Reasonable Classification
Reasonable Classification legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Reasonable classification is permissible and Art.25 of the Constitution is only attracted in an apple to apple comparison
Although Art.25 of the Constitution envisages equality amongst citizens, it also allows for differential treatment of persons who are not similarly placed by virtue of a reasonable classification
However, to justify this difference in treatment, the reasonable classification needs to be 'based on intelligible differentia, which has a rational nexus with the object being sought to be achieved
Likewise, the persons may be classified in groups and such groups may be treated differently, if there is a reasonable classification.
For a classification to be valid, it must satisfy: (i) an intelligible differentia distinguishing persons or things grouped together from others, and (ii) a rational nexus between the differentia and the object of the statute or policy.
Mother of the martyred military officer claimed special family/full pension after the death of first recipient (wife) on the ground of discrimination
Respondent raised an objection that petitioner was only entitled to ordinary/normal family pension
Validity
Under Regln. No.49 when the deceased officer is survived by a widow in such case Clause-b(1) of Regln. No.49 would be attracted, and if there is no widow at the time of death of deceased officer Clause-b(2) would come into force
Case of the appellant being mother would, thus, be covered under the former Clause and she could not press into service Regln. No.63 in support of her claim, as the said provision of law primarily dealt with the cases of normal pension and it carries the eventualities where the original grantee died or suffered some disqualification
Appellant was precluded to take refuge of said provision of law
Article 25 of the Constitution though ordains that all citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law and also guarantees that there shall be no discrimination on the basis of sex but equality does not prohibit classification for differently placed persons
Doctrine of reasonable classification is founded on the assumption that the State has to perform multifarious activities and deal with a vast number of problems
Right of equality of citizens is always founded on an intelligible differentia, which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those, who have been left out
Right of equality is always to be weighed amongst equal in all respects and it is not necessary that every citizen shall be treated alike in all eventualities, thus, in the light of clear distinction of service cadre and nature between a Commissioned Officer and Junior Commissioned Officer, the contention of the appellant was highly ill-founded
Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
Allegation of financial/management crisis in the previous tenures of some selected candidates without any specific nomination
Effect
Contention of the petitioner was that favourite candidates had been selected without even calling him for interview or issuing him a rejection letter
Validity
No question over the constitution of Search Committees or on any of their members had been raised
No specific violation of law, policy or merit was attributed to Search Committees but only vague and general allegations had been levelled by the petitioner
Advertisement for the appointments in question reflected that only short-listed/eligible candidates were to be interviewed by the respective Search Committees
None of the candidates, in whose earlier tenures universities had undergone severe financial and management crisis, had been named specifically in the petition or arguments
None of the selected candidates, who were going to retire in few days, had been specified in the petition and the advertisement itself showed the maximum age of 65 years for the applicants
Appointments of the VCs had already been made, thus, the petitioner was at liberty to exercise his right to information before the concerned forum in accordance with law and assail any such appointment on specific grounds depicting violation of any provision of law or the applicable policy while impleading the V.C. concerned
No room for a roving inquiry or fishing expedition was available to the petitioner
When petitioner was not called for interview, he filed the constitutional petition challenging the selection criteria, however, he ought to have challenged the selection criteria notified by the Government before applying for the post in question and not after having been rejected
In the absence of such timely challenge, it could be presumed that he accepted the criteria to be valid and expressed no reservation against it
V.Cs., who had earned their Ph.D. degrees from the top ranked institutions of the world, were expected that they should, while benefitting from their rich international exposure, endeavor to promote such excellence in the institutions headed by them, thus, selection criteria was not arbitrary and discriminatory but based on rational nexus with the object of classification
Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
Contention of the petitioner was that he was not treated on the analogy of other similarly placed members of the NIRC and District and Sessions Judges in other Provinces for grant of perks and privileges/pay and allowances
Validity
Petitioner had legitimate expectancy to receive the same perks and privileges as were being granted to similarly placed persons/colleagues
All admissible allowances to regular judicial officers in same grade would be admissible to the petitioner as the petitioner was appointed against the judicial post having requisite qualification and practice as an advocate and as such, he could not have been discriminated for the perks and privileges being paid to other appointees/Members of NIRC, who were retired District and Sessions Judges
Petitioner was being treated differently as compared to his colleagues, which was absolutely unwarranted under the quality clause contained in Art.25 of the Constitution
No reasonable distinction existed between the petitioner and other similarly placed Members and there was no justified reason to isolate the case of the petitioner from the other similarly placed members because the discrimination against the petitioner was not based on any rational ground or reasonable classification rather it tantamount to creating artificial grouping
Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.
Such classification must specify the twin test of classification on intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those that are left out
Group of differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by a statute.
Scope and pre-requisites.
Reasonable classification means different treatment of un-equals and classification can be made between two groups which are not substantially placed in similar circumstances or conditions.
Scope of reasonable classification stated.
Although Article 25 of the Constitution envisages equality amongst citizens, it also allows for differential treatment of persons who are not similarly placed under a reasonable classification
However, to justify this difference in treatment the reasonable classification needs to be based on intelligible differentia that has a rational nexus with the object being sought to be achieved'
Only if this test is satisfied can the distinct treatment meted out to a class of persons be sustained under Article 25 of the Constitution.
Scope of reasonable classification stated.
Although Article 25 of the Constitution envisages equality amongst citizens, it also allows for differential treatment of persons who are not similarly placed under a reasonable classification
However, to justify this difference in treatment the reasonable classification needs to be based on intelligible differentia that has a rational nexus with the object being sought to be achieved'
Only if this test is satisfied can the distinct treatment meted out to a class of persons be sustained under Article 25 of the Constitution.
Article 25 of the Constitution allowed for reasonable classification, which was one that was based on intelligible differentia, which must have a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
In the context of Article 25 of the Constitution, the courts gave a relatively greater latitude to the State in fiscal legislation in terms of selecting the persons liable to tax (or exemption), the objects of taxation, the methods employed and as to the rates of taxation
However, the latitude so granted was not infinitely elastic and it was not as though the courts regarded taxation to be wholly beyond the purview of Art. 25.
Article 25 of the Constitution allowed for reasonable classification, which was one that was based on intelligible differentia, which must have a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
In the context of Article 25 of the Constitution, the courts gave a relatively greater latitude to the State in fiscal legislation in terms of selecting the persons liable to tax (or exemption), the objects of taxation, the methods employed and as to the rates of taxation
However, the latitude so granted was not infinitely elastic and it was not as though the courts regarded taxation to be wholly beyond the purview of Art. 25.
Petitioner was admitted to Masters in Advanced Physical Therapy Program who failed to complete within specified time and her enrolment was cancelled
Plea raised by petitioner was that duration was extended to other candidates and she had been discriminated
Validity
Case of petitioner and other similarly placed students did not qualify for an extension in enrolment, as volume of work undertaken by them up till them did not commensurate to that of the students whose cases merited extension and formed a separate class
Cases of students in distinct classes were not co-relatable
No case of discrimination was made out as there was no allegation or indication of any relaxation having been extended to any person in the same category as the petitioner
High Court declined to interfere in the matter
Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
Grievance of petitioners was that Pakistan State Oil, a State owned company was giving preferential treatment to National Logistics Cell, which was also engaged in transporting petroleum products in market and was being run under the control of State authorities
Validity
No special preferential status was conferred by law upon National Logistics Cell in the realm of commercial undertakings, as it was rendering logistical services for profit, in the same manner as any other eligible logistical concern
Maintaining a dedicated queue solely for the benefit of National Logistics Cell could not qualify under the precepts of reasonable classification
Such queue was not in public interest and / or survived the test of arbitrariness, illegality, irrationality and / or impropriety set forth by Supreme Court
High Court declined to approve such conduct of respondents
High Court refrained Pakistan State Oil from according preferential treatment to any entity, including National Logistics Cell and directed to treat all eligible person equally, equitably and without any discrimination in the conduct of its commercial operations
Petition was allowed accordingly.
Reasonable classification is permitted subject to law on the basis of intelligible differentia which distinguishes person or things that are grouped together from those who have been left out.
Although no singular standard of reasonableness could be deduced for such classification, it must be such that could be justified on an intelligible differentia identifying why the classification/distinction had been made and there must be a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the classification.
Petitioners applied admission for MBBS and BDS at the university in the Province of Sindh while holding domiciles of other provinces
Plea raised by petitioners was that they could not be discriminated for seeking admissions on basis of their domicile
Validity
Decision taken by Pakistan Medical and Dental Council demonstrated reasonable classification based on an intelligible differentia which distinguished persons or things that were grouped together from those who had been left out
Differentia giving priority to or preference to local students of each province separately had rational nexus to objects sought to be achieved by such classification
What was unreasonable in one set of circumstances could well be reasonable in another different set of circumstances
Policy decision of Pakistan Medical and Dental Council was applicable across the board and was being adhered to by all provinces for granting admissions in their universities and colleges
High Court declined to interfere in decision of Pakistan Medical and Dental Council as there was no discrimination if policy decision was applied in all the provinces with same criteria
Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Under Art. 25 of the Constitution, equal treatment meant equal treatment in the midst of persons who were evenly positioned or fit in the same class of people
Perception and onset of equality was negation of arbitrariness and every power had its extent and legal limits
Exercise of such power(s) should be based on evenhandedness
Persons in similar circumstances should have similar treatment unless segregation was based on rational cataloguing which should not be whimsical
Comprehensible differentia distinguished persons or things that were grouped together from those who had been left out ;which ought to be judicious linkage to the purpose desired to be achieved by such classification
Concepts of equality before law and equal protection of law were synonymous terms and as the first discouraged and negated all special privileges to any citizen or class and subjected them to ordinary law of land whereas the later declared that all citizens had equal protection of law
Every statutory body and public functionary was therefore supposed to function in good faith with honesty and within precincts of their powers so that concerned person(s) could be treated in accordance with law per Art. 4 of the Constitution.
In terms of impugned Office Memorandums, those employees who retired on or before 01-12-2001 were given 20% rise in pension whereas those who retired thereafter were given only 15% rise
Petitioner contended that there should not be two different rates of increase and all pensioners should be given the same percentage of increase in pension irrespective of their dates of retirement; held, that distinction between 'old pensioners' and 'new pensioners was necessary as the quantum of pension was determined keeping in view the difference of pay in different time periods
Argument of discrimination raised by the petitioner had to be rejected as bifurcation between pensioners was considered necessary in order to maintain a uniform rise in pension due to the different rate of salaries the ex-employees were drawing at the time of their retirement
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly.
In terms of impugned Office Memorandums, those employees who retired on or before 01-12-2001 were given 20% rise in pension whereas those who retired thereafter were given only 15% rise
Petitioner contended that there should not be two different rates of increase and all pensioners should be given the same percentage of increase in pension irrespective of their dates of retirement; held, that distinction between 'old pensioners' and 'new pensioners' was necessary as the quantum of pension was determined keeping in view the difference of pay in different time periods
Argument of discrimination raised by the petitioner had to be rejected as bifurcation between pensioners was considered necessary in order to maintain a uniform rise in pension due to the different rate of salaries the ex-employees were drawing at the time of their retirement
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly.
Employee had not alleged violation of any of his legal right which was guaranteed by the Rules and Regulations of department
Petitioner had only agitated that he had been discriminated by the department in the matter of up-gradation of his post while said benefit had been extended to the similarly placed employees of the same department
Prayer in the constitutional petition did not come within the ambit of terms and conditions of employee's service
Mere difference of nomenclature of posts did not disentitle the petitioner-employee from the same benefit which had been granted to similarly placed employees of the same department
Petitioner had been discriminated by the department which was not permitted under Art.25 of the Constitution
Similarly placed persons must be treated alike and creation of distinction must be based on intelligible differential having nexus with the object of the law
When qualification for both the posts was same and both the officials were performing same duties then petitioner could not be treated differently
Principle of 'equal pay for equal work' had been built in Art.3 of the Constitution
Employee had been deprived of the right of up-gradation without any justifiable reason or ground
Department was directed to grant the petitioner same scale as had been granted to similarly placed person from the date when he became eligible for the same
Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.
Equal protection of law as envisaged under Art. 25 of the Constitution does not imply that every citizen is treated alike in all circumstances but it contemplates that persons similarly situated or similarly placed are to be treated alike
Such reasonable classification is permitted and was to be on intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those who have been left out
Differentia must have a rational nexus to objects sought to be achieved by such classification.
Notification qua regularization of service of employee had been issued but she was being prevented from working as a regular employee
Petitioner-employee after notification of regularization of service had completed her probation period
Employee was not seeking regularization of her service but wanted to be posted against the vacant post having already been regularized
Said notification of regularization had not been withdrawn or rescinded by the department
Employees whose services had been regularized continued to perform their function as regular employees
Petitioner being similarly placed could not be treated with a different yardstick
Reasonable classification must be based on an intelligible differentia which could distinguish individual or one group of persons from another group in a particular set of circumstances
Reasonable classification must be founded on reasonable basis and must have rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by such classification
Regularization of some daily wages employees and denial of the same to other similarly placed employees was a cause for discrimination
Authorities could not discriminate the petitioner from other employees who had been regularized
State should have good sense of acting strictly in accordance with Art.25 of the Constitution and eliminate all forms of discrimination unless they were based on reasonable classification-Authorities were directed to implement the notification of regularization of service of employee and post her against a permanent available post
Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.
Petitioners assailed Income Support Levy at the rate of 0.5% on the value of net movable assets/wealth as being ultra vires the Constitution
Validity
Reasonable classification was permissible provided it was based on intelligible differentia which had reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved and under which distinct persons or things were grouped together
Different laws could be validly enacted for different persons having different financial standing
Requirement of reasonable classification was fulfilled if in a taxing statue the Legislature had classified persons or properties into different categories which were subject to different rates of taxation with reference to income or property and such classification would not be open to attack on the ground of inequality
Distinction between subject levy i.e. nature of which defined quality of levy, on the one hand, which must not be compared with the measure of liability, that was, the quantum of the tax
Legislature had merely created a different category of persons who were made subject to a different rate of taxation under S. 9 of Income Support Levy Act, 2013
Such category was set apart with reference to income or net movable wealth which that category was in possession of
Class of persons was set apart as possessing a certain threshold of affluence
No ground existed for laying a challenge on such basis and the differentia had a reasonable nexus to the object to be achieved by such classification
High Court declined to interfere in the matter
Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Contention of petitioners was that requisite 'No objection certificate from employer was not obtained by the respondents before getting admission in the Institution for taking degrees in question
Validity
Two different promotion channels viz one on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness along with minimum qualification and other on the basis of MBA/MPA/MAS degrees was being followed in the Corporation
Authority had introduced a reasonable classification amongst the employees who were holding MBA/MPA/MAS degrees
When classification was reasonable, same could not be challenged in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court while pressing into service the principle of discrimination
Incentives for the persons having MBA/MPA/MAS degrees had been introduced in the Corporation through amendments
Petitioners had not challenged the basic policy but the subsequent amendments therein
High Court under the constitutional jurisdiction could not undo a policy framed by the competent authority unless same was against any Fundamental Right or provision of a legislative piece
Competent authority had introduced policies for better output from its subordinates with regard to nature and requirements of the duties of a post
Completion of MBA/MPA/MAS degrees by the respondents, without prior permission of authority, could only be considered as procedural flaw for which competent authority could proceed but same could not be used to shatter the credibility of degree
Promotion against a particular post could not be claimed as a matter of right rather competent authority reserved the right to adjudge the eligibility of a person for promotion by formulating a policy
Petitioners did not possess MBA/MPA/MAS degrees and they could not claim promotion on the analogy of respondents
Degrees of respondents had already been validated by Higher Education Commission
Federal Investigation Agency could not be allowed to re-open the matter under the garb of complaint with regard to said degrees
Continuation of proceedings before Federal Investigation Agency would amount to double jeopardy
Investigation Agency had no justification to proceed with the complaint in circumstances
Petitioners were serving-employees of the Corporation and they had challenged the promotion policy issued by the department
Terms and conditions of employees of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation were governed by non-statutory Rules
Constitutional petition, in circumstances was not maintainable
Proceedings pending before Federal Investigation Agency were ordered to be quashed
Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Question as to whether both sets of employees should receive the same emoluments and perquisites if they were performing the same type of duties
Provincial Service Tribunal found that Federal Government employees and Provincial Government employees should receive the same emoluments and perquisites if they were performing the same type of duties; that if two different pay scales were given to the Federal Government employees and the Provincial Government employees it may amount to extracting labour and exploitation under Art. 3 of the Constitution, and that although the Provincial Government would have to bear extra financial burden but service structure and financial constraints could not stand in the way of the Constitution
Legality
Neither the Service Tribunal nor any other government functionary had undertaken any exercise which would show that the actual work being performed by Senior Auditors of the Audit Department was exactly the same as the work being done by the Deputy Accountants employed by the Province; secondly, Art. 3 of the Constitution had no application in the present case as Deputy Accountants employed by the Provincial Government had joined service voluntarily and had accepted the terms and conditions of their service, and they did not compete with the Senior Auditors of the Federal Government, therefore, they could not claim that they should be given perks and emoluments as the Senior Auditors of the Federal Government
Deputy Accountants employed by the Province had happily joined service and were enjoying the benefits of the same, and question of exploitation would only have arisen if they had been forcibly inducted into compulsory service
Provincial Government had to remain within its own budgetary constraints
Amounts paid by way of salaries (to Government employees), were extracted from the pockets of citizens by means of taxation
Province and its Government could genuinely come to the conclusion that they were not prepared to burden the people of the Province by imposing an extra levy on them, and it was not for the Service Tribunal to tell the Provincial Government to impose additional taxes/levies for the purpose of meeting the command of the Service Tribunal
Senior Auditors of the Federal Government (BPS-16) and Deputy Accountants of the Provincial Government (BPS-14) were not equally placed
Both sets of employees were employed by different employers with different financial and other resources
Impugned judgment of the Service Tribunal proceeded on an erroneous premises, thus the same was set aside
Appeal was allowed accordingly.
Criminal case was registered against the petitioner (employee) and he was dismissed from service without any notice and proceedings
Natural justice, principles of
Speaking order
Disciplinary and criminal proceedings
Audi alteram partem, principle of
Discrimination
Effect
Reasonable classification
Scope
Regulation 63 of National Institute of Health Employees (Service) Regulations, 1989 did not give unfettered and unbridled power for imposing a penalty without observing the principles of natural justice
Principles of natural justice had to be followed so that Authority could decide whether employee should be dismissed or removed from service, reduced in rank or whether to absolve him from the charge of misconduct
Regulation 63 of National Institute of Health Employees (Service) Regulations, 1989 was inapplicable to such an employee who had been sentenced to a fine or imprisonment
Said Regulation did not exclude or expressly oust the principles of natural justice in the case of disciplinary proceedings against an employee sentenced to a fine or imprisonment
Authority could make a choice after employee had been informed of the allegations which he had to explain affording him/her an opportunity of hearing and thereafter passing a speaking order
No right of appeal had been provided to an employee falling within the category specified in Regulation 63 of National Institute of Health Employees (Service) Regulations, 1989
Services of petitioner should not have been terminated without observing the principles of natural justice
Disciplinary and criminal proceedings were distinguishable and they were independent of each other and could not be termed as synonymous and interchangeable
Both disciplinary and criminal proceedings had different characteristics
Forums for adjudication, principles of evidence and procedure were also separate and distinct
Decision of one forum could not have bearing on the decision of the other
Whether a person was convicted or acquitted in a criminal trial could not influence the disciplinary proceedings
Outcome of criminal trial could not influence the disciplinary proceedings
Principles of natural justice were mandatory for the purposes of proceedings under Regln.63 of National Institute of Health Employees (Service) Regulations, 1989
Authority had to make a choice between different penalties provided in the said Regulation or discharge the employee
Any decision taken without observing the principles of natural justice i.e. serving a show cause notice, informing the employee with regard to precise allegations and affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing would be arbitrary, whimsical, without lawful authority and therefore illegal
Violation of the principle of audi alteram partem would render an order or decision a nullity in law
Principles of natural justice were to prevent miscarriage of justice and ensure fair play in actions
Infliction of any penalty, deprivation or curtailment of a right or any other action which might prejudice the rights of a person if passed in violation of rules of natural justice was not sustainable
Same would result in endorsing the giving of untrammeled and unfettered powers to the authorities who had adjudicated upon the rights of citizens
Due process had been acknowledged as a fundamental right
Observance of rules of natural justice while adjudicating the rights of citizens were equally important even before the insertion of Art.10-A in the Constitution as a fundamental right
Public authorities were required to act fairly and justly while performing their functions and exercising powers
Fair and just exercise of powers could only be ensured by strictly observing the principles of natural justice
Where giving of notice was necessary condition the failure to do so would render the order void
Right against discrimination was a fundamental right guaranteed under Art.25 of the Constitution
Similarly situated persons could not be treated differently which would render any action or order as void, arbitrary and illegal
Reasonable classification of persons was permissible who might be treated differently provided there was legitimate basis for such classification
Classification should not be arbitrary and capricious and must rest on reasonableness and there should exist a fair nexus and just relationship with the need for such classification
Petitioner ought to have been reinstated in response to his representation so that he could be treated at par with the other similarly situated employees
Petitioner had made out a case of being treated differently from a similarly situated employee
Impugned order was in violation of fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution
Laches would not be a bar in granting the relief when there was a continuous wrong
Petitioner was entitled to the grant of discretionary relief and laches would not operate as a bar in the present case
Impugned order was declared to be in violation of Regln.63 of National Institute of Health Employees (Service) Regulations, 1989, rules of audi alteram partem and fundamental right guaranteed under Art.25 of the Constitution
Impugned order was arbitrary, illegal and same was set aside
Department would be at liberty to treat the period from the date of impugned order till the date of reaching the age of superannuation as any kind of leave including leave without pay, while salary for the period when petitioner remained under suspension and his pension after retirement should be paid strictly in accordance with the relevant rules and instructions
Department was directed by the High Court to complete all the formalities and calculate the pension within a specified period
Constitutional petition was accepted in the terms of prayer sought therein in circumstances.
All citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law which should not be allowed to be withheld
Person or class of persons placed in different circumstances and in different set of facts could be treated differently and any classification which was reasonable, proper on solid basis, must always rest upon some differences
Persons placed in different circumstances and in different set of facts, if given different treatment, would not be treated as unreasonable classification.
Discrimination against a group or an individual implied making an adverse distinction with regard to some benefit, advantage or facility
Discrimination thus involved an element of unfavourable bias
Act was discriminatory only when it was improper or where there was capricious exercise or abuse of discretionary authority, and the person against whom that discretion was exercised faced certain appreciable disadvantages which he would not have faced otherwise
Article 25 of the Constitution enshrined the basic concept of religion of Islam by providing that all citizens were equal before law and were entitled to equal protection of law, however, the above clause did not prohibit treatment of citizen on the basis of reasonable classification
Under Art.25 of the Constitution, reasonable classification was not prohibited but it was required that all persons similarly placed should be treated alike
When no standard was provided to avoid the violation of equality clause, the court could judicially review to see whether or not the powers delegated had been exercised arbitrarily
When a provision of statute was pressed into service in a discriminatory manner, it was liable to be struck down on the ground of violation of Art.25 of the Constitution.
Provisions of Art.25 of the Constitution forbids class legislation but permits reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation which classification must satisfy twin tests of classification being founded on intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are left out of the group and that differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question.
Ex-employees having exercised the option to retire under the Golden Handshake, were deemed to be retired from service on and from the cut off date
Ex-employees could not be treated at par with those employees who had not exercised such an option and were still continuing in service
Reasonable classification did exist between the two categories of employees i.e. those who had exercised the option and those who had not exercised the option
Ex-employees failed to point out discrimination in their case
Ex-employees received their dues without any objection and were paid emoluments in full for the period they worked after they had opted for the Golden Handshake Scheme
Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.
Nexus in the performance of the duties by different categories of both types of persons with cooperation and collaboration with each other
Object and purpose of both the categories being common and to achieve the same, there was a necessity of classification
Such classification called for equal protection of law to the working journalists and non-working journalists because they were equally placed, as such deserved to be treated alike both in privileges and liabilities
Principles.
Government, through a public notice, published in three leading daily newspapers of Pakistan, had invited applications to fill the posts of Vice-Chancellors
Search Committee consisting of eminent scholars was constituted by the Provincial Governor (Chancellor of the Universities) for making recommendations about the selection of candidates on the basis of academic record as well as of the administrative experience of the respective candidates through a credible mechanism on the basis of an evaluation criteria determined for the purpose by the members of the Search Committee
Such process had been commenced by the members of the Search Committee for selection of the candidates through necessary advertisements in three daily well known newspapers of the country giving in detail the eligibility criteria of the . selection
Selection of candidates for the appointment in question had been given a transparent mechanism
Allocation of five additional marks to the credit of the qualifications of those who had obtained their Ph.D degree from well known top ranking 500 Universities of the world could not be an act of discrimination as against universities of Pakistan
Where there was a reasonable classification made in a particular matter, such step was itself considered as sufficient in negating the allegations of discrimination
Contention of the petitioners that the said evaluation criteria, as determined by the Committee, was discriminatory was not sustainable in the eye of law and had no legal force
No written test was conducted and the administrative skills and the educational potentials of the candidates short-listed was further to be assessed by the Search Committee finally through an interview to be conducted and no law was 'violated in adapting such procedure
Contention of the petitioners that 40 marks were arbitrarily allocated to the interview, in circumstances, was repelled
Process of selection initiated and conducted was final for filling the vacancies and did not suffer from any illegality; was on the face of it transparent and having been supervised by Search Committee working under the guidelines provided by Higher Education Commission
Constitutional petitions were dismissed in circumstances.
Such classification permissible under Art.25 of the Constitution' would protect rights of people as a class, thus, same must be based on intelligible differentia distinguishing persons grouped together from those left out
Mere differentiation and non- equality of treatment, unless mala fide or arbitrary, would not per se amount to discrimination
Legislation or policy formulated thereunder would not be discriminatory, unless substantiated by applying well settled principles on subject of discriminatory legislation.
Essential conditions stated.
Denying such protection in peculiar circumstances of case on the basis of reasonable classification founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together front those who have been left out
Intelligible differentia must have rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by such classification.
Denying such protection in peculiar circumstances of ease on the basis of reasonable classification founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those who have been left out
Intelligible differentia must have rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by such classification.
Principles. In order to make a classification reasonable, it should be based
Petitioners possessed diplomas of Associate Engineers and were working in BPS-16 while officials having degrees in Agricultural/Civil/Mechanical engineering were placed in BPS-17
Grievance of petitioners was that they had been discriminated by the authorities by not placing them in BPS-17
Validity
In order to determine whether a classification was reasonable, it should be based on intelligible differentia which distinguished persons or things that were grouped together from those who had been left out
Differentia should have rational nexus to object sought to be achieved by such classification
Law applying to one person or one class of persons might be constitutionally valid if there was sufficient basis or reason for the same
Classification which was arbitrary and was not founded on any rational basis was no classification as to warrant its exclusion from the mischief of Art.25 of the Constitution
Classification of BPS-16 to Diploma Holders and BPS-17 to Graduates was neither arbitrary nor founded on any unreasonable or irrational basis
Decision of authorities was based on the type of educational qualification, which officials held
High Court did not find any discrimination against petitioners
Petition was dismissed in circumstances.
State is not prohibited to treat its citizens on the basis of reasonable classification and it is not the intention of Art.25 of the Constitution that every citizen is to be treated alike in all circumstances, however, it would be applicable on the persons similarly placed or similarly situated
Where the persons were neither similarly placed nor were discriminated, Art.25 of the Constitution was not attracted/applicable.
Principles.
Petitioner had obtained loan from Bank and was regular in payment of the outstanding amount and had paid due instalments in time and had paid principal amount as well as interest due
Government had announced a package of relief for the persons who were defaulters in repayment of loan amount during particular period
Contentions of the petitioner, who had made the payment of instalments regularly and in time pertaining to the period as specified in the package of relief, were that she also fell within the purview of the package and was entitled to avail the benefits extended under the same; that Bank by refusing to extend the benefit of the package to her were treating her in a discriminatory way as her case, being of a regular payer, was on better footing and she was more entitled to the relief/package than those who committed default in payment of loan and that by refusing the . relief under the package to the petitioner, Bank had violated her right of equality of citizen provided under Art.25 of the Constitution
Validity
Held, all persons placed in similar circumstances must be treated alike and the reasonable classification must be based on reasonable grounds in a particular set of circumstances, but the same, in any case, must not offend the spirit of Art.25 of the Constitution
Person equally placed must be treated alike in matter of privileges and liabilities under the rule of equal protection of law
Refusal of benefit of relief package to the petitioner would amount to penalizing the customers, who were regular in payment of the instalments of the loans and putting the premium on the fault of the defaulter in payment of loan amount
Case of petitioner thus squarely fell within the purview of relief package announced by the Government
High Court, in circumstances, directed the Bank authorities to treat the case of petitioner within the purview of relief package and to extend her the relief provided under the said package within a reasonable time without unnecessary delay.
Petitioner had obtained loan from Bank and was regular in payment of the outstanding amount and had paid due instalments in time and had paid principal amount as well as interest due
Government had announced a package of relief for the persons who were defaulters in repayment of loan amount during particular period
Contentions of the petitioner, who had made the payment of instalments regularly and in time pertaining to the period as specified in the package of relief, were that she also fell within the purview of the package and was entitled to avail the benefits extended under the same; that Bank by refusing to extend the benefit of the package to her were treating her in a discriminatory way as her case, being of a regular payer, was on better footing and she was more entitled to the relief/package than those who committed default in payment of loan and that by refusing the relief under the package to the petitioner, Bank had violated her right of equality of citizen provided under Art.25 of the Constitution
Validity
Held, all persons placed in similar circumstances must be treated alike and the reasonable classification must be based on reasonable grounds in a particular set of circumstances, but the same in any case, must not offend the spirit of Art.25 of the Constitution
Person equally placed must be treated alike in matter .of privileges and liabilities under the rule of equal protection of law
Refusal of benefit of relief package to the petitioner would amount to penalizing the customers, who were regular in payment of the instalments of the loans and putting the premium on the fault of the defaulter in payment of loan amount
Case of petitioner thus squarely fell within the purview of relief package announced by the Government
High Court, in circumstances, directed the Bank authorities to treat the case of petitioner within the purview of relief package and to extend her the relief provided under the said package within a reasonable time without unnecessary delay.
Equal protection of law under Art.25 of the Constitution does not envisage that every citizen is to be treated alike in all circumstances but it contemplates that persons similarly placed are to be treated alike and that reasonable classification is permissible if it is founded on reasonable distinction or reasonable basis
Law applying to one person or one class of persons may he Constitutionally valid if there is sufficient basis or reason for the same.
"Reasonable Classification", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/20704
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Reasonable Classification"
2001 P T D 3919
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others Versus Mrs. SAMRA SHAKEEL and others
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan2014 P L C (C
TIPU M. SULTAN Versus REGISTRAR
Court: Peshawar High Court2001 S C M R 1231
SAFDAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH and others‑‑‑‑Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan2011 P L C (C
JAHANGIR SARWAR and others Versus LAHORE HIGH COURT and another
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan2001 P L C 692
MUHAMMAD SAFDAR Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH and others
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan2012 P L C (C
Dr. SHAHNAZ WAJID Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan2011 S C M R 1737
Dr. SHAHNAZ WAJID — Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad — Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan2011 SCMR 363
JAHANGIR SARWAR and others — Petitioners Versus LAHORE HIGH COURT and another — Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan1999S10
Finance Division, Islamabad and 2 others — Appellants Versus Miss FARZANA ASAR — Respondent
Court: High Court2019 C L C 316
ALL PAKISTAN LAND ROUTE CUSTOM AGENT ASSOCIATION through Secretary General and others — Petitioners Versus The FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Commerce and 2 others — Respondents
Court: Balochistan