Fed. of Bank of India Staff Unions & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.
Background
A bank employees' union sent the government a panel of three names for nomination as the "Workman Director" on Bank of India's Board, but the government rejected the panel because all three nominees had less than three years of service left before retirement, as required by Clause 3(2)(iii) of the 1970 Scheme governing nationalised banks. The union refused to send fresh names and instead challenged the government's rejection letter in the Bombay High Court at Goa, also arguing that the eligibility rule discriminated against worker-category nominees since no similar rule applied to officer-category nominees. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, and the union appealed to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the union's original relief had become infructuous because the nominated employees had since retired and other persons had already been appointed as Director in the interim. On the core legal question, the Court held that workmen and officers are distinct categories governed by different statutory schemes (workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act, officers under separate service rules), so Article 14's equality guarantee, which applies only between equals, was not violated by prescribing different eligibility conditions for each category. The Court also rejected the argument that uniform qualifications should apply once a person becomes a Director, noting disqualifications must be assessed before, not after, appointment. Finding no merit, the appeal was dismissed and the High Court's order upholding the Scheme's validity was affirmed.
Lesson Learnt
Courts will not strike down differing eligibility rules for different categories of employees as discriminatory unless the categories are genuinely comparable; the equality clause of the Constitution protects against unequal treatment of equals, not against different rules for genuinely different classes of people.