E. R. ROYAPPA VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU : CASE SUMMARY
The Supreme Court in E. R. Royappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) 2 SCR 348 held that Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it could not be cribbed, cabined and confined within traditional and doctrinaire limits.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The Petitioner was a member of Indian Administrative Service from Tamil Nadu cadre. The Petitioner was put in selection grade with effect from 22.05.1961. On 11th July, the Petitioner was posted as Additional Chief Secretary. Sh. Ramakrishnan, who was working as chief secretary, went on refused leave for four months from 14th November, 1969. On 13th November, 1969, the Petitioner was posted as Chief Secretary of the Government.
The Petitioner was appointed as Deputy Chairman of the State Planning Commission subsequently as Officer on Special Duty, both non-cadre posts.
The Petitioner contended that the post has not been validly created. The Petitioner who is cadre post holder viz holding the post of Chief Secretary cannot be posted to a non-scheduled post without a declaration that the non-scheduled post is equal in status and responsibilities to the scheduled post. Petitioner is posted in a position which is inferior to chief secretary as such violative of Article 14 and 16.
FINDINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT
The Supreme Court observed that Petitioner was promoted to Chief Secretary in substantive capacity is not well founded.
Sub-rule 1 of Rule 9 of Indian Administrative Service (Pay) Rules, 1954 provided that no member of Indian Administrative Service shall be appointed to a post other than a post specified in Schedule III or in other words non cadre posts unless government makes a declaration that such non cadre post is equivalent in status and responsibility to a post specified in the said schedule. This rule is intended for the protection of member of IAS. The making of such a declaration is a sine qua non of the exercise of power under Rule 1. it is not an idle formality which can be dispensed with at the sweet will of the Government. A member of IAS will be within his rights to contend that such non-cadre post is inferior in status and responsibility and in violation of Article 14 and 16, if such declaration is colorable exercise of power, or mala fide or without application of mind, the Court can set at naught such declaration.
The Supreme Court explored new dimensions of law of equality in interpretation of Article 14 and 16. The Supreme Court observed that Article 16 embodies the fundamental guarantee that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the state. Though enacted as a distinct and independent fundamental right because of its great importance as a principle ensuring equality of opportunity in public employment which is so vital to the building up of the new classless egalitarian society envisaged in the constitution. Article 16 is only an instance of the application of the concept of equality enshrined under Article 14. In other words, Article 14 is a genus while Article 16 is a species. Article 16 gives effect to the doctrine of equality in all matters relating to public employment. The basic principle which therefore informs both Article 14 and 16 is equality and inhibition against discrimination. Now what is content and reach of this great equalizing principle? It is a founding faith and it must not be subjected to a narrow pedantic or lexicographic approach. It’s all embracing scope and meaning cannot be truncated, for to do so would be to violate its activist magnitude. Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it could not be cribbed, cabined and confined” within traditional and doctrinaire limits. Form a positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact, equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies, one belongs to the rule of law in republic while other to the whims and caprices of an absolute monarch. Where an act is arbitrary it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative of Article 14 and if it affects any matter relating to public employment it is also violative of Article 16 and Article 14. Article 14 and 16 strike at arbitrariness in State Action and ensure fairness and equality of treatment. They require the State Actions must be based on relevant principles applicable alike to all similarly situate and it must not be guided by any extraneous or irrelevant considerations because that would be denial of equality. Where the operative reason for State action as distinguished from motive inducing from the antechamber of mind, is not legitimate and relevant but is extraneous and outside area of permissible considerations, it would amount of mala fide exercise of power and that it is hit by Article 14 and 16. Mala fide exercise of power and arbitrariness are different lethal radiations emanating from the same vice, in fact the latter comprehends the former. Both are inhibited by Article 14 and 16.
The Supreme Court observed that Article 14 and 16 are not limited to cases where public servant affected has a right to post. Even if a public servant is in an officiating position, he can complain of violation of Article 14 and 16, if he has been arbitrarily and unfairly treated or subjected to mala fide exercise of power.
The Supreme Court observed that the office of Chief Secretary is a highly sensitive post. If for valid reasons Chief Secretary forfeits confidence of the Chief Minister, he can be shifted to another post provided his legal and constitutional rights are not violated. Petitioner has himself accepted position of deputy chairman of Planning Commission. As far as post of officer on special duty is concerned, it was not established that it was inferior to post of Chief Secretary.
The Supreme Court observed that allegation of mala fide exercise of power has also not been established.
The Supreme Court dismissed the Petition.
_______________________________________________
Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate and legal author based at Delhi. He regularly appears before various Judicial Forums including NCLT, NCLAT, High Courts and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.