Scope of Article 14 :
The true meaning and scope of Article 14 has been explained in several decisions of the Supreme Court. The rules with respect to permissible classification as evolved in the various decisions have been summarised by the Supreme Court in Ram Kishan Dalmiya v. Justice Tendulkar, AIR 1958 SC, 538 as follows:
A remarkable example of the application of the principle of equality under the Constitution is the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in R.K. Garg v. Union of India, AIR 1976 SC 1559. The legislation under attack was the Special Bearer Bonds (Immunities and Exemptions) Act, 1981. It permitted investment of black money in the purchase of these Bonds without any questions being asked as to how this money came into the possession.
In a public interest litigation it was contended that Article 14 had been violated, because honest tax payers were adversely discriminated against by the Act, which legalized evasion. But the Supreme Court rejected the challenge, taking note of the magnitude of the problem of black money which had brought into being a parallel economy.
Finally it should be mentioned that Article 14 invalidates discrimination not only in substantive law but also in procedure. Further, it applies to executive acts also.
In the recent past, Article 14 has acquired new dimensions. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597, the Supreme Court held that Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures a fairness and equality of treatment. The principle of reasonableness, which logically as well as philosophically, is an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness pervades Article 14 like a brooding omnipresence (See also Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority, AIR 1979 SC 1628; Kasturi Lal v. State of J&K, AIR 1980 SC 1992). In Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, AIR 1981SC 487, the Supreme Court held “ …. what Article 14 strikes at is arbitrariness because an action that is arbitrary must necessarily involve negation of equality….. Wherever therefore there is arbitrariness in State action whether it be of the legislature or of the executive or of an “authority” under Article 12, Article 14 immediately springs into action and strikes down such action.” In this case the system of selection by oral interview, in addition to written test was upheld as valid, but allocation of above 15 per cent of the total marks for interview was regarded as arbitrary and unreasonable and liable to be struck down as constitutionally invalid.
Possession of higher qualification can be treated as a valid base or classification of two categories of employees, even if no such requirement is prescribed at the time of recruitment. If such a distinction is drawn no complaint can be made that it would violate Article 14 of the Constitution (U.P. State Sugar Corpn. Ltd. v. Sant Raj Singh, (2006) 9 SCC 82.
In Secy., State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, the Supreme Court has held that adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since the rule of law is the core of our Constitution, a court would certainly be disabled from passing an order upholding the violation of Article 14.