Holding

The Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 are constitutionally valid and do not violate Articles 14, 15 or 16.

Summary

The Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 created two distinct cadres – a Nursing cadre and a Compounder cadre. Two employees, Bansi Lal Sharma and Shanti Lal Jain, challenged the rules, alleging that the bifurcation arbitrarily denied Compounder Grade‑I employees a promotion channel to higher nursing posts and discriminated on the basis of sex, violating Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution. The Rajasthan High Court’s single judges dismissed the petitions, but the Division Bench set aside those judgments, holding the rules arbitrary and unconstitutional. On appeal, the Supreme Court observed that there was no evidence of a pre‑existing combined cadre and that the Constitution does not prohibit a State from creating, splitting, or merging cadres. The Court affirmed that the rules are valid, noting that an amendment in 1978 later provided a promotion route for Compounder Grade‑II into the Nursing cadre, thereby removing the grievance. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the State’s appeal and restored the validity of the Rules.

Issues considered

Whether the creation of separate Nursing and Compounder cadres under the Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 15, s. Article 16

Subjects

Equality clauseArticle 14Article 15Article 16cadre bifurcationpublic servicepromotiondiscriminationstate service rulesRajasthanNursing cadreCompounder cadre

Judgment

STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.
A
v.
SHANTILAL ETC.

AUGUST 2, 1989

B [K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY AND KULDIP SINGH, JJ.]

Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service Rules, ' Y
1965: Creation of two cadres-Nursing Cadre (Nursing Superintendent
Grade J/Grade II, Assistant Nursing Superintendent, Nursing Tutor)
and Compounder Cadre (Compounder Grade I/Grade Il/Grade lll)-
C Whether valid and legal. .)

Bansi Lal Sharma, respondent in one appeal, was appointed as
Male Nurse in 1941 and was officiating as Sister Tutor in March 1966 -4.
when the Rajasthan Medical and Health subordinate Service Rules,
1965 came into force. Shanti Lal Jain, respondent in the second appeal,
D was appointed as Compounder Grade I in the year 1959 and was hold· '
ing the post of Sister Tutor in March 1966. In their separate petitions
filed in the Rajasthan High Court, the respondents challenged the crea· )-

lion of two separate cadres-Nursing Cadre and Compounders ~

Cadre-under the Rules as arbitrary and as such violative of Articles
14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It was pleaded that hitherto
I·
E there was CO!Dbined channel of promotion for compounders and nurses )"·
but the Rules bad arbitrarily deprived Compounders Grade I of their
right to promotion to higher posts of Assistant Nursing Superintendent
and Nursing Superintendent Grade II/Grade I. It was further urged
that recruitment to the Nursing Cadre was confmed to females alone
which resulted in discrimination on the ground of sex.
F
The writ petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judges .J
who held that creation of two separate cadres was not arbitrary, did not 1
infringe the equality clause, and was not discriminatory on the ground
0

of sex. The Division Bench, on appeal, upheld the fmdings of the
learned Single Jndges on Article 5 but set aside their judgments and
found that there was no justification for creating separate cadres and
G denying channel of promotion to Compounders Grade I to tbe higher
posts in the Nursing Cadre. The Division Bench accordingly held the
Roles to be arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the •
Constitution ..

Allowing the appeals filed by the State, this Court,
H
670
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. SHANTILAL 671

HELD: I. Prior to 1966 there was no statutory Rules pertaining A
to the service. No executive order creating cadres in the department or
a joint seniority list indicating common cadre for nurses and com-
pounders have been produced. [673F]

2. Even assuming that prior to coming into force of the Rules
there was a combined cadre of nurses and compounders, Articles 14 B
and 16 of the Constitution do not forbid the State Government from
creating new cadres, bifurcating one cadre into two or more, or
uniting two or more cadres into one. Tlfe creation of cadres in the
service of the State is a matter which has to he left entirely to the
State Government. [673G-H]
c
Reserve Bank of India v. N.C. Paliwal & Ors., [1977] I S.C.R.
!v 377; referred to.

3. A bare reading of the Rules show that the composition of the
two cadres including designations, qualifications and methods of ap-
pointment to various posts, Is entirely different. This Court does not D
agree with the High Court'that Nurses and Compouuders belong to one
class and as such must he encadred together. [678B]

4. It is not for the High Court to assume the extent of maternity
cases which are .treated in the hospitals or to lay-down that com-
.
pounders though not qualified to treat maternity cases must he equated
with nurses because they can treat other type of cases. [678G]
.
E

5. By amending the Rules in 1978 an opening has been provided
for compounders Grade II to enter the Nursing cadre by competing
with the staff nurses for promotion to the post of Sister/Nursing Tutor.
The Compounders Grade II have thus been provided with two channels F
of promotion, one in their own cadre and the other to the Nursing
Cadre. Thus the grievance of the Compounders that they were denied
channel of promotion to the higher posts in Nursing Cadre has also been
removed, [679B-C]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. G
6147-6148 of 1983.

From the Judgment and Order dated 17 .1.83 of the Rajasthan
High Court in D.B. Spl. Appeal No. 43 of 1978 & D.B.S.A. No. 14 of
1975.
H
B.D. Sharma for the Appellants.
672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1989] 3 S.C.R.

A Dalveer Bhandari, K.R.R. Pillai, Surya Kant, P.T. Mathur and
Sambandhan for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KULDIP SINGH, J. The question for consideration in these two
B appeals is whether the creation of two cadres, consisting of Nursing
Superintendent Grade I, Nursing Superintendent Grade II, Assistant
Nursing Superintendent and Nursing Tutor {hereinafter called 'nurs-
ing cadre') and of Compounder Grade I, Compounder Grade II and
Compounder Grade III (hereinafter called 'compounders cadre')
under the Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service Rules,
C 1965 {hereinafter called 'Rules'), is arbitrary and as such violative of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

The relevant facts are as under.

Bansi Lal Sharma was appointed as Male Nurse in 1941. He
D qualified Punjab Nursing Registration Council Examination in 1944
and was confirmed as Compounder Grade-I in 1950. He was officiating
as Sister Tutor when the Rules came into force in March, 1966. He
filed writ petition in the Rajasthan High Court in 1971 challenging the •
creation of two separate cadres under the rules. It was pleaded that
hitherto there was combined channel of promotion for compounders
E and nurses but the rules have arbitrarily deprived compounders
Grade-I of their right to promotion to the higher posts of Assistant
Nursing Superintendent, Nursing Superintendent Grade-II and Nurs-
ing Superintendent Grade-I. It was further urged that recruitment to
the nursing cadre was confined to females alone which resulted in
discrimination on the ground of sex and as such violative of Article 15
F of the Constitution of India. Kan Singh, J. rejected the contentions of
Sharma and held that there was no arbitrariness in creating two sepa-
rate cadres for nurses and compounders. The learned Judge further
found as a fact that males and females were both eligible for recruit-
ment to the nursing cadre and as such repelled the attack on ground of
Article 15.
G
Shanti Lal Jain, in the second case, was appointed compounder
Grade-IV in 1955. He was confirmed as compounder Grade-I in the
year 1959 and in March, 1966 when the rules were enforced, he was
holding the post of Sister Tutor on officiating basis. He also challenged
the vires of the Rules on the grounds of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the
H Constitution of India. Dwarka Prasad, J. dismissed the writ petition
STATE OF RAJASTHAN '· SHANTILAL [KULDIP SINGH, J.[ 673

holding that creation of two separate cadres did not infringe the equa- A
lily clause and also that there was no discrimination on the ground of
sex. Both Sharma and Jain filed separate special appeals before a
Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court.

The Division Bench upheld the findings of learned single Judges
on Article 15 in the following terms: B

"Both the learned single Judges were, in our opinion, right
in holding that the Rules did not exclude the appointment
of males on the posts mentioned in group A of the Schedule
and the said categorisation of group A aad E could not be
held to be unconstitutional on the ground that it was based
on sex alone. The argument of Shri Mridul that the Rules
c
were violative of the provisions of Article 15 of the Con-
stitution cannot, therefore, be accepted."

So far as the attack on the grounds of Articles 14 and 16 was
concerned, the Division Bench set aside the judgments of learned D
single Judges and found that there was no justification for creating
separate cadres and denying channel of promotion to compounders
Grade-I to the higher posts in the nursing cadre. The Bench held the
. Rules to be arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Con-
stitution of India and directed the State Government to consider
Sharma and Jain for promotion to the post of Assistant Nursing E
Superintendent and other higher posts from the dates when they filed
writ petitions in the High Court. This is how these two appeals by way
of special leave, filed by the State of Rajasthan, are before us.

There is no material on the record to show as to what was the
cadre-composition before coming into force of the Rules. Prior to 1966 F
there was no statutory Rules pertaining to the service. No executive
order creating cadres in the department or a joint seniority list indicat-
ing common cadre for nurses and compounders have been produced.
Simply because Sharma and Jain were working as Sister Tutors in
officiating capacity in 1966 it cannot be assumed that there was a joint
cadre of compounders and nurses. Even if we assume that prior to G
coming into force of the Rules there was a combined cadre of nurses
and compounders, Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution do not forbid
the State Government from creating new cadres, bifurcating one cadre
into two or more or uniting two or more cadres into one. The creation
of cadres in the service of the State is a matter which has to be left
entirely to the State Government. In Reserve Bank of India v. N. C. H
Paliwal & others, (1977] l S.C.R. 377 this Court held as under:
674 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 3 S.C.R.

"It is now well settled, as a result of the decision of this
A Court in kishori Mohan/al Bakshi v. Union of India, A.LR.
1962 S.C. 1139 that Article 16 a fortiori also Article 14 do
not forbid the creation of different cadres for government
service. And if that be so, equally these two Articles cannot
stand in the way of the State integrating different cadres
B into one cadre. It is entirely a matter for the State to decide
whether to have several different cadres or one integrated
cadre in its services. That is a matter of policy which does
not attract the applicability of the equality clause."

The High Court has, by straim;d-reasol!ing, come to the conclu-
sion that the nurses and compounders form one class and as such
I
c treating them differently by creating two separate cadres is dis-
criminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India. To appreciate the High Court reasoning we may reproduce Rule
4( 1) of the Rules and relevant part of Schedule to the Rules:

D "4. Composition and Strength of the Service-(!) The
service shall consist of X eleven groups. The right of pro-
motion shall be confined to each group except the extent
specified in the Schedule.

E
s. Name of Source of Minimum Post from Minimum remarks
No.Post recruitmentqualification which pro-qualifica-
with and motion is lion&
percentage experience to be experience
for direct made required
recruitment for
F
promotion ~'
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

GROUP A
1. Nursing 50%by 1. R.N .C.R. Nursing 3 years
Supdt. direct orits Supdt. service as
G
Gr. I recruitment equivalent Gr. II Nursing
with per- qualification Superin-
centage& recognised tendent
50% by by Govern- Gr. II
promotion ment
H 2. Regd. 'A'
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. SHANTILAL [KULDIP SINGH, J. J 675

grade Nurse A
3. Sister
Tutor course
passed
4. 12 years
experience B
out of which
4 years must
be as Sister
Tutor & 3
years as
Nursing
Supdt.
c
Gr. II or
at an equi-
valent post

2. Nursing 25% by 1. R.N .C.R. Asstt. 2 years D
Supdt. direct or its equi- Nursing service as
Gr. II recruitment valent quali- Supdt. Asstt.
& 75% by ficatior. re- Nursing
promotion cognised by Supdt.
Government
2. Regd. 'A' E
Grade Nurse
3. Sister
Tutors'
course passed
4. 10 years' F
experience
out of which
4 years'
should be as
sisters Tutor
& 3 years as G
Asst!. Nurs-
ing Supdt. or
at an equi-
valent post.
H
676 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] ~' S.C.R.

3. Asstt. 25% by 1. R.N.C.R. Sister 2 years
>r
A
Nursing direct or its equi- or Nursing service as
Supdt. recruitment valent quali- Tutor Sister or
and 75% by fication re- Nursing
promotion cognised by Tutor
Government y
B
2. Regd. 'A'
grade Nurse.
3. Sister
Tutors course )
passed
c 4. 7 years ex- .....\
perience out
of which at
least 3 years
should be as

D
Nursing Tutor
.
4. Sisteror 25% by 1. R.N .C.R. 'Staff 5 years
Nursing direct or its equi- Nurse/ service
Tutor recruitment valent quali- Comp. as Staff x
and 75% by fication re- Gr. II Nurse/
promotion cognised by Comp.Gr.
E Government II or4
2. Regd. 'A' years ser-
grade Nurse vice as
Staff Nurse
3. Sister out of
Tutors which 3
F Course passed. years con-
4. 3 years tinuous
experience service
as staff should be
Nurse/Comp. in opera-
Gr. II lion Thea-
G tre or3
years ser-
vice as
Staff Nurse
with Sister
Tutor Cer-
H tificate
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. SHANTILAL [KULDIP SINGH, J.] 677

Note: For the post of Sister Tutor, Sister .A
Tutor's Certificate will be compulsory

5. Staff 75% by PNRCor Midwife & 7 years
Nurse direct its equi- Auxiliary service as
Comp. recruitment valent ~urse Midwife or
Gr. II &25% by qualification Midwife Auxiliary
B
promotion recognised Nurse
by Midwife
Government

Midwife 100% by Auxiliary
& Auxi- direct Nurse c
liary Nurst1 recruitment ' Midwifery
Midwife trairied and
VIII standard
passed

GROUP'E' D

I. Compoun- 100% by C6mpoun- PNRC or
der Gr. I promotion der Gr. II its equi-
valent
-qualifica-
tion recog- E
nised by
Govern-
ri ment with
5 years
service as
Compoun- F
der Gr. II.

2. Compoun- -do- Compoun- PNRC or
< der Gr. II der Gr. III its equi-
valent
qualifica- G
tion recog-
nised by
Govern-
ment

H
678 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I1989] 3 S.C.R.
A 3. Compoun- 100% by Matriculate
der Gr. III direct or equivalent
recruitment qualification
recognised by
Government.
y
B A bare-reading of the Rules show that the composition of the
two cadres including designations, qualifications and methods of ap-
pointment to various posts, is entirely different. We do not agree with
the High Court that nurses and compounders belong to one class and
as such must be encadred together. The attention of the High Cour!_)
was invited tow~rds the qualifications prescribed for the nursing cadre
C and it was argued that the compounders do not possess the said qualifi-
cations and hence are not eligible to be considered for promotion in
nursing cadre. The High Court repelled the argument with the follow-
ing reasoning:

"Special qualification in midwifery is required for the
D purpose of maternity cases only. But maternity cases form
only a small part of the patients undergoing treatment in
the hospitals and special qualification in midwifery is not
required for other patients. In this regard it may be pointed 'x
out that under the original Schedule to the Rules a person '
having P.N.C.R. or its equivalent qualification recognised
E by Government was eligible for direct recruitml'nt or the
post of Staff nurse and it was not necessary that he should
be midwifery trained. Such a person on being appointe·d as
Staff nurse could be promoted to all the higher nursing
posts enumerated in group 'A' of the schedule. In other '
words, the absence of special qualification in midwifery -4
F would not preclude a person who was directly recruited as
Staff nurse being promoted io the higher posts. There is no
reason why the same person should be denied this right if
he, instead of joining as staff nurse, joined as compounder
Gr. III. ..

G We do not agree with the approach of the High Court. It is not
for the High Court to assume the extent of maternity cases which are X.
treated in the hospitals or to lay-down that compounders though not
qualified to treat maternity cases must be equated with nurses because
they can treat other type of cases. The High Court further errored when
it equated the qualifi<t~li\:>!'IS of Punjab Nursing Registration Certifi-
H cate with that of matrl~)l.lil°tlon for holding that staff-nurses and com-
STATE OF RAJASTHAN r. SHANTILAL IKULDIP SINGH, J.] 679

pounders Grade-III possess the same qualifications for entry into A
service. On the face of it Nursing Certificate is a specialised qualifica-
tion and cannot be equated with matriculation.

We may mention that by amending the Rules in 1978 an opening
has been provided for compounders Grade II to enter the nursing B
cadre by competing with the staff nurses for promotion to the post of
Sister-Nursing Tutor. The compounders Grade II have thus been pro-
vided with two channels of promotion, one in their own cadre and the
other to the nursing cadre. Thus the grievance of the compounders
'...~ that they were denied channel of promotion of the higher posts in
nursing cadre has also been removed.
c
We, therefore, see no legal or equitable grounds to sustain the
judgment of the High Court. We accept the appeals and set aside the
judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court. Affirming the
judgments of the learned single Judges we hold that the Rules are
constitutionally valid. There shall be no order as to costs.
D
R.S.S. Appeals allowed.