R.V. Krishna Rao vs Secretary, Revenue, Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others

S.R. Nayak, J.—Rule Nisi. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue finally.

The petitioner is a non-tribal who worked as a Village Patwari prior to 6-1-1984 in non-tribal area. The 2nd respondent in his notification dated 18-4-1997 has sought for applications to fill up the vacancies for the posts of the Village Administrative Officers from those candidates who are non-tribal Officers but who worked in the tribal villages of Khammam District on or before 6-1-1984. This action of the Joint Collector is assailed in this writ petition.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner would strenuously contend that the classification effected by the Joint Collector in the matter of offering an opportunity would apply only in favour of those persons who are non-tribal Village Officers but who worked in the tribal villages of Khammam District leaving out the non-tribals who worked in the non-tribal areas of Khammam District tantamounts to an invidious discrimination violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is not well-founded. What Article 14 of the Constitution of India debars is class legislation and not reasonable classification. However, in order to pass the test of permissible or reasonable classification, two conditions must be satisfied, namely, the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguished the things or persons grouped together from the things or persons which are left out, and, the differentia must have a rational relation to the objects sought to be achieved by the statute or the instrument in question. When the notification is reviewed by applying the first test it could be seen that classification is based on an intelligible differentia in the sense that it has made a classification into two distinct categories of persons, namely, those persons who are non-tribals but who worked in the tribal areas and the other group consisting non-tribals who worked in the non-tribal area. Therefore, the first condition is satisfied. Coming to the second condition required to be satisfied, it appears to my mind that the notification has given a preference to those persons who served in the tribal area. It is quite apparent from the notification that it has shown an incentive to those who served in the tribal areas. The discrimination shown by the impugned notification is based on valid grounds which could be sustained on the touch-stone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and it is dismissed. No costs.