[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Hindustan Scouts And Guides ... vs Union Of India Through Ministry Of ... on 16 March, 2026
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 08th December, 2025
Pronounced on: 16th March , 2026
+ W.P.(C) 1957/2023
HINDUSTAN SCOUTS AND GUIDES ASSOCIATION
THROUGH ITS NATIONAL SECRETARY CHAMPAT SINGH &
ANR.
.....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Anjana Gosain and Mr. Subhash
Chandra, Advocate
3s
Mob: 9650519124
versus
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
.....Respondent
Through: Ms. Tusha Chawla, Advocate for
applicant-Bharat Scouts and Guides
(M:9871456909)
Mr. Jagdish Chandra Solunk, CGSC
with Ms. Maanya Saxena and Mr.
Siddharth Bajaj, Advocates for UOI
Mob: 9146141377
Email: [email protected]
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
JUDGMENT
MINI PUSHKARNA, J.
1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking to quash the Rejection Order dated 25 th
November, 2022, passed by the respondent - Railways, and a direction to
the respondent to give the petitioner no. 1 association, parity and recognition
along with consequential benefits, on similar lines as that of another
scouting association, i.e., Bharat Scouts and Guides.
2. The present petition was filed in pursuance to the liberty granted to
the petitioners herein by this Court vide order dated 20th October, 2022 in
W.P. (C) 14845/2022, wherein, the said petition was filed against the
respondent herein, seeking directions to the respondent to decide the
representation of the petitioners for parity with Bharat Scouts and Guides.
This Court issued directions to the respondent, i.e., Railways, to decide the
representation of the petitioners, and pass a Speaking Order in that regard,
along with the liberty to approach this Court, if the grievance of the
petitioners still remained. The relevant portion of order dated 20th October,
2022, is reproduced as under:
"xxx xxx xxx
1. Ms. Anjana Gosain, learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that the petitioners have made multiple representation(s) to the
respondent, however the same have not been considered till date.
2. Mr. Vineet Dhandha, learned CGSC appearing for the
respondent submits that the representation(s) of the petitioners would
be considered by way of a speaking order in accordance with law
within a period of four weeks from today.
3. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of
with a direction to respondent to decide the petitioners'
representation(s) within a period of four weeks from today by way of
a speaking order in accordance with law. Pending application is
disposed of as infructuous.
4. Needless to state that, in case, the petitioners still remain
aggrieved, they shall be at liberty to approach the Court.
xxx xxx xxx"
(Emphasis Supplied)
3. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the respondent considered the
representation of the petitioners and subsequently passed a Speaking Order
dated 25th November, 2022, rejecting the representation of the petitioners
wherein, parity was sought by the petitioners for availing benefits such as
recruitment. Thus, the present petition came to be filed.
Proceedings before the Court:
4. By way of an application, i.e., CM. APPL. 5066/2024, the applicant
i.e., Bharat Scouts and Guides, had sought for impleadment in the present
petition. This Court vide order dated 10th July, 2024, disposed of the said
application denying impleadment, however, allowing the applicant to make
submissions at the time of hearing the present petition. The relevant portion
of order dated 10th July, 2024, is reproduced as under:
"xxx xxx xxx
CM APPL. 5066/2024 (Impleadment)
1. The Court, at this stage, grants liberty to the applicant to make
submissions at the time of hearing of the writ petition.
2. However, at this stage, the Court is not inclined to direct for
impleadment of the said applicant.
3. Accordingly the instant application stands disposed of.
xxx xxx xxx"
5. Thus, the applicant, i.e., Bharat Scouts and Guides, has been allowed
to make submissions before this Court.
6. It is also to be noted that in view of the submissions of the respondent
that concessions being provided to Bharat Scouts and Guides have been
withdrawn vide Notification dated 19th September, 2022, this Court vide
order dated 05th December, 2024, recorded the statement of the petitioner,
that relief sought in the petition is confined to parity in recruitment, and
prayer for fare concession is withdrawn. The relevant portion of the order
dated 05th December, 2024, is reproduced as under:
"xxx xxx xxx
1. Pursuant to the order dated 19.11.2024, learned counsel for the
petitioner states that the Indian Railway provides a quota for
recruitment in Group-C, for members of Bharat Scouts and Guides.
She submits that this facility remains available to members of the
Bharat Scouts and Guides, even after withdrawal of the fare
concession earlier granted to them. Learned counsel submits that the
relief sought in the petition is confined to parity in recruitment, as
the fare concession has since been withdrawn by the petitioner.
xxx xxx xxx"
(Emphasis Supplied)
7. In view of the aforesaid, this Court proceeds to decide the sole issue at
hand in the present petition, i.e., whether the petitioner no. 1 association has
a right to be treated at par with Bharat Scouts and Guides, in relation to the
benefit of special quota for scouts and guides for recruitment in the
Railways.
Factual Matrix:
8. Brief factual matrix of the present matter is as under:
8.1 The petitioner no. 1 association is a scouting and guiding organization
and is part and parcel of the worldwide scouts and guides movement,
wherein, several activities are performed by the young boys and girls for
community development etc. The petitioner no. 2 is the National Chairman
of the petitioner no. 1 association.
8.2 The petitioner no. 1 association was registered as a „Society‟ on 26th
November, 1998, under the Society Registration Act, 1860. Further, on an
international level, the petitioner no. 1 is affiliated with the World
Federation of Independent Scouts ("WFIS"), which is one of the six
international scouting organizations recognized by the United Nations. The
petitioner no. 1 has been issued a Registration Certificate dated 22nd
February, 2014 in that regard.
8.3 The petitioner no. 1 association has also been granted recognition by
the nodal authority, i.e., Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Govt. of India
("MOYA"). Initially, the recognition by the said Ministry was granted vide
Letter dated 07th March, 2001. However, the said recognition was withdrawn
by the Ministry on 01st February, 2005. Subsequently, the recognition was
again restored by MOYA vide Letter dated 26th September, 2013, and the
same persists as on date.
8.4 Presently, petitioner no. 1 association is functioning in 23 states in
India and has received recognition from various states. Further, petitioner
no. 1 presently has a total strength of 13,15,350 number of scouts and
guides.
8.5 The respondent, i.e., Ministry of Railways, has provided recognition
only to the applicant, i.e., Bharat Scouts and Guides, in respect of its Policy
for recruitment against Cultural-Cum-Scouts and Guides in the Railways,
which is fixed by the respondent - Ministry of Railways, for zonal railways
and production units vide Master Circular no. 7/19 dated 13th December,
2019.
8.6 The applicant, Bharat Scouts and Guides is a National Scout
Organization, and is a member of World Organization of Scout Movement
("WOSM") and World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts
("WAGGGS"). Further, the applicant has been registered as a „Society‟
since 07th November, 1950, under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.
8.7 Pursuant to the Minutes of Meeting dated 10th September, 2014,
between MOYA, petitioner no. 1 and Bharat Scouts and Guides, the said
Ministry vide Letter dated 14th July, 2015, granted financial aid to the
petitioner no. 1 for scouting and guiding activities. Further, vide Letter dated
13th June, 2016 issued by MOYA, addressed to the Chief Secretaries of all
States/UTs, it was reiterated by the Ministry that the Ministry had granted
recognition and was giving financial assistance to only two Scouts and
Guides Non-Government Organizations, i.e., petitioner no. 1 and Bharat
Scouts and Guides.
8.8 The petitioners vide Letter dated 25th February, 2016 approached the
respondent for grant of recognition and grant of facilities in parity with the
facilities being provided to Bharat Scouts and Guides, however, there was
no response from the respondent. Consequently, the petitioner sent another
Letter dated 23rd December, 2020, as a reminder to their request, however,
the respondent did not respond to the same.
8.9 On account of no response by the respondent to the request of the
petitioner no. 1 association, the petitioner herein filed a petition, i.e., W.P.
(C) 14845/2022, titled as "Hindustan Scouts and Guides Association and
Anr. Versus Union of India". The said petition was disposed of vide order
dated 20th October, 2022, with directions to the respondent to consider the
representation of the petitioners. Pursuant thereto, the respondent passed the
Speaking Order dated 25th November, 2022, rejecting the representation of
the petitioners, leading to filing of the present petition.
Petitioners' submissions:
9. The case, as put forth by the petitioners, is as follows:
9.1. The Master Circular dated 13th December, 2019, issued by the
respondent, provides for recruitment against the scouts and guides quota,
however, no reservation is being provided to the petitioners, but the same is
being provided to Bharat Scouts and Guides only.
9.2 Non-grant of recognition by the respondent to the petitioner no. 1
association is against the concurrent public policy of the Government and
detrimental to the future and training of about 14 lakhs scouts and guides
(23% of total scouts and guides in the country) that enrolled with petitioner
no. 1, especially, when the petitioner no. 1 and Bharat Scouts and Guides are
discharging similar functions, and both are recognised by MOYA and
several states. The same amounts to discrimination and is in violation of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
9.3 The facilities provided by the respondent are necessary for the
promotion of scouting and guiding activities undertaken by the petitioner no.
1 association. Further, giving preferential treatment/quota in recruitment by
the respondent to one organisation leaving the other, puts the petitioners in
an artificially disadvantageous position. Therefore, the aim and objective
behind the promotion of scouting and guiding by the respondent remains
unsatisfied. The petitioner no. 1, although on the same footing as the Bharat
Scouts and Guides, is being deprived of the same benefits as are being
provided to the Bharat Scouts and Guides.
9.4 The respondent is infringing Article 14 of the Constitution of India in
treating the petitioners and Bharat Scouts and Guides on different footing,
even though they are discharging similar functions to attain similar goals.
Further, the same contradicts not only the petitioners‟ objectives but also
those of the New Education Policy, 2020, thereby, infringing upon the
fundamental right to education guaranteed under Article 21A of the
Constitution of India.
9.5 The petitioners are not seeking displacement of Bharat Scouts and
Guides but seeking similar and parallel recognition in view of both
organisations discharging same functions with the same zeal.
Respondent's Submissions:
10. The case, as put forth by the respondent, is as follows:
10.1 The petitioner no. 1 association is not a member/affiliated with the
WOSM under the norms prescribed under Chapter III, Article V, Para 3 of
the constitution of WOSM. Further, petitioner no. 1 may not be eligible to
become a member due to its recognition, suspension for eight years and re-
recognition by MOYA and States/UTs. Moreover, the constitution of
WOSM allows for only one scouting organization per sovereign.
10.2 The petitioner no. 1 may get recognition from the WOSM at par with
Bharat Scouts and Guides so as to claim parity.
10.3 Concessions in ticket/fare have been withdrawn from all the
categories except students, patients and persons with disabilities by the
Railways vide Railway Board‟s Letter dated 19th September, 2022.
10.4 Ever since the tradition of scouting/guiding has been introduced in the
Railways, there has been only one organization, i.e., Bharat Scouts and
Guides, with whom Railway employees and their wards are registered.
Further, the demand of the petitioners was examined at the apex level,
however, it was not found practically feasible to grant a similar status to any
other scouting organisation.
10.5 The MOYA is mandated by Govt. of India to promote the scouting
movement in India. However, the Indian Railways is not mandated to
promote every scouting organization that may get established in the country,
instead of focusing on its core activity of running the Rail Transport System.
Further, if the petitioners‟ demands are agreed to, similar demands may
come in the future, which the respondent cannot accommodate.
Applicant's submissions:
11. The case, as put forth by the applicant, i.e., Bharat Scouts and Guides,
is as follows:
11.1 The applicant is a National Scout Organization representing India and
recognized as the apex body in the field of scouting and guiding by the
Govt. of India. Further, the applicant is the member of the flag bearers of the
scouting movement internationally, i.e., WOSM and WAGGGS.
11.2 The petitioner no. 1 association is not recognized by WOSM and
WAGGGS and has shown its affiliation with some anonymous international
organization, i.e., WFIS, so as to deceive the school, state governments and
other government bodies to portray it has an international character and
secure grant-in-aid, and recognition from them.
11.3 The petitioner no. 1 does not have any strong organizational setup and
has a history of poor governance and mismanagement of public funds.
Therefore, grant of recognition to the petitioner no. 1 association would lead
to promotion of petitioner no. 1 organization that itself does not follow
strong ethics and principles of scouting and guiding.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
12. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
Reservation/Special Quota:
13. At the outset, this Court notes that the respondent - Ministry of
Railways, through its Railway Boards, has fixed a policy of recruitment
against cultural/scouts and guide quota by way of the Master Circular No. 1
on Scouts dated 20th August, 1990. The relevant portion of the policy of the
respondent - Railways, is reproduced as under:
"xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:16.03.2026
18:03:34
xxx xxx xxx"
14. The Master Circular No. 7/90 dated 22nd October, 1990, issued by the
respondent - Ministry of Railways, pertaining to recruitment against
cultural/scouts and guides quota, as reproduced in the petition, reads as
under:
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:16.03.2026
18:03:34
15. A subsequent Master Circular No. 7/19 dated 13th December, 2019,
which consolidated the instructions issued from time to time with respect to
the recruitment against cultural/scouts and guides quota, was issued by the
Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, Government of India, which reads as
under:
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:16.03.2026
18:03:34
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:16.03.2026
18:03:34
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:16.03.2026
18:03:34
16. Thus, it is apparent that the respondent - Ministry of Railways, has a
recruitment policy on the basis of cultural/scouts and guides quota as per
Master Circular No. 1 dated 20th August, 1990 and Master Circular No.
7/90, dated 22nd October, 1990, which was later replaced by Master Circular
No. 7/19, dated 13th December, 2019.
17. From the perusal of the aforesaid Circulars, it is manifest that the
respondent has a special quota, i.e., cultural-cum-scouts and guides quota,
for recruitment of scouts and guides. Further, the annual quota for
recruitment on this basis is fixed by the Ministry of Railways, wherein,
qualifications/conditions of the scouts/guides for recruitment to different
posts have been detailed.
Similarly Placed Persons:
18. The petitioners have put forth the contention that they are similarly
placed as Bharat Scouts and Guides, and therefore, claim parity with Bharat
Scouts and Guides, in relation to the recruitment quota followed by the
respondent - Ministry of Railways. In this regard, the petitioners have filed
an Additional Affidavit, relevant portions of which, are reproduced as under:
"xxx xxx xxx
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:16.03.2026
18:03:34
xxx xxx xxx"
19. This Court also takes note of the purpose of the Bharat Scouts and
Guides, as given in its handbook, relevant portions of which, are reproduced
as under:
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:16.03.2026
18:03:34
20. This Court has perused the various documents which are before this
Court, viz. Memorandum of Association, Rules and Regulations, documents
pertaining to the various activities being carried out by the petitioner no. 1
association and Bharat Scouts and Guides.
21. This Court notes that the activities being carried by both petitioner no.
1 association and Bharat Scouts and Guides, are in relation to youth
development, and both the organisations engage scouts (boys) and guides
(girls) in a wide range of activities that focus on personal development,
community service and adventure. Further, both the organisations conduct
various scouting and guiding activities on National and International levels,
whilst espousing similar aims and objectives for scouting and guiding. Thus,
it is apparent that both, petitioner no. 1 association and Bharat Scouts and
Guides, are similarly placed in terms of their functions, aims and objectives
as espoused by them.
22. Pertinently, both the organisations are the only two recognised
scouting and guiding organisations in India, by MOYA. In this regard,
reference is made to the Letter dated 13th June, 2016, issued by MOYA to
the Chief Secretaries of States/UTs, clarifying that only the petitioner no. 1
and Bharat Scouts and Guides are the recognised organisations for scouting
and guiding in India. The Letter dated 13th June, 2016, is reproduced as
under:
"F. No. 46-5/2015-NPYAD
Government of India
Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports
Department of Youth Affairs
****
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi
Dated: the 13th June, 2016
To,
Chief Secretary,
All States/UTs
Sub: Illegal use of name of Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports by
"The Scouts/Guides Organization."
Sir/Madam,
I am directed to refer to the subject mentioned above and to
inform that Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports has neither given any
recognition or affiliation to "The Scouts/Guides Organization" nor
giving grant-in-aid to conduct scouting and guiding activities in any
state/UT of the country. The organization is also not an autonomous
body under the Ministry of Youth Affairs as being claimed in their
letterhead/banners/posters. It has come to the notice of this Ministry
that "The Scouts/Guides Organization" having its headquarters at 4-
B Mahalaxmi Squire, Sector 12, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad (UP)
201012 is misusing the name of Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports,
Govt. of India in their letter head stating that it is affiliated with the
Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports. The Organization has also sought
application for various posts for appointment in their Regional Office,
Nagpur in Local Newspaper namely "Lokmat, Nagpur Edition" dated
14/05/2016 misusing the name of Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports,
Govt. of India by stating that it is affiliated with the Ministry. You are
requested to take strict action against "The Scouts/Guides
Organization" for any acts of misrepresentation being done of them in
your State/UT.
2. It is further informed that Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports
has granted recognition and is giving financial assistance to only
two Scouts and Guides Non-Government Organizations namely (i)
Bharat Scout & Guides and (ii) Hindustan Scouts & Guides to
promote scouting and guiding activities in the country. All
concerned may be informed accordingly.
Yours faithfully.
(SK Pandey)
Under Secretary to the Govt. of India
Tel: 23386580
Email: [email protected]"
(Emphasis Supplied)
23. Reference is also made to the Leaflet of the MOYA pertaining to
Policy, Schemes and Programmes in relation to youth, relevant portion of
which, is reproduced as under:
"xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx"
24. Further, this Court also takes note of the Minutes of Meeting
("MoM") dated 10th September, 2014, by which financial/grant-in-aid was
approved for petitioner no. 1 by MOYA. The said MoM encapsulates the
stand of MOYA that in view of the huge population in our country, coverage
of scouting and guiding activities by a single organization may not be
sufficient. The relevant portion of the said MoM dated 10 th September,
2014, is reproduced as under:
25. Perusal of the above makes it evident that both petitioner no. 1
association and Bharat Scouts and Guides have been recognized by MOYA,
for espousing a similar cause of scouting and guiding in India. Further, the
MOYA, in furtherance to the recognition, is also providing financial
aid/grant-in-aid to both the organizations. The said Ministry has reiterated
that due to the huge population in our country, the existing coverage by the
Scouts and Guides Organization is very low in comparison with the youth
population, thereby, also extending grant-in-aid to the petitioner no. 1, i.e.,
Hindustan Scouts and Guides, as provided to Bharat Scouts and Guides.
26. This Court notes that both petitioner no. 1 and Bharat Scouts and
Guides have been recognized by various States/UTs in relation to scouting
and guiding activities conducted by them. It is also to be noted that the aims
and objectives of scouting and guiding are considered an integral part of
education, and both the Central and State Governments diligently strive to
promote these activities. Thus, it is apparent that both organizations are
similarly placed in the manner of recognition provided to them by the
Government of India and the Government of several States/UTs as well.
27. The nodal Ministry, which recognizes scouts and guides
organizations, is MOYA. Further, both Bharat Scouts and the petitioner no.
1, have duly been recognized by MOYA, in that regard. The respondent, i.e.,
Ministry of Railways has allocated a special quota specifically, for „scouts
and guides‟. Therefore, denying a quota to any scout or guide, who is a
member of any scouting organization which is recognized by MOYA, and
specifically espousing the said quota to be open for only one organization
and its members, is ex-facie arbitrary.
28. Article 14 of the Constitution of India guarantees that every citizen of
India has the right to equality before law and equal protection of law. It is
well settled that amongst equals, the law should be equal and should be
equally administered, and likes should be treated alike. Thus, Supreme Court
in the case of Amita Versus Union of India and Another, (2005) 13 SCC
721, has held as follows:
"xxx xxx xxx
11. Taking our findings, as made herein earlier to the extent that the
writ petitioner was entitled to sit and write the examination for
selection of Probationary Officer in the Bank, let us now proceed to
consider whether the writ petitioner would be entitled to appointment
in the post of Probationary Officer of the Bank in question, if
successful in the written examination in view of the nature of the job
to be performed as Probationary Officer. Before we deal with this
aspect of the matter, we may take into consideration yet another
aspect of the matter, namely, whether denial of permission to the writ
petitioner to sit and write the examination for the post of Probationary
Officer in the Bank offends Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees to every citizen of India the
right to equality before the law or the equal protection of law. The
first expression "equality before the law" which is taken from the
English common law, is a declaration of equality of all persons
within the territory of India, implying thereby the absence of any
special privilege in favour of any individual. It also means that
amongst the equals the law should be equal and should be equally
administered and that likes should be treated alike. Thus, what it
forbids is discrimination between persons who are substantially in
similar circumstances or conditions. It does not forbid different
treatment of unequals. Article 14 of the Constitution is both a
negative and positive right. Negative in the sense that no one can be
discriminated against: anybody and everyone should be treated as
equals. The latter is the core and essence of the right to equality and
the State has the obligation to take necessary steps so that every
individual is given equal respect and concern which he is entitled to
as a human being. Therefore, Article 14 contemplates
reasonableness in State action, the absence of which would entail
the violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
xxx xxx xxx"
(Emphasis Supplied)
29. Likewise, reinforcing that right to equality aims to protect persons
similarly placed against discriminatory treatment and that all persons
similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike, both in privileges conferred
and liabilities imposed, the Supreme Court in the case of Prem Chand
SomChand Shah and Another Versus Union of India and Another, (1991)
2 SCC 48, has held as follows:
"xxx xxx xxx
8. As regards the right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 the
position is well settled that the said right ensures equality amongst
equals and its aim is to protect persons similarly placed against
discriminatory treatment. It means that all persons similarly
circumstanced shall be treated alike both in privileges conferred and
liabilities imposed. Conversely discrimination may result if persons
dissimilarly situate are treated equally. Even amongst persons
similarly situate differential treatment would be permissible between
one class and the other. In that event it is necessary that the
differential treatment should 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
statute in question.
xxx xxx xxx"
(Emphasis Supplied)
30. In the present case, this Court has already observed that the petitioner
no. 1 and Bharat Scouts and Guides perform similar functions, and have
identical aims and objectives in relation to scouting and guiding. Further,
both organizations are recognized by MOYA and State/UTs for rendering
similar functions and are provided financial/grant-in-aid, as well. Thus, ex-
facie both the petitioner no. 1 and Bharat Scouts and Guides fall under the
definition of similarly placed persons.
31. At this stage, this Court notes that exception to the aforesaid principle
of parity of treatment to similarly placed persons, is the classification of
class of persons based on reasonable basis. No doubt that in appropriate
cases classification between classes of persons has been recognized by
Courts. However, such classification has to be based on some intelligible
differentia, which justifies such different treatment. Thus, explaining the
concept of classification of different groups of persons and holding that such
classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which
distinguishes those that are grouped together from others, the Supreme Court
in the case of State of West Bengal Versus Anwar Ali Sarkar, (1952) 1
SCC 1, held as follows:
"xxx xxx xxx
85. It is now well established that while Article 14 is designed to
prevent a person or class of persons from being singled out from
others similarly situated for the purpose of being specially subjected
to discriminating and hostile legislation, it does not insist on an
"abstract symmetry" in the sense that every piece of legislation must
have universal application. All persons are not, by nature, attainment
or circumstances, equal and the varying needs of different classes of
persons often require separate treatment and, therefore, the
protecting clause has been construed as a guarantee against
discrimination amongst equals only and not as taking away from the
State the power to classify persons for the purpose of legislation.
This classification may be on different bases. It may be geographical
or according to objects or occupations or the like. Mere
classification, however, is not enough to get over the inhibition of
the article. The classification must not be arbitrary but must be
rational, that is to say, it must not only be based on some qualities or
characteristics which are to be found in all the persons grouped
together and not in others who are left out but those qualities or
characteristics must have a reasonable relation to the object of the
legislation. In order to pass the test, two conditions must be fulfilled,
namely, (1) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible
differentia which distinguishes those that are grouped together from
others, and (2) that that differentia must have a rational relation to
the object sought to be achieved by the Act. The differentia which is
the basis of the classification and the object of the Act are distinct
things and what is necessary is that there must be a nexus between
them. In short, while the article forbids class legislation in the sense
of making improper discrimination by conferring privileges or
imposing liabilities upon persons arbitrarily selected out of a large
number of other persons similarly situated in relation to the
privileges sought to be conferred or the liability proposed to be
imposed, it does not forbid classification for the purpose of
legislation, provided such classification is not arbitrary in the sense
I have just explained. The doctrine, as expounded by this Court in
the two cases I have mentioned, leaves a considerable latitude to the
Court in the matter of the application of Article 14 and consequently
has the merit of flexibility.
xxx xxx xxx"
(Emphasis Supplied)
32. In this regard, reference is also made to the case of Confederation of
Ex-Servicemen Associations and Others Versus Union of India and
Others, (2006) 8 SCC 399, wherein, the Supreme Court laid down the twin
test of classification where different treatment is given to two classes of
persons. Thus, it was held as follows:
"xxx xxx xxx
30. In our judgment, therefore, it is clear that every classification to
be legal, valid and permissible, must fulfil the twin test, namely,
(i) the classification must be founded on an intelligible
differentia which must distinguish persons or things that are
grouped together from others leaving out or left out; and
(ii) such a differentia must have rational nexus to the object
sought to be achieved by the statute or legislation in question.
xxx xxx xxx"
(Emphasis Supplied)
33. However, in the present case there is no such intelligible differentia.
Rather, both the organizations are similarly placed, as the activities
undertaken by both the petitioner no. 1 association as well as the Bharat
Scouts and Guides are similar, viz. scouting and guiding activities, both
having recognition from the MOYA.
34. Therefore, in the present case, there is no valid basis or justification
for excluding the petitioner from the quota reservation, as extended by the
respondent - Ministry of Railways, to Bharat Scouts and Guides. There is no
rationale for treating the petitioner no. 1 differently from the Bharat Scouts
and Guides, as both organizations stand on an equal footing and discharge
similar functions to attain like goals.
35. The contention of the respondent that they have a long period of
association with Bharat Scouts and Guides cannot be said to be a reasonable
classification based on intelligible differentia to deny the special quota to the
petitioner no. 1. Thus, giving preferential treatment in the form of special
quota in recruitment to only Bharat Scouts and Guides, and not granting
similar treatment to the petitioner no. 1, is clearly discriminatory and
arbitrary.
36. Therefore, in view of the above, it is apparent that there is a clear
manner of discrimination being administered by the respondent in its policy
for recruitment for scouts and guides, especially so, when both the petitioner
no. 1 association and Bharat Scouts and Guides are similarly placed. The
respondent - Ministry of Railways, has failed to provide any cogent
justification as to there being an intelligible differentia in the manner of
preference being provided by them to Bharat Scouts and Guides. Being an
organ of the government, it is the bounden duty of the respondent to adopt,
advocate and practice equal treatment for similarly placed persons, in
consonance with the letter and spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India.
Impugned Speaking Order:
37. By way of the impugned Speaking Order dated 25th November, 2022,
the respondent has rejected the representation of the petitioners on the
ground that the petitioner no. 1 association is not part of the international
scouting organization, i.e., WOSM, of which the applicant, Bharat Scouts
and Guides is part of and that allowing such parity to the petitioner no. 1
association would lead to financial constraint upon the respondent. Further,
the respondent has stated that the WOSM constitution only allows for one
scouting organization per sovereign nation. Therefore, as per the respondent,
the petitioner no. 1, unless it forms a federation with Bharat Scouts and
Guides, cannot become a member of WOSM.
38. In this regard, it is to be noted that WOSM and WAGGGS are two
international scouting organizations of which Bharat Scouts and Guides, is a
member. Further, the said organizations are recognized by the United
Nations, as well. However, both WOSM and WAGGGS are NGOs and
private organizations, which have no mandate upon any Indian entities that
espouse the activities of scouting and guiding. Furthermore, association with
WOSM and WAGGGS helps in becoming part of international events.
However, there is no mandate by MOYA for an affiliation with a private
foreign scouting organization, as a necessary requirement.
39. It is noted that MOYA, being the Ministry which provides for
recognition to scouting and guiding organizations, has duly recognized the
petitioner no. 1 association by way of Recognition Letter dated 26 th
September, 2013.
40. There is no obligation imposed upon a scouting organization by the
MOYA, i.e., the nodal agency for recognizing the scouting activities, to
necessarily have recognition from WOSM. There is no material before this
Court or any statutory provision that an international affiliation to a specific
body is sine qua non for espousing scouting and guiding activities in the
country. Therefore, the fact that the petitioner no. 1 does not have
recognition from WOSM, is not a valid or justifiable ground for denying the
benefit of quota reservation to petitioner no. 1, in parity with Bharat Scouts
and Guides, especially, when petitioner no. 1 has been granted recognition
by MOYA.
41. Further, WOSM constitution as such has no force in the Indian legal
conspectus, and the only recognition or membership required in India is with
MOYA, which the petitioner no. 1 has been granted by the said Ministry.
Moreover, the constitution of WOSM is not binding on any Indian authority.
WOSM is a Non-Government Organization ("NGO") and there is no statute
or law operating in India that membership of WOSM is an essential and
mandatory requirement of being recognized as a scouting and guiding
organization. The Constitution of the WOSM has a different and
independent application with respect to its member national organizations.
Such rules of the aforesaid body have no nexus with the policy being
adopted by respondent, wherein, benefit of quota reservation is being
granted to only Bharat Scouts and Guides.
42. The MOYA has recognized the petitioner as a scouting organization
in India, along with Bharat Scouts and Guides, providing them with grant-
in-aid to support national level activities, training camps and infrastructure
development. Further, the petitioner no. 1 has a strength of almost 14 lacs
scouts and guides operating under its aegis. The petitioner no. 1 is also
registered with NITI Aayog and has approval of the Income Tax authority to
receive donation.
43. Therefore, denial of the quota reservation to the petitioner no. 1 on the
ground that the petitioner is not a member of WOSM and granting the said
benefit to only Bharat Scouts and Guides on the ground of it being a
member of WOSM, is without any rationale and reasonable basis. Thus,
there is no intelligible differentia in classifying the petitioner no. 1
association separately from the Bharat Scouts and Guides.
44. The contention of the respondent - Ministry of Railways that MOYA
is mandated by Government of India to promote the scouting movement in
India, however, the Indian Railways is not mandated to promote every
scouting organization that may get established in the country, is an
unacceptable rationale. There is no justification for one Ministry of the
Government, i.e., Ministry of Railways, to take a different stand from
another Ministry, i.e., MOYA. In this regard, while holding that the
government cannot be permitted to take diagonally opposite stands as the
government has only one policy, and the departments are to implement the
government policy and not their own policy, the Supreme Court in the case
of Central Warehousing Corporation Versus Adani Ports and Special
Economic Zone Limited (APSEZL) and Others, (2022) 15 SCC 110, has
held as follows:
"xxx xxx xxx
57. We are of the considered view that it does not augur well for the
Union of India to speak in two contradictory voices. The two
departments of the Union of India cannot be permitted to take
stands which are diagonally opposite. We may gainfully refer to the
following observations made by a three-Judge Bench of this Court
in Lloyd Electric & Engg. Ltd. v. State of H.P. [Lloyd Electric &
Engg. Ltd. v. State of H.P., (2016) 1 SCC 560]: (SCC p. 564, para 14)
"14. The State Government cannot speak in two voices. Once
the Cabinet takes a policy decision to extend its 2004 Industrial
Policy in the matter of CST concession to the eligible units
beyond 31-3-2009, up to 31-3-2013, and the Notification dated
29-5-2009, accordingly, having been issued by the Department
concerned viz. Department of Industries, thereafter, the Excise
and Taxation Department cannot take a different stand. What is
given by the right hand cannot be taken by the left hand. The
Government shall speak only in one voice. It has only one
policy. The departments are to implement the government
policy and not their own policy."
58. We, therefore, impress upon the Union of India to evolve a
mechanism to ensure that whenever such conflicting stands are
taken by different departments, they should be resolved at the
governmental level itself.
xxx xxx xxx"
(Emphasis Supplied)
45. Even otherwise, it is to be noted that petitioner no. 1 is also affiliated
with an international scouting organization having recognition from the
United Nations, i.e., WFIS. Therefore, the basis for rejection of the
representation of petitioner no. 1 association by the respondent, based on the
international affiliation, is completely arbitrary and without validity.
46. The principle of equality is fundamental in formulation of any policy
by the government and its authorities, and the mandate of the constitution
enjoins upon the Government a constitutional obligation of equality in
employment and treatment. Thus, in the case of State of Punjab and Others
Versus Senior Vocational Staff Masters Association and Others, (2017) 9
SCC 379, Supreme Court has held as follows:
"xxx xxx xxx
23. It is a cardinal principle of law that the Government has to abide
by rule of law and uphold the values and principles of the
Constitution. The respondents herein alleged that creating an
artificial distinction between the persons in the same cadre would
amount to violation of Article 14 i.e. equality before law and hence,
such an act cannot be sustained. The doctrine of equality is a
dynamic and evolving concept having many dimensions. Articles 14-
18 of the Constitution, besides assuring equality before the law and
equal protection of the laws, also disallow discrimination which
lacks the object of achieving equality, in matters of employment. It is
well settled that though Article 14 forbids class legislation but it does
not forbid reasonable classification. When any rule of statutory
provision providing classification is assailed on the ground that it is
contrary to Article 14, its validity can be sustained if it satisfies two
tests, namely, that the classification was to be based on an
intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things
grouped together from the others left out of the group, and the
differentia in question must have a reasonable nexus to object
sought to be achieved by the rule or statutory provision in question.
In other words, there must be some rational nexus between the basis
of classification and the object intended to be achieved by the statute
or the rule.
xxx xxx xxx
26. The principle of equality is also fundamental in formulation of any
policy by the State and the glimpse of the same can be found in
Articles 38, 39, 39-A, 43 and 46 embodied in Part IV of the
Constitution of India. These Articles of the Constitution of India
mandate that the State is under a constitutional obligation to assure
a social order providing justice-social, economic and political, by
inter alia, minimising monetary inequalities, and by securing the
right to adequate means of livelihood and by providing for adequate
wages so as to ensure, an appropriate standard of life, and by
promoting economic interests of the weaker sections. Meaning
thereby, if the State is giving some economic benefits to one class
while denying the same to other then the onus of justifying the same
lies on the State specially in the circumstances when both the classes
or group of persons were treated as same in the past by the State.
Since Vocational Masters had been drawing same salary as
Vocational Lecturers were drawing before the application of the 4th
Pay Commission, any attempt to curtail their salary and allowances
would amount to arbitrariness which cannot be sustained in the eye of
the law if no reasonable justification is offered for the same.
27. We are conscious of the fact that a differential scale on the basis
of educational qualifications and the nature of duties is permissible.
However, it is equally clear to us that if two categories of employees
are treated as equal initially, they should continue to be so treated
unless a different treatment is justified by some cogent reasons. In a
case where the nature of duties is drastically altered, a differential
scale of pay may be justified. Similarly, if a higher qualification is
prescribed for a particular post, a higher scale of pay may be granted.
However, if the basic qualifications and the job requirements
continued to be identical as they were initially laid down, then the
Court shall be reluctant to accept the action of the authority in
according a differential treatment unless some good reasons are
disclosed. Thus, the decisions relied upon by the learned Senior
Counsel are clearly distinguishable and are not applicable to the facts
of the present case.
xxx xxx xxx"
(Emphasis Supplied)
47. Furthermore, emphasizing that public employment process must
always be fair, transparent and impartial, the Supreme Court in the case of
Amrit Yadav Versus State of Jharkhand and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 280, has held as follows:
"xxx xxx xxx
39. At this juncture, before parting, we deem it fit to note that public
employment is a duty entrusted by the Constitution of India with the
State. Therefore, it becomes imperative that the rigours of Articles
14 and 16 are not ignored by the State in relation to the matter
concerning public employment. Arbitrariness in public employment
goes to the very root of the fundamental right to equality. While no
person can claim a fundamental right to appointment, it does not
mean that the State can be allowed to act in an arbitrary or
capricious manner. The State is accountable to the public at large as
well as the Constitution of India, which guarantees equal and fair
treatment to each person. Public employment process thus, must
always be fair, transparent, impartial and within the bounds of
the Constitution of India. Every citizen has a fundamental right to
be treated fairly and impartially, which is an appendage of right to
equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A violation of
this guarantee is liable to judicial scrutiny as well as criticism.
xxx xxx xxx"
(Emphasis Supplied)
48. Thus, granting preference and quota reservation to only Bharat Scouts
and Guides and not to the petitioner no. 1 association, which is also
recognized by the MOYA as a scout and guiding organization, and involved
in similar functions related to scouting and guiding, is clearly in violation of
the fundamental right to equality as guaranteed by Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. The plea raised by respondent regarding affiliation to
WOSM, is unjustifiable and without any reasonable basis or intelligible
differentia.
49. There is another aspect of the matter. This Court notes that the
respondent has a policy for recruitment against the scouts and guides quota
in Level-1 and Level-2 of 7th CPC Pay Matrix which has been fixed by the
respondent - Ministry of Railways, in the Zonal Railways and Production
Units. Further, recruitment is done on merit basis after assessment of the
candidates as per the eligibility criteria on the basis of written test, and other
qualifications, as per the policy of the respondent. The relevant portions of
the Master Circular No. 7/19, dated 13th December, 2019, providing the
qualifications required, is as follows:
"xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx"
50. Reading of the aforesaid, it is evident that the Railways has provided
for an extensive process for qualification in recruitment under the special
quota for Scouts and Guides, and the same is a process inuring a merit-based
selection. There are multiple criteria which are considered for the selection
under the said quota. Furthermore, the said Circular provides for the quota to
exist for scouts and guides, which cannot mean to be only for the members
of Bharat Scouts and Guides.
51. It is pertinent to note that the process of recruitment by the respondent
is a merit-based process, wherein, even if the members of petitioner
organization were to apply for recruitment under the said quota, the same
would not ipso facto provide them the right to be recruited. In the present
case, the petitioners are only seeking an opportunity to attempt for
recruitment in the special quota, selection under which would regardless be
based on merits. The respondent is in no way obligated to increase the seats
under the said reserved quota, on the contrary, the increase in competition
would further the objective of a merit-based selection, for the same number
of seats which had existed prior. Thus, in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak
and Others Versus Rajasthan High Court and Others, (2025) 2 SCC 1, the
5-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, while holding that in public
employment, the most suitable person should be selected on merit, avoiding
favoritism, and the method of selection should not be violative of Article 14
of the Constitution, held as follows:
"xxx xxx xxx
49. The ultimate object of any process of selection for entry into a
public service is to secure the best and the most suitable person for
the job, avoiding patronage and favouritism. Selection based on
merit, tested impartially and objectively, is the essential foundation
of any useful and efficient public service. So, open competitive
examination has come to be accepted almost universally as the
gateway to public services. [Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan, (1981) 4
SCC 159, para 4: 1981 SCC (L&S) 588] It is now well settled that
while a written examination assesses a candidate's knowledge and
intellectual ability, an interview test is valuable to assess a candidate's
overall intellectual and personal qualities.
xxx xxx xxx
51. What is clear from above is that the object of any process of
selection for entry into a public service is to ensure that a person
most suitable for the post is selected. What is suitable for one post
may not be for the other. Thus, a degree of discretion is necessary to
be left to the employer to devise its method/procedure to select a
candidate most suitable for the post albeit subject to the overarching
principles enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as also
the rules/statute governing service and reservation.
xxx xxx xxx"
(Emphasis Supplied)
52. Therefore, in view of the process for merit-based selection adopted by
the respondent, there can be no manner of favoritism or partiality to one
organization, i.e., Bharat Scouts and Guides, in violation to Article 14 of the
Constitution of India, when there is a similarly placed organization, i.e.,
petitioner no. 1. The respondent - Railways is also mandated to follow its
own process and give effect to the same in an impartial, objective and merit-
based manner.
53. Further, as regards the plea of financial constraint, this Court notes
that it is settled law that financial constraint is not a cogent ground for
denying rights in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In
this regard, reference is made to the judgement of the Supreme Court in the
case of Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation and Others
Versus G.S. Uppal and Others, (2008) 7 SCC 375, wherein, it has been held
as follows:
"xxx xxx xxx
33. The plea of the appellants that the Corporation is running under
losses and it cannot meet the financial burden on account of
revision of scales of pay has been rejected by the High Court and, in
our view, rightly so. Whatever may be the factual position, there
appears to be no basis for the action of the appellants in denying the
claim of revision of pay scales to the respondents. If the Government
feels that the Corporation is running into losses, measures of
economy, avoidance of frequent writing off of dues, reduction of
posts or repatriating deputationists may provide the possible solution
to the problem. Be that as it may, such a contention may not be
available to the appellants in the light of the principle enunciated by
this Court in M.M.R. Khan v. Union of India [1990 Supp SCC 191 :
1990 SCC (L&S) 632 : (1991) 16 ATC 541] and Indian Overseas
Bank v. Staff Canteen Workers' Union [(2000) 4 SCC 245 : 2000 SCC
(L&S) 471]. However, so long as the posts do exist and are manned,
there appears to be no justification for granting the respondents a
scale of pay lower than that sanctioned for those employees who are
brought on deputation. In fact, the sequence of events discussed above
clearly shows that the employees of the Corporation have been treated
on a par with those in Government at the time of revision of scales of
pay on every occasion.
34. It is an admitted position that the scales of pay were initially
revised w.e.f. 1-4-1979 and thereafter on 1-1-1986. On both these
occasions, the pay scales of the employees of the Corporation were
treated and equated on a par with those in Government. It is thus an
established fact that both were similarly situated. Thereafter,
nothing appears to have happened which may justify the differential
treatment. Thus, the Corporation cannot put forth financial loss as a
ground only with regard to a limited category of employees. It cannot
be said that the Corporation is financially sound insofar as granting
of revised pay scales to other employees is concerned, but finds
financial constraints only when it comes to dealing with the
respondents who are similarly placed in the same category. Having
regard to the well-reasoned judgment of the Division Bench upholding
the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, we are of the
view that the impugned judgment warrants no interference inasmuch
as no illegality, infirmity or error of jurisdiction could be shown
before us.
xxx xxx xxx"
(Emphasis Supplied)
54. Applying the aforesaid principles of law, it is evident that the policy
of the respondent, in denying the special quota reservation to the petitioner
no. 1 association and its members, is clearly illegal and arbitrary.
55. Further, it is apposite to note that the petitioner no. 1 association has
more than 14 lac members who are either scouts or guides, performing the
same functions as the members of Bharat Scouts and Guides, thus,
positioning them as similarly placed persons to those members of Bharat
Scouts and Guides, that are enjoying the benefit of the special quota of the
respondent. The question before this Court with respect to parity does not
merely affect the petitioner no. 1 association as an entity, rather the same
brings forth the question of rights of equality/parity under Article 14 of the
Constitution of India, for all 14 lac members of petitioner no. 1 association
as well.
56. There is no intelligible differentia that has been established by the
respondent - Ministry of Railways, in passing of the Impugned Speaking
Order dated 25th November, 2022. Thus, due to the arbitrary and
discriminatory nature of the denial of parity to the petitioner no. 1
association and its members that are similarly placed to Bharat Scouts and
Guides, the rejection of parity by respondent in recruitment to the members
of petitioner no. 1 association, cannot be accepted.
57. Accordingly, the Speaking Order dated 25th November, 2022, issued
by the Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, cannot be sustained in law and
is liable to be quashed.
58. Considering the aforesaid detailed discussion, the following directions
are passed:
I. Speaking Order dated 25th November, 2022 passed by the
Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, Government of India, is
quashed.
II. The respondent no.1 is directed to extend the benefit of quota
reservation to the petitioner no. 1 association also, as is
extended to Bharat Scouts and Guides.
59. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
MINI PUSHKARNA
(JUDGE)
MARCH 16, 2026/kr/au
