# STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR v. SHANTILAL ETC

- **Citation:** [1989] 3 S.C.R. 670
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1989-08-02
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. G 6147-6148 of 1983
- **Bench:** K. Jagannatha Shetty, Kuldip Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-rajasthan-anr-v-shantilal-etc-10535
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

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
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
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.
-4.
)"·
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
F
G
H
infringe the equality clause, and was not discriminatory on the ground
of sex.
0The 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
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,
670
'
)-
~
I·
! v
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 compounders have been produced. [673F]
2. Even assuming that prior to coming into force of the Rules
B
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. 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]
Reserve Bank of India v. N.C. Paliwal & Ors., [1977] I S.C.R.
377; referred to.
3. A bare reading of the Rules show that the composition of the
c
two cadres including designations, qualifications and methods of appointment 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 compounders though not qualified to treat maternity cases must he equated
E
.
.
with nurses because they can treat other type of cases. [678G]
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]

## Text

A
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.
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
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
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.
-4.
)"·
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
F
G
H
infringe the equality clause, and was not discriminatory on the ground
of sex.
0The 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
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,
670
'
)-
~
I·
! v
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 compounders have been produced. [673F]
2. Even assuming that prior to coming into force of the Rules
B
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. 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]
Reserve Bank of India v. N.C. Paliwal & Ors., [1977] I S.C.R.
377; referred to.
3. A bare reading of the Rules show that the composition of the
c
two cadres including designations, qualifications and methods of appointment 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 compounders though not qualified to treat maternity cases must he equated
E
.
.
with nurses because they can treat other type of cases. [678G]
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.
B.D. Sharma for the Appellants.
H
A
672
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1989] 3 S.C.R.
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 'nursing 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 Nursing 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 separate cadres for nurses and compounders. The learned Judge further
found as a fact that males and females were both eligible for recruitment 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 equaA
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
were violative of the provisions of Article 15 of the Constitution cannot, therefore, be accepted."
c
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 Constitution 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 indicating 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:
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
674
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1989] 3 S.C.R.
"It is now well settled, as a result of the decision of this
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
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-I
sion that the nurses and compounders form one class and as such
treating them differently by creating two separate cadres is discriminatory 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:
"4. Composition and Strength of the Service-(!) The
service shall consist of X eleven groups. The right of promotion shall be confined to each group except the extent
specified in the Schedule.
s. Name of Source of Minimum
Post from Minimum remarks
No.Post
recruitmentqualification which pro-qualificawith
and
motion is lion&
percentage experience to be
experience
for direct
made
required
recruitment
for
~
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
Gr. I
recruitment equivalent
Gr. II
Nursing
with perqualification
Superincentage& recognised
tendent
50% by
by GovernGr. II
promotion ment
2. Regd. 'A'
STA TE OF RAJASTHAN v. SHANTILAL [KULDIP SINGH, J. J
675
grade Nurse
A
2.
Nursing
Supdt.
Gr. II
3. Sister
Tutor course
passed
4. 12 years
experience
out of which
4 years must
be as Sister
Tutor & 3
years as
Nursing
Supdt.
Gr. II or
at an equivalent post
25% by
1. R.N .C.R. Asstt.
direct
or its equiNursing
recruitment valent quali- Supdt.
& 75% by ficatior. repromotion cognised by
Government
2. Regd. 'A'
Grade Nurse
3. Sister
Tutors'
course passed
4. 10 years'
experience
out of which
4 years'
should be as
sisters Tutor
& 3 years as
Asst!. Nursing Supdt. or
at an equivalent post.
B
c
2 years
D
service as
Asstt.
Nursing
Supdt.
E
F
G
H
676
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1989] ' S.C.R.
~
3.
25% by
1. R.N.C.R. Sister
>r
A
Asstt.
2 years
Nursing
direct
or its equior Nursing service as
Supdt.
recruitment valent quali- Tutor
Sister or
and 75% by fication reNursing
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 equiNurse/
service
Tutor
recruitment valent quali- Comp.
as Staff
x
and 75% by fication reGr. II
Nurse/
E
promotion cognised by
Comp.Gr.
Government
II or4
2. Regd. 'A'
years sergrade Nurse
vice as
Staff Nurse
3. Sister
out of
Tutors
which 3
F
Course passed.
years con4. 3 years
tinuous
experience
service
as staff
should be
Nurse/Comp.
in operaGr. II
lion TheaG
tre or3
years service as
Staff Nurse
with Sister
Tutor CerH
tificate
ri
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
Nurse
Comp.
Gr. II
75% by
direct
recruitment
&25% by
promotion
PNRCor
its equivalent
qualification
recognised
by
Midwife & 7 years
Auxiliary service as
~urse
Midwife or
Midwife
Auxiliary
Nurse
Midwife
Government
Midwife
100% by
Auxiliary
& Auxidirect
Nurse
liary Nurst1 recruitment ' Midwifery
Midwife
trairied and
VIII standard
passed
GROUP'E'
I. Compoun- 100% by
der Gr. I promotion
2.
Compoun- -do-
< der Gr. II
C6mpoun- PNRC or
der Gr. II its equivalent
-qualification recognised by
Government with
5 years
service as
Compounder Gr. II.
Compoun- PNRC or
der Gr. III its equivalent
B
c
D
E
F
qualificaG
tion recognised by
Government
H
678
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
I 1989] 3 S.C.R.
A
3.
Compoun- 100% by
der Gr. III direct
recruitment
Matriculate
or equivalent
qualification
recognised by
Government.
B
A bare-reading of the Rules show that the composition of the
y
two cadres including designations, qualifications and methods of appointment 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 qualifications and hence are not eligible to be considered for promotion in
nursing cadre. The High Court repelled the argument with the following reasoning:
D
E
F
"Special qualification in midwifery is required for the
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
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
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 CertifiH
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 qualification 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 provided 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.
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.
R.S.S.
Appeals allowed.
c
D