# S. M. Banerji v. Sri Krishna Agarwal Subba RaoJ. I959 Nov•mber zo I959 All India

- **Citation:** [1960] 2 S.C.R. 311
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1960
- **Bench:** B. P. Sinha, P. B. Gajendragadkar, K. SuBBA RAo, K. C. Das Gupta, J.C. Shah
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/s-m-banerji-v-sri-krishna-agarwal-subba-raoj-i959-nov-mber-zo-i959-all-india-1861
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

State Employmmt-Equality of opportunity in matters of
promotion-Concept and
meaning
of-Constitution of India,
Art. r6(r).
The Roadside Station Masters of the Central Railway
challenged the constitutionality of promotion for guards to higher
grade station masters' posts. The petitioners contended that the
channel of promotions amounted to a denial of equal opportunity
as between Roadside Station Masters and Guards in the matter
of promotion and thus contravened the provisions of Art. r6(r) of
the Constitution, as taking advantage of this channel of promotions, guards become station masters at a very much younger age
than Roadside Station Masters and thus block the chances of
higher promotion to Roadside Station Masters who reach the
scale when they are much older.
The appellant contended that Roadside Station Masters and
Guards really.formed one and the same class of employees.
Held, that the Roadside Station Masters belong to a wholly
distinct and separate class from Guards and so there can be no
question of equality of opportunity in matter of promotion as
between the Roadside Station Masters and Guards.
The question of denial of equal opportunity requires serious
consideration only as between the members of the same class ..
The concept of equal opportunity in matters of employment, does·
not apply to variations in provisions as between !p.embers of
different classes of employees under the State. Equality of
opportunity in matters of employment can be predicated only·
'
1959
S. M. Banerji
v.
Sri Krishna
Agarwal
Subba RaoJ.
I959
Nov•mber zo
I959
All India
Station Masters'
& Asst.
Station NJ asters'
Associativn
V,
312
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960 (2)]
General Manager,
Central Railways
bet\veen persons \vho are e"ither seeking the same employment, or
have obtained the same employment. Equality of opportunity
in matters of promotion, must mean equality as between members
of the same class of employee and not equality between members
of separate, independent classes
The fact that the qualifications
necessary for recruitment of one post and another are approximately or even wholly the same can in no vvay affect the question
whether they form one and the same class, or form different
classes.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Peti.tion No. 126 of 1958.
Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India, for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
N. C. Chatterjee and R. V. S. Mani, for the petitioners.
B. Sen and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondent.
1959. November 20.
The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
Das Gupta].
, DAS GUPTA J.-The petitioners who describe them.
selves as Road-side Station Masters challenge in this
petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution the constitutionality of the channel of promotion for Guards to
higher grade Station Masters' posts as notified in the
. issue of the Central Railway Wrekly Gazette No. 3
dated November 23, 1951.
Under this Notification
Guards have two lines of promotion open to them.
One is that by promotion, C grade Guards may become ·
B grade Guards on Rs. 100-185 and thereafter by
further promotion A grade Guards on Rs. 150-225.
The second line of promotion open to them is that by
an examination described curiously enough as Slip 45
examination C grade Guards are f ligible for promotion
to posts of Station Masters on Rs. 150.225 scale and
thereafter to all the further promotions that are open
to the ::-ltation Masters, viz., higher "cales of Rs. 200 to
Rs. 300, Rs. 260 to Rs. 350, Rs. 300 to Rs. 400 and
finally Rs. 360 to Rs. 500 ; B grade Guards and A grade
Guards are also on passing Slip 45 examination eligible
for promotion to posts of Station Masters on Rs. 200-300
pay scale and thereafter to further promotions to the
higher scales in the Station Masters' line.
The Roadside Station Masters on pay scale of Rs. 80 to Rs. 170
'
'·
(
-
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
313
(the scale was formerly Rs. 64-170)' can also reach by
z959
promotion the grade of Rs. 150-225 but only after
All India
going throu

## Text

-·
8.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
point argued was that 'the amendment should have
been allowed and no other point was pressed. The
learned counsel for the respondent does not accept this
position. In the ci~cumstances, we have no other
· option but to remand the case to the High Court for
disposal in accordance with law. The respondent will
pay the costs to the appellant.·
Appeal allowed.
ALL INDIA STATION MASTERS' & ASSISTANT
STATION MASTER'S ASSOCIATION & OTHERS
v.
GENERAL MANAGER, CENTRAL RAILWAYS
AND OTHERS
(B. P. SINHA, C.J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR,
K. SuBBA RAo, K. C. DAS GUPTA and J.C. SHAH, JJ.)
State Employmmt-Equality of opportunity in matters of
promotion-Concept and
meaning
of-Constitution of India,
Art. r6(r).
The Roadside Station Masters of the Central Railway
challenged the constitutionality of promotion for guards to higher
grade station masters' posts. The petitioners contended that the
channel of promotions amounted to a denial of equal opportunity
as between Roadside Station Masters and Guards in the matter
of promotion and thus contravened the provisions of Art. r6(r) of
the Constitution, as taking advantage of this channel of promotions, guards become station masters at a very much younger age
than Roadside Station Masters and thus block the chances of
higher promotion to Roadside Station Masters who reach the
scale when they are much older.
The appellant contended that Roadside Station Masters and
Guards really.formed one and the same class of employees.
Held, that the Roadside Station Masters belong to a wholly
distinct and separate class from Guards and so there can be no
question of equality of opportunity in matter of promotion as
between the Roadside Station Masters and Guards.
The question of denial of equal opportunity requires serious
consideration only as between the members of the same class ..
The concept of equal opportunity in matters of employment, does·
not apply to variations in provisions as between !p.embers of
different classes of employees under the State. Equality of
opportunity in matters of employment can be predicated only·
'
1959
S. M. Banerji
v.
Sri Krishna
Agarwal
Subba RaoJ.
I959
Nov•mber zo
I959
All India
Station Masters'
& Asst.
Station NJ asters'
Associativn
V,
312
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960 (2)]
General Manager,
Central Railways
bet\veen persons \vho are e"ither seeking the same employment, or
have obtained the same employment. Equality of opportunity
in matters of promotion, must mean equality as between members
of the same class of employee and not equality between members
of separate, independent classes
The fact that the qualifications
necessary for recruitment of one post and another are approximately or even wholly the same can in no vvay affect the question
whether they form one and the same class, or form different
classes.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Peti.tion No. 126 of 1958.
Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India, for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
N. C. Chatterjee and R. V. S. Mani, for the petitioners.
B. Sen and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondent.
1959. November 20.
The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
Das Gupta].
, DAS GUPTA J.-The petitioners who describe them.
selves as Road-side Station Masters challenge in this
petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution the constitutionality of the channel of promotion for Guards to
higher grade Station Masters' posts as notified in the
. issue of the Central Railway Wrekly Gazette No. 3
dated November 23, 1951.
Under this Notification
Guards have two lines of promotion open to them.
One is that by promotion, C grade Guards may become ·
B grade Guards on Rs. 100-185 and thereafter by
further promotion A grade Guards on Rs. 150-225.
The second line of promotion open to them is that by
an examination described curiously enough as Slip 45
examination C grade Guards are f ligible for promotion
to posts of Station Masters on Rs. 150.225 scale and
thereafter to all the further promotions that are open
to the ::-ltation Masters, viz., higher "cales of Rs. 200 to
Rs. 300, Rs. 260 to Rs. 350, Rs. 300 to Rs. 400 and
finally Rs. 360 to Rs. 500 ; B grade Guards and A grade
Guards are also on passing Slip 45 examination eligible
for promotion to posts of Station Masters on Rs. 200-300
pay scale and thereafter to further promotions to the
higher scales in the Station Masters' line.
The Roadside Station Masters on pay scale of Rs. 80 to Rs. 170
'
'·
(
-
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
313
(the scale was formerly Rs. 64-170)' can also reach by
z959
promotion the grade of Rs. 150-225 but only after
All India
going through an intermediate stage of Rs. 100-185. Station Masters
Similarly Station Masters on Rs. 100-185 scale ·may
& Asst.
also reach the stage of Rs. 200-300 but only after- Station Masters'
passing through the intermediate stage of Rs. 150-225.
Association
Obviously the provisions enabling Guards to become
v.
.
S
.
'M
h
l
f R
150 225 Genera/Manager,
tat10n
asters on t e pay sea e o
s.
- .
Ceiitral Railway•
places the Station Masters of Rs. 80-170 scale at a dis-
·
ad vantage as against Guards on _that pay scale and
Das Gupta].
also puts the Road-side Station Masters on the pay of
Rs. 100-185 pay scale at a disadvantage as against
Guards on that scale of pay.
The petitioners contend that the channel of promotion in so far as it enables Guards to be promoted as
Station Masters in addition to the ·other line of promotion open to them as Guards amounts to a denial of
equal opportunity as between Road-side Station
Masters and Guards in the matter of promotion and
thus contravenes the provisions of Art. 16(1) of the
Constitution.
It was further alleged in -the petition that taking
advantage of this channel of promotion, Guards
become Station Masters on Rs. 150-225 at a very much
younger age than Road-side Station Masters and thus
block the chances of higher promotion to Road-side
·Station Masters who reach the Rs. 150-225 scale when
they are much older. As instances of how the impugned provisions in the channel of promotion are harmful to the Road-side Station Masters, the petitioners
state: that wh'ile the petitioner No. 2 even after completing 32 years of service has remained in the grade of
Rs. 100-185 as Station Master, Guards of equal status
and standing have reached gazetted rank within the·
same -period of service; that whereas the petitioner
No, 3 has come by promotion to the grade of Rs. 150225 after putting in 21 years of service, Guards of his
standing have risen to the grade of Rs. 360-500 by
virtue of the impugned channel of promotion and several of his juniors who entered the Railway service long
after him as Guards have superseded him. and are
working in the grade of Rs. 360-500; that while the
314
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [i960 (2)]
'959
petitioner No,, 4 having entered into service as TeleAll India·
graph Candidate and having passed all the requisite
station Masters' examinations prescribed for the higher grade of Station
& Asst.
Master within a period of 2t years after putting in 6t'
Station Masters' years of service is still in the grade of Rs. 80-170,
Association
Guards of his length of service and departmental
General"Manager, qSual~ficaMtion are. enthitled fodr promf oRtion
1
a
5
s
0
a
2
n
2
~ssi~tahi_it
Central Railways
tat1on
aster Ill t e gra e 0
S.
-
O Wit Ill
about the same length of service.
DasGuptaJ.
The respondents-the General Manager, Central
Railways, Bombay, V .T., the Chairman Hail way
Board, New Delhi and the Union of India,-who
contest the application contend that the channel of
promotion providing these opportunities to Guards does
not in any way contravene the provisions of Art. 16(1)
of the Constitution. They also deny the correctness
of the allegation that as a result of these opportunities Guards become Station Masters on Rs. 150-225
pay scale at a younger age than Road-side Station
Masters. On the material before us it is not possible
to come to a firm conclusion as regards the relative
age at which Guards or ·Road-side Station Masters
ordinarily reach the pay scale of Rs. 150-225. Assuming, however, the position to be as stated in the petition, that may only evoke some sympathy for the
Road-side Station Masters, but does not in any way
affect the decision of the question whether Art. 16( 1)
of the Constitution is contravened by this channel of
promotion.
Art. 16(1) of the Ci;:mstitution is in these words:-
" There shall be equality of opportunity for all
citizens in matters relating to employment or
appointment to any office under the State.''
The impugned provisions of the channel of promotion are in respect of promotion of persons already
employed under the State and not in respect of the first
employment under the State.
If the "equality of
opportunity" guaranteed to all citizens by Art. 16(1)
does not· extend to matters of promotion the petitioners' contention that the provisions are void must
fail at once. If, however, matters of promotion are
-
..
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
315
also "matters relating to employment " within the
r959
meaning of Art. 16(1) of the Constitution, the next
All India
question we have to consider is whether the impugned Station Masters'
provisions amount to denial of equality of opportun-
& Asst.
ity within the meaning of that Article.
Station Masters'
W
'd
h
d
t'
fi t
Association
e propose to cons1 er t e secon ques 10n rs , on
the assumption that matters b,f
promoti~n . are General~anager,
" matters relating to employment ' . So multifar10us Central Railways
are the activities of the State that employment of men
for the purpose of these activities has by the very
Das Gupta J.
nature of things to be in different departments of the
State and inside each department, in many different
classes. For each such class there 11ore separate rules
fixing the number of personnel of each class, posts to
which the men in that class will be appointed, questions of seniority, pay of different posts, the manner
in which promotion will be effected from the lower
grades.of pay to the higher grades, e.g., whether on
the result of periodical examination or by seniority, or
by selection or on some other basis-and other cognate
matters. Each such class can be reasonably considered
to be a separate and in many matters independent
entity with its own rules of recruitment, pay and
prospects and other conditions of service which may
vary considerably between one class and another. A
member joins a particular class on recruitment ; he
leaves the class on retirement or death or dismissal,
discharge, resignation or other modes of termination
of service, or by joining another class of employees
whether by promotion thereto or direct recruitment
thereto on passing some examination or by selection
in some other mode.
It is clear that as between the members of the same
class the question whether conditions of service are
the same or not may well arise. If they are hot, the
question of denial of equal opportunity will require
seriou~ consideration in such cases. Does the concept
of equal opportunity in matters of employment apply,
however, to variations in provisions as between
members of different classes of employees under the
Sta.te ? In our o:pinion, the answer mqst be i:q the
•
r959
All India
Station 11'! asters'
&Asst.
Station Jlr!asters'
Association
v.
General l\f anager 1
Central Railways
Das Gupta].
316
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(2)]
negative.
The concept of equality can have no
existence except with reference to matters which are
common as between individuals, between whom equality is predicated. Equality of opportunity in matters
of employment can be predicated only as between
persons, who are either seeking the same employment,
or have obtained the same employment. It will, for
example, plainly make no sense to say that because
for employment as professors of colleges, a higher
University degree is required than for employment as
teachers of schools, equality of opportunity is being
denied. Similarly it is meaningless to say that unless
persons who have obtained employment as school
teachers, have the same chances of promotion as persons who have obtained employment as teachers in
colleges, equality of opportunity is denied.
There is,
in our opinion, no escape from the conclusion that
equality of opportunity in matters of promotion, must
mean equality as between members of the same class
of employees, and not equality between members of
separate, independent classes.
The Petitioners' Counsel did not seriously challenge
the correctness of the above proposition. They contended however that Road-side Station Masters and
Guards really form one and the same class of
employees. In our opinion, there is no substance in
this contention. It has to be noticed first that Appendix II of the Indian Railway Establishment Code
(Vol. I) which prescribe rules for the recruitment and
training of subordinate staff of Indian Railways
classi(y the subordinate staff governed by the rules
into 7 branches: (1) Transportation (Traffic); (2) Commercial; (3) Transportation (Power); (4) Civil Engineering; (5) Store department Staff; (6) Office clerks
and (7) Medical. Each branch again has been divided
into groups. The first branch, i.e., the Transportation
(Traffic) is shown as having 3 groups: (i) Station
Masters, (ii) Guards, (iii) Outdoor Clerical Staff.
Rule 2, the definition section defines a "group" to
mean a series of olasses which form a normal channel
of promotion. Rule 8 shows the classes of posts
,.
.
'
,,
'
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
317
included in the Station Masters' group and the normal
channels of their promotion which are as follows:- ·
Signaller
I
I
Assist. Head Signallers
I
Head Signallers
I
Telegraph Inspectors
I
Assist. Station Masters
(lower grade)
. I
Station Masters
(lower grade)
.
I
Assist. Controllers
Assist. Yard Foreman
Station kasters
Controllers
Yard Foremen
T
. I .
ransportabon Inspectors
Rule 9 lays down the qualifications necessary for
the recruitment to this" group". Rule 10 says that
the recruitment will be initially made as students and
further provides that the recruits may be {a) persons
to be trained in telegraphy in railway telegraph training schools and (b) persons who have completed a
training in telegraphy in recognized private telegraph
training schools. Note 2 of this Rule provides that
recruits in either category will on the satisfactory
completion of their tr~ining, be eligible for appointment as signallers and will remain on probation for
one year after such appointment. Provisions for
training appear in Rule 11.
Rule 12 provides for
Refresher and Promotion Courses. Rules 13 to 17 are
in respect of Guards. Rule 13 states the classes included in this group and the normal channels of their
promotion thus :-
Probationary Guards
I
Goods or Passenger Guards
I
Assistant Station Masters (higher grades)
Assist. Controllers
Assist. Ya rd Foremen
I
Station Masters
Controllers
Yard Foremen
I
Transportation Inspectors
Rule 14 lays down the qualifications necessary for
recruitment in this line, Rule 15 provides that the
tI
I959,
All India
Station Masters'
&- A.st.
Station Masters'.
Association
v.
General Manager,
Central Railways
Das Gupta].
318
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960 (2)]
'959
recruitment will normally be to the lower grade of
Guards. Rule 16 provides that during the one year
All India
Station Mastm' period of probation recruits will undergo training for
& Asst.
a period to be fixed by the administration. Rule 17
Station Masters' provides for the periodical refresher courses at stated
Association
intervals and promotion courses as necessary may be
v.
prescribed.
Gc""""1
1 M1,":'1"g'"
In deciding the question whether Road-side Station
entra
lat ways Masters and Guards belong to one and the same class
Das Gupta J.
of employees or not, we must not be misled by the
words " groups " or " classes of posts " used in the
above rules. The crux of the question is the nature
of the differentiation between Road-side Station
Masters and Guards in recruitment, prospects and
promotion. We find that Road-side Station Masters
and Guards are recruited separately, trained separately
and the several classes of posts which are ordinarily
open to them are also distinct and separate. The only
point of contact between them is provided by the rule
that Guards may become Station Masters by passing
the Slip 45 examination. If after becoming Station
Masters these Guards could continue also as Guards
there might be some scope for suggesting that the two
classes have coalesced. It is not disputed however
that Guards once they become Station Masters cease
to be Guards and continue as Station Masters. The
fact that the qualifications necessary for recruitment
as Guards or Station Masters are approximately or
even wholly the same can in no way affect the question
whether they form one and the same class, or form
different classes. As on the admitted facts the Roadside Station Masters and Guards are, as already stated,
recruited separately and trained separately and have
separate avenues of promotion, the conclusion is
irresistible that they form two distinct and separate
classes as between whom there is na scope for predicating equality or inequality of opportunity in matters
of promotion.
In view of this conclusion it is unnecessary for the
purpose of the present case to decide the other question: whether matters of promotion are included in
the words "matters relating tu employment" in
•
-
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
319
Article 16(1) of the Constitution. For even assuming
z959
that they are so included, the present application must
All India
be rejected on the simple ground that the petitioners Station Masters'
belong to a wholly distinct and separate class from
& Asst.
Guards and so there can be no question of equality of Station Masters'
opportunity in matters of promotion as between the
Association
petitioners and Guards.
G
v.
. .
eneral Manager,
The learned Counsel for the pet1t10ners stated before central Railways
us that this channel of promotion for Guards is peculiar
to the Central Railways; and is not now to be found
Das Gupta J.
in the other Zones of Indian Railways. If that be the
position, the matter may well deserve the attention of
the Government; but this has nothing to do with the
merits of the petition before us.
For the reasons mentioned above, we dismiss the
app.lication, but in view of all the circumstances, we
order that parties will bear their own costs.
Petition dismissed.
FEROZ DIN AND OTHERS
v.
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
(S. K. DAS, A. K. SARKAR and M. HrnAYATULLAH, JJ.)
Industrial Dispute-Strike-Notice of
discharge-Whether
amounts to lock-out-Sanction to proseci~te- Facts constituting the
offence not sha:wn on the face-Conviction on such sanction if bad-·
Industrial Disputes Act, I947 (I4 of I947), ss. 27, 24, 2(I).
·
A company dismissed from its service four of the appellants,
for taking part and instigating others to join, in an illegal slowdown strike in the Hot Mill Section of its works, which were a
public utility service. On such dismissal the slow-down strike
however gained strength. The company thereupon issued a
notice dated April 8, 1953, to the workers of the Hot Mill that
unless they voluntarily recorded their willingness to operate the
plant to its normal capacity, before 2 p.m. of April IO, they would
be considered to be no longer employed by the company. As a
result forty workers recorded their willingness, but the rest did
not make any response at all. Th:e company then issued a second
notice dated April 25, stating, inter alia, that the workers who
did not record their willingness to work the plant to its normal
capacity in terms of the previous notice dated April 8, had been
considered to be no longer in service and their formal discharge
I959
November 25