Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 2901 (ALL)

Pushpak Jyoti v. State of U. P.

2003-12-11

MARKANDEY KATJU, UMESHWAR PANDEY

body2003
M. KATJU, J. ( 1 ) THESE writ petitions and the bunch of connected writ petitions have challenged the validity of the petitioners allocation to the State of Uttaranchal consequent upon the creation of the State of uttaranchal by the U. P. Re-Organisation Act, 2000. All these petitions are being disposed off by a common judgment. ( 2 ) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners in all these connected petitions. We have also heard Sri B. N. Singh, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Central Government and the learned Standing Counsel for the State Government. ( 3 ) THE petitioner in Writ Petition No. 52499 of 2002 was selected as an Officer in the Provincial police Service in 1987 Batch. After completing his training he joined the service on 3. 3. 1990 and was initially posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police at Rampur. Presently he is posted as additional Superintendent of Police, District Gautam Budh Nagar. ( 4 ) THE U. P. Re-Organisation Act, 2000 was enacted by Parliament% which the State of U. P. was bifurcated and a new State called uttaranchal1 Was created. Since a new State was being created obviously some U. P. Government employees had to be allocated to the State of uttaranchal. ( 5 ) THE relevant provision in the U. P. Re-Organisation Act, 2000 with which we are concerned in these petitions are Sections 73, 75, 76 and 77 of the Act. These provisions are as follows :-" 73. Provisions relating to All India Services.-- (1) Every persons who immediately before the appointed day is serving in connection with the affairs of the existing State of Uttar Pradesh shall, on and from that day provisionally continue to serve in connection with the affairs of the state of Uttar Pradesh unless he is required, by general or special order of the Central government to serve provisionally in connection with the affairs of the State of Uttaranchal: provided that every direction under this sub-section issued after the expiry of a period of one year from the appointed day shall be issued with the consultation of the Governments of the successor States. (2) As soon as may be after the appointed day, the Central Government shall, by general or special order, determine the successor State to which every person referred to in Sub-section (1)shall be finally allotted for service and the date with effect from which such allotment shall take effect or be deemed to have taken effect. (3) Every person who is finally allotted under the provisions of Sub-section (2) to a successor state shall, if he is not already serving therein be made available for serving in the successor state from such date as may be agreed upon between the Governments concerned or in default of such agreement, as may be determined by the Central Government. 75. Provisions as to continuance of Officers in same post.-- (1) Every person who, immediately before the appointed day is holding or discharging the duties of any post or office in connection with the affairs of the existing State of Uttar Pradesh in any area which on that day falls within any of the successor States shall continue to hold the same post or office in that successor State and shall be deemed, on and from that day, to have been duly appointed to the post or office by the Government of or any other Appropriate Authority in that successor State : provided that nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent a Competent Authority, on and from the appointed day, from passing in relation to such person any order affecting the continuance in such post or office. 76. Advisory Committees.-- (1) Central Government may, by order, establish one or more advisory Committees for the purpose of assisting it in regard to- (a) the discharge of any of its functions under this part and (b) the ensuring of fair and equitable treatment to all persons affected by the provisions of this part and the proper consideration of any representations made by such persons. 77. Power of Central Government to give directions.--The Central Government may give such directions to the State Government of Uttar Pradesh and the State Government of Uttaranchal as may appear to it to be necessary for the purpose of giving to the foregoing provisions of this part and the State Government shall comply with such directions. 77. Power of Central Government to give directions.--The Central Government may give such directions to the State Government of Uttar Pradesh and the State Government of Uttaranchal as may appear to it to be necessary for the purpose of giving to the foregoing provisions of this part and the State Government shall comply with such directions. " ( 6 ) UNDER Section 73 (1) a U. P. Government employee shall on and from the appointed date provisionally continue to serve in connection with the affairs of the State of Uttaranchal unless he is required by general or special order of the Central Government to serve provisionally in connection with the affairs of the State of Uttaranchal. ( 7 ) UNDER Section 73 (2) the Central Government by general or special order can determine the successor State to which every person mentioned in Sub-section (1) shall be finally allotted for service and the date with effect from which the said allotment shall take effect. ( 8 ) IT is obvious from Section 73 (2) of the Act, that the final allotment for service in a successor state has to be made by the Central Government. The expression successor State has been defined in Sub-section (2) (j) of the Act, to mean the State of U. P. or the State of Uttaranchal. ( 9 ) THERE is no challenge to the validity of any provision of the U. P. Re-Organisation Act, 2000, in this writ petition. What has been challenged is the final allotment of the petitioner to the State of Uttaranchal under Section 73 (2) and the principles of allotment. ( 10 ) THE final allotment, as already mentioned above, has to be done by the Central Government under Section 73 (2 ). Under Section 76 the Central Government can appoint an Advisory committee for assisting it in discharge of its functions under Part-VIII of the Act and for ensuring fair and equitable treatment to all persons likely to be affected and for proper consideration of any representation made by such persons. Under Section 77 the Central government can give direction to the State Government as may appear to it to be necessary for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Part-VIII of the Act and the State Government has to comply with such directions. Under Section 77 the Central government can give direction to the State Government as may appear to it to be necessary for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Part-VIII of the Act and the State Government has to comply with such directions. ( 11 ) IT appears that the Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, government of India wrote a letter dated 13. 9. 2000 to the Chief Secretary, U. P. Government, copy of which is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. This letter states that discussions had been held in the meeting with the three Chief Secretaries of Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and U. P. on 6. 9. 2000 in the Chambers of Sri B. B. Tandon, Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, public Grievance and Pensions regarding the principles to be followed for allocating personnel belonging to the services other than All India Service to the new States in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Sri B. B. Tandon also sent alongwith that letter copy of the guidelines containing the principles and modalities of handling the personnel and service matter which should be followed by the State Government for all services other than All India Services. This letter also mentions nodal officers in the Central Government who may by contacted by the State government for any guidance and clarifications. Various principles are mentioned in the guidelines annexed to the aforesaid letter. The Chief Secretary, U. P. formulated the policy of allocation of personnel in pursuance of the guidelines of the Central Government dated 13. 9. 1990, in which the distribution of personnel had been laid down on the basis of three criteria, namely, (i) Optional; (ii) domicile status; and (iii) deputation basis. True copy of the letter of the Chief Secretary dated 65. 11. 2000 is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. ( 12 ) IT is alleged in Paragraph 10 of the writ petition that the State Advisory Committee was also constituted by the Central Government to deal with such allocations which consisted of the Chief secretaries, U. P. and Uttaranchal and Shri Vishwanath Anand, former Chief Secretary as chairman of the Committee. A true copy of the letter of Shri B. B. Tandon, Secretary, government of India dated 21. 12. 2000/22. 12. A true copy of the letter of Shri B. B. Tandon, Secretary, government of India dated 21. 12. 2000/22. 12. 2000 to the Chief Secretary, U. P. Government in this connection is Annexure-2 to the short counter-affidavit in Writ Petition No. 45201 (A) of 2002. This letter states that after creation of the State of Uttaranchal the Central Government has decided to constitute a State Advisory Committee for assisting it in discharging its functions in regard to State Government employees to ensure fair and equitable treatment and consideration of representations. The guidelines to be borne in mind by the State Advisory Committee and its composition, were also mentioned in the said letter. ( 13 ) THE first meeting of the State Advisory Committee was held at Delhi on 28. 4. 2001. The minuets, decisions and recommendations made in this meeting are Annexure-8 to connected Writ petition No. 47285 of 2002, Udai Raj Singh v. State of U. P. . ( 14 ) A meeting of the State Advisory Committee was then held on 2. 7. 2002 at Nainital, uttaranchal in which certain norms were laid down and some previous policies were revised vide g. O. dated 6. 11. 2000. Copy of the minutes of the meeting of the State Advisory Committee held on 2. 7. 2002 at Nainital, Uttaranchal is Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The State Government issued a revised G. O. dated 15. 7. 2002 regarding final allocation of personnel allegedly on the basis of the norms and guidelines laid down by the State Advisory Committee in its meeting dated 2. 7. 2002. True copy of the G. O. dated 15. 7. 2002 is Annexure 6 to the writ petition. A perusal of the same shows that the first two conditions for allocating the personnel to Uttaranchal are (i) optional and (ii) domicile status. The remaining vacancies, if any, left thereafter shall be allocated as per Clauses 3 to 8 in the G. O. dated 15. 7. 2002. ( 15 ) IT is alleged in Paragraph 17 of the writ petition that the personnel of the Secretariat of the u. P. Government expressed deep anguish and resentment of the guidelines dated 15. 7. 2002 by resorting to demonstrations. 7. 2002. ( 15 ) IT is alleged in Paragraph 17 of the writ petition that the personnel of the Secretariat of the u. P. Government expressed deep anguish and resentment of the guidelines dated 15. 7. 2002 by resorting to demonstrations. Consequently, the Principal Secretary, Secretariat Administration department informed the President of the U. P. Secretariat Association that the members of the secretariat Association shall not be allocated to Uttaranchal against their wish vide letter of the principal Secretary dated 2. 7. 2002, Annexure-7 to the writ petition. It is alleged in Paragraph 17 of the writ petition that this amounted to hostile discrimination against other employees who have been allotted Uttaranchal against their wish. ( 16 ) IN Paragraph 22 of the writ petition it is alleged that the petitioner received notice dated 26. 11. 2002, alongwith copy of the tentative final allocation list of the officers who are going to be allocated to the State of Uttaranchal. True copy of the tentative final allocation list dated 26. 11. 2002 of the P. P. S. Officers who are going to be allocated to the State of Uttaranchal is annexure-9 to the writ petition. A perusal of this letter shows that the persons who were given a tentative allotment were permitted to make a representation to the Chairman of the State advisory Committee by 12. 12. 2002. The representations received thereafter would not be considered. ( 17 ) IN connected Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45201 of 2002, Vijay Kumar Yadav v. State of u. P. , a short counter-affidavit has been filed by the Central Government annexing copy of the letter of B. B. Tandon, Secretary to the Central Government dated 21/22. 12. 2000, addressed to the Chief Secretary, U. P. Government. In this letter reference has been made to the earlier letter of Sri Tandon dated 13. 9. 2000 through which guidelines for provisional allocation of State government employees were circulated. In this letter dated 21/22. 12. 2000, Sri B. B. Tandon, secretary to the Central Government, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pensions has written that with the provisional allocation order having been issued by the Central Government and successor. 9. 2000 through which guidelines for provisional allocation of State government employees were circulated. In this letter dated 21/22. 12. 2000, Sri B. B. Tandon, secretary to the Central Government, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pensions has written that with the provisional allocation order having been issued by the Central Government and successor. States having come into existence the Central Government has decided to constitute a State Advisory Committee for the purpose of assisting it in discharging its function with regard to the State Government employees with a view to ensure their fair and equitable treatment including proper consideration of their representations. ( 18 ) THE composition and objectives of the State Advisory Committee constituted by the Central government including guidelines to be borne in mind by the State Advisory Committee and the state Government has been enumerated in the annexure enclosed in that letter. Sri B. B. Tandon requested the State Government to render all necessary assistance to the State Advisory committee to enable it to function smoothly. ( 19 ) A perusal of the composition of the State Advisory Committee shows that the State Advisory committee constituted by the Central Government consisted of the following :- (1) A senior retired Civil Servant of the rank of Chief Secretary or equivalent as Chairman. (2) Chief Secretaries of the successor States or their nominees not below the rank of Secretary to the State Governments, representing the State Governments as members of the Committee. (3) Additional Secretary (Pension) or his nominee not below the rank of the Director to the government of India, representing the Central Government as member. (4) An officer not below the rank of Secretary to the State Government coordinating the re-organisation Cell in the State of Uttar Pradesh existing immediately before the appointed day, as member Secretary. ( 20 ) THUS, the State Advisory Committee consisted of very senior and experienced Civil servants. ( 21 ) THE objectives of the State Advisory Committee was to assist the Central Government in regard to discharge of its function relating to State Government employees under Part-VIII of the act and to ensure fair and equitable treatment to the State Government employees affected by the provisions of that part and for proper consideration of their representations. ( 21 ) THE objectives of the State Advisory Committee was to assist the Central Government in regard to discharge of its function relating to State Government employees under Part-VIII of the act and to ensure fair and equitable treatment to the State Government employees affected by the provisions of that part and for proper consideration of their representations. The State advisory Committee circulated tentative final allocation list to the respective successor State government for information of their employees and for submission of representations. The State advisory Committee then considered the representations made by the employees against the tentative allocation list and forwarded its recommendations to the Central Government for taking a final view in the matter. Based on the advice received from the Central Government on the recommendations made by the State Advisory Committee, tentative allocation list was made final and on that basis the State Government issued final allocation orders. Certain principles for final allocation have also been mentioned in the aforesaid letter. ( 22 ) BY the subsequent letter of the Director in the Department of Personnel and Training, Central government to the Chief Secretary, U. P. dated 26/27. 9. 2001, a modification had been made to the guidelines sent alongwith be letter dated 22. 12. 2000, vide Annexure-3 to the short counter-affidavit in Writ Petition No. 45201 of 2002. Thereafter additional guidelines dated 21. 11. 2001 was issued vide Annexure-4 to the short counter-affidavit. ( 23 ) IT appears that a meeting of the State Advisory Committee constituted by the Central government was held at Nainital, Uttaranchal on 2. 7. 2002 in which following officers attended-Name designation shri D. S. Bagga Chief Secretary, U. P. Shri Madhukar Guptashri R. S. Tolia and Commissioner, uttaranchal chief Secretary, Uttarancalprincipal Secretary, Forest rural Development, shri Indu Pandeyfinance, Uttaranchalshri N. S. Napalchyalcommissioner, Uttaranchalshri Saurabh Chandra shri Lav Verma co-ordination principal Secretary, re-Organisation secretary, Irrigation, U. P. Secretary, Uttaranchal shri Keshav Desirajupower, Uttaranchalshri Alok Jain uttaranchal secretary, Irrigation and secretary, Karmik, shri R. R. Prasad of India, Deptt. ofdirector (S. R.), Government personnel and Pension. ( 24 ) TRUE copy of the minutes of the meeting of the State Advisory Committee held on 2. 7. 2002 is Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition No. 52499 of 2002. ofdirector (S. R.), Government personnel and Pension. ( 24 ) TRUE copy of the minutes of the meeting of the State Advisory Committee held on 2. 7. 2002 is Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition No. 52499 of 2002. In this meeting the following criteria for allocation of personnel to Uttaranchal was suggested by the Chief Secretary, U. P. and was accepted; (1) The first of be allotted will be optees to Uttaranchal. (2) Those whose home district as declared in service records lies within Uttaranchal, will be allotted to that State. (3) If vacancies persist, the junior most as on the appointed day in the desired pay scale would be allotted. (4) While carrying out the exercise care would be taken to observe the criteria regarding reservation of SCs/sts/obcs and others. Care would also be taken to allocate personnel pro rata according to the total strength of the batch, as far as possible. (5) If both husband and wife are in service, allotment would be in accordance with the option of the senior with reference to the pay scale. In case of officers finally allotted to Uttaranchal vide government of Indias order dated 11. 9. 2001, the spouse would be allotted Uttaranchal only and not Uttar Pradesh. (6) Female employees would be allocated according to their options, subject to the condition that those whose spouses are covered by Point 2 or Point 3 would be allotted Uttaranchal only and not Uttar Pradesh. (7) Those employees who are due to retire within two years will be allotted as per their option. (8) Handicapped employees, if not finally allotted to Uttaranchal vide orders dated 11. 9. 2001 issued by Government of India would be allotted as per their options. There was consensus on the adoption of these norms to govern the allocation of personnel. ( 25 ) IN our opinion, the above 8 principles are objective criteria designed to avoid any complaint of pick and choose. These criteria, in our opinion, cannot be regarded as arbitrary. They have been framed by senior, experienced administrators and hence the Court should defer to their opinion, particularly since the Court does not have expertise in these matters. ( 26 ) THE Chairman of the Committee also suggested that genuine and extreme hardship cases may be put up before the State Advisory Committee for disposal. They have been framed by senior, experienced administrators and hence the Court should defer to their opinion, particularly since the Court does not have expertise in these matters. ( 26 ) THE Chairman of the Committee also suggested that genuine and extreme hardship cases may be put up before the State Advisory Committee for disposal. ( 27 ) ON the basis of the aforesaid decision of the State Advisory Committee, the Chairman of the state Advisory Committee wrote a letter dated 15. 7. 2002 to all the Principal Secretaries and heads of Department of U. P. Government, copy of which is Annexure-6 to the writ petition. ( 28 ) SRI Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in some petitions submitted that the guidelines for final allocation have not been framed by the Central Government as is the necessary requirement of the U. P. Reorganisation Act, 2000. He has submitted that the guidelines have been framed by the State Advisory Committee on which no such power stands conferred. He has further submitted that there is nothing to show that the criteria for allocation framed by the State Advisory Committee has ever been approved by the Central Government. We do not accept this contention. It may be noted that the State Advisory Committee had been set up by the Central Government and hence it was acting on the authority of the Central government. There is no averment in the Writ Petition No. 52499 of 2002 or in Writ Petition no. 45201 of 2002 or any other of these connected petitions that the recommendations of the state Advisory Committee had not been accepted or approved by the Central Government. Hence the petition cannot urge that the recommendations of the State Advisory Committee had not been approved by the Central Government when he has not even made pleadings in the writ petitions. We are of the opinion that the guidelines framed by the State Advisory Committee will be deemed to be the guidelines of the Central Government since the Committee was set up by the central Government for this purpose. In fact the Central Government has made final allocation under Section 73 (2) of the Act, vide order dated 22. 4. 2003 of the Director (Personnel and training), Central Government, copy of which has been produced before us by Sri B. N. Singh, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Central Government. In fact the Central Government has made final allocation under Section 73 (2) of the Act, vide order dated 22. 4. 2003 of the Director (Personnel and training), Central Government, copy of which has been produced before us by Sri B. N. Singh, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Central Government. The said copy of the order dated 22. 4. 2003 shall be kept on record in this case. Copy of the order date 22. 4. 2003 had also been given earlier to Sri Ashok Khare and Smt. Sadhana Upadhyay, learned Counsel for the petitioners by Sri B. N. Singh, Senior Standing Counsel for Central Government, High Court alongwith his letter dated 11. 11. 2003. ( 29 ) A perusal of the order dated 22. 4. 2003 shows that the final allocation under Section 73 (2)has been made by the Central Government by this order. ( 30 ) ANNEXED to the order dated 22. 4. 2003 is the list of persons who have been finally allocated to the State of U. P. or Uttaranchal under Section 73 (2 ). ( 31 ) SINCE final allocation has been made by the Central Government under Section 73 (2) of the act, it can reasonably be concluded that this final allocation under Section 73 (2) was made on the recommendations of the State Advisory Committee set up by the Central Government under section 76. Hence, it can be said that the guidelines of the State Advisory Committee was accepted by the Central Government. ( 32 ) SRI Ashok Khare, then contended that the final allocation effects a change in the employer of the petitioner without the consent of the employee. In our opinion, the legislature can change the employer of the employee in the circumstances of the case. Obviously, when the State of uttaranchal was created some of the U. P. Government employees have to be sent to Uttaranchal state, otherwise the State of Uttaranchal cannot function. No doubt after few a years local recruitment will be done by the State of Uttaranchal but for sometime it will have to utilize the services of the erstwhile U. P. Government employees otherwise there will be an administrative vacuum in the Uttaranchal State. We have to take a practical view of the matter and not go by abstract theory. No doubt after few a years local recruitment will be done by the State of Uttaranchal but for sometime it will have to utilize the services of the erstwhile U. P. Government employees otherwise there will be an administrative vacuum in the Uttaranchal State. We have to take a practical view of the matter and not go by abstract theory. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any legal bar to the change of the employer and hence his submission in this regard cannot be accepted. ( 33 ) SRI Ashok Khare then contended that Paragraph 2 (b) (2) of the G. O. dated 15. 7. 2002 is violative of Article 16 (2) of the Constitution. Paragraph 2 (b) (2) of the said G. O. states that the domiciles of Uttaranchal will be allotted Uttaranchal State. The domiciles will be regarded as such persons in whose service record on 1. 4. 2000, it is mentioned that their home district is one of the 13 districts of Uttaranchal State. ( 34 ) WE cannot accept this contention also. Article 16 (2) of the Constitution states : "no citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place or birth, residence or any of them, be uneligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any employment or office under the State. " ( 35 ) WE do not see how Article 16 (2) has been violated by the G. O. dated 15. 7. 2002. In our opinion, the G. O. dated 15. 7. 2002 does not discriminate against the original residents/domiciles of the 13 districts included in Uttaranchal. ( 36 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in G. Dasaratha Ram Rao v. State of A. P. , AIR 1961 SC 564 . In that decision the validity of Section 6 (1) of the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act was challenged on the ground that it violated article 16 (2) of the Constitution. Section 6 (1) stated that in choosing the persons to fill the offices of Village Munsifs, the Collector shall select the persons whom he may consider the best qualified from among the families of the last holders of the office. Section 6 (1) stated that in choosing the persons to fill the offices of Village Munsifs, the Collector shall select the persons whom he may consider the best qualified from among the families of the last holders of the office. The Supreme Court held that this provision violates Article 16 (2) of the Constitution because the office of Village Munsif is an office under the State within the meaning of the term in Article 16 (1) (2) and hence it cannot be treated as a hereditary post. In our opinion, this decision is wholly distinguishable and cannot apply to the facts of the present case. ( 37 ) IN Kailash Chand Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, 2002 AIR SCW 3276, the Supreme Court considered the scope of Article 16 (2) of the Constitution. In that decision the Supreme Court held that the residence within a district or rural areas of that district could not be a valid basis for classification for the purpose of public employment. In that case 10 bonus marks had been awarded for residence in the district concerned and five marks for residents of rural areas of the concerned districts for selection to the post of Primary School Teachers by the Zila Parishad of various districts in the State of Rajashtan. The Supreme Court referred to the Constitution Bench decision in A. V. S. Narasimha Rao v. State of A. P. , 1970 (1) SCR 115 , where in connection with article 16 it was observed : "the intention here is to make every office or employment open and available to every citizen and inter alia to make offices or employment in one part of India open to citizens in all other parts of India" ( 38 ) THE Supreme Court also referred to its own decision in Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 1420 , where it was observed : "it will not noticed from the above discussion that though infra-State discrimination between persons resident in different districts or regions of a State has by and large been frowned upon by the Court and struck down as invalid as in P. Rajendrans case, AIR 1968 SC 1012 and perukaruppans case, AIR 1971 SC 2303 , the Court has in D. N. Chanchalas case and other similar cases upheld institutional reservation effected through University-wise distribution of seats for admission to Medical Colleges. The Court has also by its decision in D. P. Joshis case, air 1955 SC 334 and N. Vasundharas case, AIR 1971 SC 1439 , sustained the constitutional validity of reservation based on residence requirement within a State for the purpose of admission to Medical College. " ( 39 ) AFTER discussing a catena of earlier decisions in Kailash Chand Sharmas case (supra), the supreme Court held that award of bonus marks to the districts or rural areas of the districts amounts to impermissible discrimination as there is no rational basis for such preferential treatment. ( 40 ) IN our opinion, the aforesaid decision is clearly distinguishable. We are here not concerned with any bonus marks or weightage given to people of certain areas. We are concerned with the question whether there was a rational basis for allocating the employees whose domicile/place of birth was in Uttaranchal to the State of Uttaranchal after its creation. We are of the opinion that such a decision to allocate such persons to Uttaranchal cannot be said to be irrational. It may be that the Central Government and State Advisory Committee could have framed some other or different criteria for allocating the employees to Uttaranchal, but it is not for this Court to decide whether this or that criteria was better from the point of view of efficiency of administration or other such circumstances. The State is free to chose different methods and adopt different criteria and it is not for this Court to say that any particular method or criteria should have been chosen. ( 41 ) IN General Manager, Southern Railway v. Rangachari, AIR 1962 SC 36, the Supreme Court observed that Articles 16 (1) and (2) really give effect to the equality before law guaranteed by article 14 and to prohibition of discrimination guaranteed by Article 15 (1 ). Thus, Article 16 is really a specie of the genus which is contained in Article 14. In other words, Article 16 is an instance of the application of the general rule of equality laid down in Article 14 of the constitution. Hence, the decisions on Article 14 may also be apposite. Thus, Article 16 is really a specie of the genus which is contained in Article 14. In other words, Article 16 is an instance of the application of the general rule of equality laid down in Article 14 of the constitution. Hence, the decisions on Article 14 may also be apposite. ( 42 ) IT is well-settled that Article 14 does not prohibit reasonable classification for legitimate purpose vide State of Bombay v. Balsara, 1951 SCR 682 ; Babulal v. Collector of Customs, AIR 1957 SC 877 ; Gopi Chand v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1959 SC 609 . In these decisions it was held that differential treatment does not by itself constitute violation of Article 14 to the constitution. It violates Article 14 when there is no reasonable basis for the differentiation vide ameeroonisa v. Mehboob, AIR 1953 SC 91 . If a law deals equally with members of a well defined class it is not obnoxious and it is not open to the charge of denial of equal protection on the ground that there was no application to other person vide State of Bombay v. Balsara (supra ). No service rule can satisfy every employee vide R. B. I. v. Sahasranaman, AIR 1986 SC 1830 (vide Para 58 ). If the State takes care to reasonably classify persons and if it deals equally with all persons belonging to a well defined class it is not open to the charge of denial of equal protection on the ground that the law does not apply to the other persons vide Sakhawant Ali v. State of Orissa, AIR 1955 SC 166 (Vide Para 10); Chiranjit Lal v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 41 , etc. ( 43 ) OF course, the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the law vide harakchand v. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 166 (vide Para 26); Hanif Quareshi v. State of bihar, AIR 1958 SC 731 ; Pathumma v. State of Kerala, AIR 1978 SC 771 (Para 41) etc. However, Article 14 does not insist that the classification should be scientifically perfect or logically complete vide Kedar Nath v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1953 SC 404 (vide Para 8 ). However, Article 14 does not insist that the classification should be scientifically perfect or logically complete vide Kedar Nath v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1953 SC 404 (vide Para 8 ). The classification would be justified if it is not palpably arbitrary vide Re Special Courts Bill, air 1979 SC 478 (Para 72 ). ( 44 ) HENCE when a law is challenged as denying equal protection, the question for determination by the Court is not whether it has resulted in inequality, but whether there is some difference which bears a just and reasonable relation to the object of the classification vide Suraj Mall v. Biswanath, AIR 1954 SC 545 . When, therefore, a law is challenged as offending Article 14 of the Constitution the first duty of the Court is to examine the purpose and policy of the Act and then to discover whether the classification made by the law has a reasonable relation to the object which the Legislature seeks to achieve vide Kedar Nath v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1953 SC 401; P. B. Roy v. Union of India, AIR 1972 SC 908 , etc. ( 45 ) THE basis of classification may be geographical vide D. P. Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat, air 1955 SC 334 ; State of Punjab v. Ajaib Singh, AIR 1953 SC 10 ; Gopal Narain v. State of u. P. , AIR 1964 SC 370 ; State of Nagaland v. Ratan Singh, AIR 1967 SC 212 , etc. , provided there is a nexus between the territorial basis of the classification and the objects ought to be achieved by the Act, vide Parshottam v. Desai, (1955) 2 SCR 887 ;. Gopichand v. Delhi administration, AIR 1959 SC 609 ; Kangshari Haldhar v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1960 SC 457 ; Srikishan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1955) 2 SCR 531 ; Ram Chandra v. State of Orissa, air 1956 SC 298 ; State of Maharashtra v. Raj Kumar, AIR 1982 SC 1301 ; Shri Swamiji of admar Muti v. Commissioner, AIR 1980 SC 1 (Para 25); State of M. P. v. Bhopal Sugar industries, AIR 1964 SC 1179 , etc. ( 46 ) THUS, a perusal of the above decisions shows that there can be classification provided there is a reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved. ( 46 ) THUS, a perusal of the above decisions shows that there can be classification provided there is a reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved. From this angle the impugned G. O. dated 15. 7. 2002, in our opinion, does not violate Articles 14 and 16 (2) of the Constitution. There is rational classification by the impugned G. O. which has a nexus sought to be achieved namely to provide sufficient number of Civil Servants to the newly created State of Uttaranchal to enable it to function. Domiciles of Uttaranchal are a well defined class and they can better serve the people of Uttaranchal as they are likely to have some knowledge of the local conditions in uttaranchal. ( 47 ) IN our opinion, the impugned G. O. dated 15. 7. 2002 does not discriminate on the basis of descent or on the basis of place of birth or residence. It may be noted that Paragraph 2 (b) (2) of the G. O. dated 15. 7. 2002 does not discriminate inter se between the persons who are domiciles of the 13 districts of Uttaranchal. All such persons have been allocated to Uttaranchal (with the exception of the persons mentioned in the impugned G. O. ). All that the aforesaid provision does is to make a classification between persons who are domiciles of Uttaranchal and those whose are not. In our opinion, this is a reasonable classification which has a nexus to the object sought to be achieved. After all persons who are domiciles of Uttaranchal are likely to have some connection with Uttaranchal and some knowledge about the people, environment and the situation in Uttaranchal. Hence, they will be better able to serve the people of Uttaranchal having knowledge of local affairs as contrasted to persons whose domicile was not Uttaranchal. Persons who are domiciles of Uttaranchal very often have their homes and their relatives there and would in all likelihood have knowledge of local conditions there. Many of them often visit their home cities or villages even when they have lived for quite sometimes in plains of U. P. Hence, most of them have some affiliation to the State of Uttaranchal and they often have relatives and friends there whom they often visit. This is a matter of common knowledge and we can take judicial notice of this fact. This is a matter of common knowledge and we can take judicial notice of this fact. ( 48 ) NO doubt there may be some individual cases of hardship, since there could be some persons who may be domiciles of Uttaranchal technically but may have never visited Uttaranchal. However, it is well-settled that a rule cannot be said to be unreasonable merely because in a given case it operates harshly vide State of Gujarat v. Shantilal, AIR 1969 SC 634 (vide paragraph 52 ). ( 49 ) IN Srinivasa Enterprises v. Union of India, (1980) 4 SCC 507 , the Supreme Court observed vide Paragraph 13 : "when a general evil is sought to be suppressed some martyrs may have to suffer, for the legislature cannot easily make meticulous exception and has to proceed on broad categorization not singular individualizations. " ( 50 ) HENCE, even if some individual Government servants suffer by the said clause that would not make it invalid vide K. B. Hides v. State of U. P. and Ors. , Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2529 of 2002, decided on 1. 12. 2003. . .