The State Of Bombay And Another vs F.N. Balsara on 25 May, 1951
Article 14
The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law
or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.
State of West Bengal v Anwar Ali Sarkar, 1952
Test:
(i) the
classification must be founded on an intelligible differen-
tia which distinguished those that are grouped together from
others.
(ii) that differentia must have a rational
relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Act. The
differentia which is the basis of the classification and the
object of the Act are distinct things and what is necessary
is that there must be a nexus between them.
Facts:
E. P. Royappa vs State Of Tamil Nadu, 1973
Petitioner-IAS, In nov. 1969-post of Chief Secretary appointed.
Later transferred
post of Deputy Chairman Planning Commission (temp. Created for one year initially).
Later junior appointed as chief sec. post.
Question:
E. P. Royappa vs State Of Tamil Nadu, 1973
First, the petitioner is appointed to a post or transferred to a post which is not validly created within the meaning of Rule 4 of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules,. 1954.
Second, under rule 9 of the Indian Administrative Service (Pay) Rules, 1954 no member of the Service shall be appointed to a post other than a post specified in Schedule III unless the State Government concerned in respect of posts under its control or the Central Government in respect of posts under its control, as the case may be, make a declaration that the
said Post is equivalent in status and responsibility to a post specified in the said Schedule. It is, therefore, said that the Petitioner who is a cadre post holder, viz., holding the post of Chief Secretary cannot be posted to a non-seheduled Post without a declaration that the nonscheduled post is equal in status and responsibilities to a scheduled post.
Third, the petitioner is posted to an office which is inferior in status and office to that of the Chief Secretary. Therefore, the order is a hostile discrimination offending Articles 14 and 16.
Fourth, the creation of the post as well as the; appointment and transfer of the petitioner to the post is malafide.
Judgement:
The bench had rejected the petition unanimously
wasarbitrary and violative of Arts. 14 and 16, though it may seem plausible, cannot be accepted.
The burden of establishing mala fides is very heavy on the person who alleges it.
Why it is so Important.
Equality is antithetic to arbitrariness.
New Concept: Justice Bhagwati Ji: Natural Justice. (Rule of Law).
Equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies.
Where an act is arbitrary it is violative of Article 14.
Art. 14: ensure fairness and equality in treatment and strikes at arbitrariness in state actin.