- Purpose and policy of — Those responsible for performing this act have not come forward to show the purpose and policy of the Statute — If no purpose is brought forward by those who are defending class legislation — The purpose and policy is ascertainable from the Statute but it is lacking in the present case as the Act is silent about it. Azad Govt. v. M. Youns Tahir & other 1994 SCR 341 (T)
- In absence of any known purpose or policy of the impugned legislation, the question is whether the legislation can pass the dual test i.e. is the classification rational and based on intelligible differentiation making distinct persons who are grouped together from those who have been left out? The only known difference between those who have been benefitted by the impugned legislation is that they were serving as ad hoc appointees when the impugned law came into force — There being no discernible difference. Azad Govt. v. M. Youns Tahir 1994 SCR 341 (U)
- Ad hoc appointments under reference do not fulfil another requirement inasmuch as between themselves they are not placed in the similar circumstances — 88 appointments made between 17th June 1985 to 29th June 1990, 59 appointed from 8th of August to 16th of August 1992. On 8th August the Legislative Assembly passed by law and on 16th the President assented to it. 29 persons were appointed on 16th August — which shows that the classification is not based on any ‘intelligible differentiation which distinguishes persons that are grouped together from others who are left out of the group’. About those who have served for many years it has not been explained as to why they have served on ad hoc basis for such a long time. Azad Govt. v. M. Youns Tahir 1994 SCR 341 (X)
- Held: Violative of fundamental right No.15. Azad Govt. v. M. Youns Tahir 1994 SCR 341 (Z)
error: Content is protected !!