accounts Officer (JAO) in the E
Postal Department. Since the Department of
Telecommunications (DoT) was having shortage of qualified
JAO, the usual practice was to fill the vacant posts by taking
JAOs on deputation from other departments in Union of India.
Large number of employees from the postal department used F
to be taken on deputation in DoT batch-wise depending on the
particular need of the borrowing department, i.e., DoT. It seems
a policy decision was taken to absorb the employees of the
Department of Posts who were qualified for the posts of JAOs
and have passed both Part-1 and Part-11 examinations. The F
Department of Telecommunications (DoT) also wanted to
appoint/promote its own employees who were working on the
lower ranks of Clerks, Accountants, and Telephone Operators
provided they we.re prepared to pass Part-1 and Part-11
Examinations for the post of JAO. Keeping in view the aforesaid H
1094 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201 0] 3 S.C.R.

A objectives, DoT framed a scheme dated 30.9.2000 which inter
alia provided as under:

"Due to acute shortage in the grade of Junior
Accounts Officers in Department of Telecommunications,
this Department had taken certain officials from other
B
Departments, including the Department of Posts, on
deputation to work as Junior Accounts Officers and posted
them to various Telecom Circles/Units. In order to have the
services of these officials on long term basis, in view of
large number of vacancies existing in the Department of
c Telecom in the grade of JAO as on date, it has now been
decided, with the approval of competent authority, to
absorb these deputationists as Junior Accounts Officers
in DoT/DTS/DTO, as one time measure, after conducting
an examination. The examination will be conducted on
D certain terms and conditions set out separately in respect
of those officials who will be working on deputation in DOT/
proposed BSNL as on 18.10.2000 and for all those who
have earlier worked in DoT on deputation basis but have
since been repatriated to their parent cadre. Any official
E holding any post higher than JAO in his parent Department
as on 30.9.2000 will not be eligible to appear in the said
examination.

2. The said examination will be conducted simultaneously
F with JAO Telecom Part-11 examination and will be only for
Paper-VII and Paper-VIII for these deputationists, as
contained in 'syllabus for JAO , Telecom Part-11
Examination. The details of eligibility conditions and also
terms and conditions (ANNEXURE I) for regulating their
pay and seniority etc., for the said examination, alongwith
G
proforma of declaration undertaking (ANNEXURE -II)
required to be given by all the applicants at the time of
applying for the examination are enclosed herewith. The
application form is also enclosed: Photo copy of the same
can be used by the officials for submitting the application."
H
M. JAG DISH VYAS AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA 1095
AND ORS. [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]

4 . The policy further stated that all the present A
deputationists who were willing to be absorbed in DoT/DTS/
DTO as JAOs are requested to go through the terms and
conditior.s and submit their applications in the prescribed
proforma latest by 27.10.2000. Under the aforesaid policy,
deputationists who had already been repatriated to their parent B
departments would also be eligible. They were also to submit
their applications by the same day. It was also made clear that
the appearance in the examination is purely provisional and
subject to approval of absorption by the Department of
Personnel and Training. The DoT also shall have the right to c
cancel the examination or withhold the results. This policy was
accompanied by the detailed terms and conditions subject to
which the deputationists were to take the Examination of JAO
Part-11 for Paper-VII and Paper-VIII. All the deputationists were
required to appear in the examination in T.R. paper. The D
relevant provision of the annexure setting out the terms and
conditions for absorption of personnel taken on deputation is
as under:
"(B) Examination in T.R. Paper:
E
(1) The DoT/DTS/DTO will have to appear in Part-VII and
VIII of JAO (Telecom) Part-11 syllabus, which, inter-alia,
consists of theory and practical portion relating to Telecom
Revenue Accounts. These papers will be conducted
simultaneously with other papers of JAO Part-11 exam
F
which will be held for those DOT officials who have already
qualified DOT JAO Part-1 examination. The examination
schedule will be announced by DE Branch of DOT. It is,
however, expected that the said exam will be conducted
during 2nd fortnight of December 2000 subject to
convenience of DE Branch. G

(2) The syllabus for TR paper set for deputationists will be
same as that for JAO (Part-11) examinees of Department
of T~lecommunications .''
5. it was further provided that even upon qualification in H
1096 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 3 S.C.R.

A both the examinations the absorption will be the sole discretion
of DoT both in terms of time and number of persons. It was
further provided that the deputationists who qualify in the Part-
11 Examination will be repatriated to their parent department
before their absorption. It was further made clear that the DoT
s is on·the verge of corporatisation and that the service conditions
as well as the pay attached to the posts of JAOs and above
are likely to undergo changes.
6 . Knowing the aforesaid conditions, the appellants
appeared in the examination in the two papers on 18.10.2000.
C It appears that on the very same date the examination was also
held for the departmental candidates to be appointed on the
posts of JAOs.
7. The result of the JAO, Part-11 Examination held in
D December 2000 was declared through Letter dated 23.7.2002..
It was stated that the candidates mentioned in Annexure·-! had
qualified the JAO, Part-11 Examination. It further mentioned the
approved qualifying standards. General candidates were
required to secure 33% in each subject and 35% in aggregate,
6 grace marks were provided in any one subject. For
E Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidate an even lower
standard was prescribed. Significantly, the letter also mentioned
that the names of the candidates are not arranged in order of
merit. Clause 6 of the letter stated that the result in the case of
candidates on deputation from other departments, who were
F allowed to appear in this examination, will be declared
separately.
8..Thereafter, the results of deputationist candidates were
declared on 29.08.2002. The appellants who would have been
G declared successful under the criteria contained in the Letter
dated 23.07.2002 were not included in the list of successful
candidates . Hence, the appellants had moved the CAT as
noticed above. The CAT allowed the application with the
following observations:
H "We have anxiously considered the submissions of
M. JAGDISH VYAS AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA 1097
AND ORS. [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
both the parties. In nut-shell, the dispute is whether or not A
the relaxation letter dated 23.7.2002 (Annexure A-5) is
applicable to the deputationists, or it is meant only for non-
deputationists i.e. officials of the DoT etc. As per the
respondents, the letter dated 24.6.2002 (Annexure R/1) is
applicable to the deputationists and since the applicant 8
could not obtain marks at 45% in aggregate (i.e. a total of
90% marks in both the papers VII and VIII put together) he
was not included in the impugned result. We observe while
going through the various communications/letters/letters
issued by the competent authority from time to time that c
the basic bible for absorption of the deputationists in DoT
is letter dated 30.9.2000 (Annexure A/3). ·We find that
nowhere it has IJeen mentioned that for the purpose of
eligibility for absorption in DoT, the deputationists are
required to clear JAO part-1 examination. We also find that 0
the relaxation given in the letter .dated 23.7.2002 (Annexure
A/5) does not prohibit the deputationists to avail the above
relaxations as is available to the officials of the DoT etc.
We also observe that the communication dated 24.6.2002
(Annexure R/1) had been issued by the DoT wherein the
minimum marks obtained in paper VII and VIII of JAO part E
II examination should be 45% in aggregate and 40% in
each paper. This minimum prescribed percentage of
marks were relaxed by issuing of another communication/
Letter dated 23.7.2002 (Annexure A/5) which is also
applicable in the case of deputationists. We also anxiously F
noticed that the deputationists were required to pass only
in JAO Part-11 examination in paper VII and VIII only. As per
the letter dated 30.9.2000 (Annexure A/3) wherein the
terms and conditions have been laid down in the main
body of the letter as well as in Annexure I to IV thereof, G
stand satisfied and fulfilled. Since the applicant had
already cleared the JAO Part-11 examination before
deputation in DoT therefore only requirement for both the
deputationists in DoT for absorption was to pass in paper
VII and VIII only." H
1098 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201 0] 3 S.C.R.

A . 9. With these observations, BSNL was directed to include
the names of the appellants in the list of successful candidates
as per their merit positions and consider their candidature for
absorption on the posts of JAOs.
10. The aforesaid decision of the CAT was challenged
B before the High Court of Judicature at Jodhpur by Union of India/
BSNL in two writ petitions. Considering the factual situation as
narrated above, the Division Bench considered the two letters
dated 23.07.2002 and 24.06.2002 and held that the CAT had
not construed the same in the proper perspective. The Division
C Bench concluded that deputationists who were to be absorbed
on the posts of JAOs and the departmental employees seeking
appointment by way of promotion on the posts of JAOs who
were required to take the JAO Examination, constituted two
separate and distinct classes. While the employee.s of DoT
D have been offered an opportunity for being qualified to become
JAO in the regular line of promotion, deputationists who had
·not passed one of the requisite essential papers of JAO, Part-
11 Examination were permitted to make up the deficiency by
passing the necessary paper in the examination held by the
E DoT. The classification was, therefore, on a rational basis. It
had a nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Therefore
the appellants could not have complained of any violation of
their rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
The Division Bench concluded that the letter dated 23.07.2002
F was not applicable to the deputationists. They were governed
by the conditions laid down in the letter dated 24.06.2002
which had been placed before the CAT as Annexure R 1. It has
been held that the appellants failed to place on record any
material to show that the aforesaid letter dated 24.06.2002
G which was applicable in the case of deputationists, had been
superseded by the letter dated 23.07.2002. Consequently, the
writ petitions filed by the Union of lndia/BSNL were allowed and
the order passed by the CAT was set aside. The applications
filed by the appellants were dismissed. Hence the appellants
H who were the applicants before the CAT have challenged the
M. JAGDISH VYAS AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA 1099
AND ORS. [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.] ~

aforesaid judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in these A
appeals.

11 . We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It
is vehemently argued by Mr. Sushi! Kumar Jain, appearing for
the appellants, that the letter dated 23.07 .2002 is fully
8
applicable in the case of the deputationists who had appeare.d
in the T.R. paper of the JAO Part-11 Examination. The letter
dated 24.06 .2002 stood modified by the letter dated
23.07.2002. According to the learned counsel ,· the Division
Bench has misread the relevant provisions in va riou s
documents. He submitted that the appellants had appeared in C
the examination pursuant to the scheme dated 30.09.2000. In
this letter, it was clearly provided that the syllabus for T.R. paper
set for deputationists will be same as that for JAO Part-11
examinees of the DoT. A combined examination was held in
which candidates of DoT as also deputationists appeared. The D
conditions of eligibility were prescribed for all the candidates.
He emphasised on the use of the expression "this examination"
in the letter dated 23.07.2002. According to the learned counsel
the eligibility criteria had been lowered for all the cand idates.
Learned counsel submitted that in view of Clause 6, BSNL was E
entitled to declare the results of the deputationists separately.
It was so declared on 29.08.2002. This declaration of the result
on 29.08.2002 was a mere continuation of the declaration of
result as contained in the letter dated 23.07.2002. This mere
declaration of the result on 29.08.2002 would not permit BSNL F
to change the qualifying marks for deputationists from 33% in
individual papers and 35% in aggregate to 40% in each paper
and 45% in aggregate. Had it been the intention of the
authorities to provide separate qualifying marks for
deputationists, it would have been mentioned in the letter dated G
23.07.2002. Therefore, according to the learned counsel a
harmonious reading of the letter dated 23.07.2002 and the letter
dated 29.08.2002 would lead to the inevitable conclusion that
the decision communicated in letter dated 24.06.2002 stood
superseded and modified for the petitioners also. Learned
H
11 00 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201 0] 3 S.C.R.

A counsel further submitted that all tha candidates whether
departmental or deputationists appeared in the same
examination for the purposes of being qualified to hold the post
of JAO in DoT. All the candidates appearing in the
examinations formed one class . Therefore deputationists
s cannot be discriminated by providing higher qualifying marks
in comparison to the mark~ required by departmental
candidates.
12. In the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that the deputationists cannot claim to be equated
C with the departmental candidates. The departmental candidates
were being given an opportunity to get promotion in the normal
line. The qualifying criteria for the departmental candidates was
relaxed as a one-time measure in view of the peculiar situation
that was being_faced by the DoT employees at that time. The
0 qualifications for deputationists were specifically laid down in
the Letter dated 24.06.2002. The aforesaid criteria was not
applicable to the departmental candidates. It is submitted that
there is no discrimination and the Division Bench had rightly
rejected the claim of the appellants.
E
13. We have considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the parties. The only issue that needs
determination is whether the deputationist candidates could be
distinguished from the departmental candidates in the matter
of providing minimum qualifying marks in the examination in
F question . In order to claim parity with the departmental
candidates, the deputationists have relied upon the language
contained in the letter dated 23.7.2002. The question that arises
for consideration, therefore, is whether the deputationists are
justified in claiming the parity with the departmental candidates
G on the basis of the above letter.
14. In our opinion, a bare perusal of the Letter dated
24.06.02 would make it abundantly clear that the qualifying
marks have been separately provided for the deputationists who
H were to appear in the JAO Part-11 Examination. The Letter dated
M. JAGDISH VYAS AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA 1101
AND ORS. [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]

24.06.02 is as under: A
"No.21-31 /2001-SEA Government of India,
Department of Telecommunications, Sanchar Bhawan, 20,
Ashoka Road, New Delhi- 110001 .
8
Dated: 24.6.2002
To
The ADG(DE),BSNL, Oak Bhawan, New Delhi-110001
Subject: Qualifying marks of JAO Part-11 exam in respect C
of the exall) appeared by deputationists.
Reference : Your U .O. No .1 0-1 /2001-DE, dated
07.05.2002.
I am directed to refer to your letter under reference 0
and convey that the qualifying marks in respect of the
papers in the JAO Part-11 exam -taken by the deputationists
will continue to be the same as that of the departmental
candidates i.e. the deputationists have to secure 40% in
each subject and 45% in the aggregate provided a E
minimum of 40% also secured separately in the practical
paper with books. 45% in the aggregate for this purpose
would mean 90 marks out of 200 marks (200 marks are
the maximum marks of paper VII and VIII).
To be precise , as (i) both papers VII and VIII
F
appeared in by the deputati,onists fall under one subject,
(ii) Paper VII and VIII constitute the aggregate papers in
the Exam for the deputationists and (iii) Paper VIII is
practical paper with the aid of books, the foliowing marks
should be secured by the deputationists to declare him as G
qualified . .
(i) 45% aggregate marks i.e. total of 90 marks in both
papers VII and VIII put together.
H
11 02 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 3 S.C.R.

A (ii) A minimum marks of 40% in paper VIII (Practical
paper with aid of books) .

(iii) No m inimum marks is required in paper VII.

SD/-
B (0 . SELVARAJ)
ADG (SEA)"
15. A perusal of the aforesaid letter clearly shows that it
provided qualifying marks of JAO, Part-11 Examination for
C deputationists. The information has been given on a request
made by BSNL for clarification .

16. The letter specifically refers to "qualifying marks of
JAO, Part-11 Examination in respect of the exam appeared by
deputationists". It is then stated that the qualifying marks in
D respect of the papers in JAO , Part-11 exam taken by
deputationists will continue. to be same as that of the
departmental candidates. It is further clarified that deputationists
have to secure 40% in each subject and 45% in the aggregate.

17. From the above it becomes clear that the
E deputationists were being treated as a class apart from the
departmental candidates. It also becomes apparent that the
conditions enumerated in the aforesaid letter did not apply to
the departmental candidates. In our opinion there is no merit
in the submission of Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain that since the letter
F stated that the marks would be the same as that of the
departmental candidates, the conditions laid therein also apply
to departmental candidates . The aforesaid expression was
clearly only indicative of the general standard that was expected
of all the examinees. No material was placed on the record
G either before the Tribunal or before the High Court to show that
there has been any relaxation in the standard or the minimum
marks required to be obtained by the deputationists. The
qualifying marks prescribed in the letter dated 24.06.02 were
not in any manner affected by the Letter dated 23.07.02 so far
H as the deputationists were concerned . It related only to the
M. JAGDISH VYAS AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA 1103
AND ORS. [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
declaration of result of the departmental candidates. The letter A
dated 24.6.2002 issued with the approval of Member -F of
BSNL had provided the lower standard of 33% for each subject
and 35% in aggregate exclusively for the examination held in
December, 2000. It appears that a one time concession had
been given to the departmental candidates in special s
circumstances. If the standard had been lowered for the
deputationists also, the letter would have made a specific
provision in that regard . The fact that the names of the
successful candidates were not arranged in order of merit also
indicates that the letter related only to the departmental c
candidates. The intention was clearly to induct as many
candidates from the lower ranks of Clerks, Accountants and
Telephone Operators working in DoT to the higher posts of JAO
provided they had reached the bare minimum standard. On the
other hand, it is clearly stated in the letter dated 29.8.2002 that
0
the list of deputationists, who have qualified in Paper VII and
Paper VIII, have been arranged in order of merit. Therefore,
undoubtedly the intention was to absorb only the best from the
deputationist candidates.
18. The expression that the qualifying marks for the E
deputationists will continue to be the same as that of the
departmental candidates in the letter dated 24.06.2002 would
not mean that the deputationists would ipso facto become
entitled for any relaxation in the standard which may have been
given to the departmental candidates in the future. Condition F
No.6 which provides that the result of deputationists will be
· declared separately would also indicate that the departmental
candidates had been segregated from the deputationists.
Hence, the criteria for declaration of results for the departmental
candidates is different from the deputationists. The results of G
the departmental candidates have been declared irrespective
of the merit ot the candidate. On the other hand, the resdt of
deputationists has been declared in the order of merit.

19. The respondents have also given a clear justification
for issuing the letter dated 23.7.2002. The relaxation related to H
11 04 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201 0] 3 S.C.R.

A the entire JAO Part-11 Examination in five papers. All the
departmental candidates had to appear in five papers of JAO
Part-11 Examination. On the other hand, the deputationists
appeared only in one subject. i.e., Paper VII and VIII combined.
The deputationists had already passed JAO Part-11 Examination
8 in their parent Postal Department. Therefore, the requirement
of passing Part-1 of the departmental examination had been
relaxed in favour of the deputationists. They were required only
to appear in Paper VII and VIII. Therefore, they could not claim
to be equated with the departmental candidates. The rationale
c for providing the minimum qualifying marks of 40% in each
subject and 45% in the aggregate for the deputationists is set
out in the letter dated 24.6.2002. There was no scope for any
confusion. This criteria has not been relaxed in the case of
deputationists in the letter dated 23.7.2002.

D 20. In our opinion, the final decision has been taken by
Government of India for relaxing the minimum qualifying marks
for the departmental candidates as a one time measure in order
to facilitate the departmental candidates to get promotion to the
posts of JAO. Deputationists, on the other hand, had been
E provisionally allowed to sit in the examination subject to the final
decision of the competent authority whether to absorb them or
not. These conditions were made known to the deputationists
in the policy decision dated 30.9.2000. The categorization of
deputationists and the departmental candidates into the two
F categories, in our opinion, has been rightly upheld by the High
Court. The law nas been well settled for many years that
members of one homogenous group have to be treated equally.
At the same time Articles 14 and 16 do not mandate that un-
equals are to be treated as equals . In this case, the
G classification cannot be said to be either irrational or arbitrary.
It had a clear nexus with the objects sought to be achieved, i.e.,
to fill in as many vacant posts from the departmental candidates
working on the lower ranks provided they reached bare
minimum qualifying standards in the JAO, Part-11 Examination.
H So far as the deputationists are concerned, the respondents
M. JAGDISH VYAS AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA 11 05
AND ORS. [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]

were entitled to insist on recruiting the best from among the A
deputationists. Hence, the higher criteria for deputationists
cannot be said to be arbitrary or discriminatory. Such
classification is permissible under Articles 14 and 16 of t~e
Constitution of India. The law that Articles 14 and 16 permit
reasonable classification of employees has been settled for B
many decades and reiterated in a catena of judgments by this
Court. We may notice here only the observations made by the
Constitution Bench in the case of S.G. Jaisinghani Vs. Union
of India [AIR 1967 SC 1427] wherein this Court has held as
follows: c
"The relevant law on the subject is well-settled. Under
Article 16 of the Constitution, there shall be equality of
opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment
or appointment to any office under the State or to
promotion from one office to a higher office thereunder. D
Article 16 of the Constitution is only an incident of the
application of the concept of equality enshrined in Article
14 thereof. It gives effect to the doctrine of equality in the
matter of appbintment and promotion. It follows that there
can be reasonable classification of the employees for the E
purpose of appointment or promotion. The concept of
equality in the matter of promotion can be predicated only
when the promotees are drawn from the same source. If
the preferential treatment of one source in relation to the
other is based on the differences between the said two F
sources, and the said differences have a reasonable
relation to the nature of the office or offices to which
recruitment is made, the said recruitment can legitimately
be sustained on the basis of a valid classification.''
21 . In view of the above, we find no merit in the appeals. G
We accordingly dismiss the appeals. There will be no order as
to costs.

D.G. Appeals dismissed.
H