When the State Bends the Rules for Some but Not Others: Courts Revisit Article 14's Bar on Arbitrary Treatment of Government Employees

A recent ruling striking down the selective denial of a qualification relaxation to a government employee, while it was granted to similarly placed colleagues, is a fresh reminder of how deeply arbitrariness doctrine under Article 14 shapes Indian service law.

A court recently struck down a government department's decision to deny a qualification relaxation to an employee, even though similarly placed colleagues doing the same job under the same rules had been granted that very relaxation and promoted. No new rule or policy justified the differential treatment — the employer simply treated comparable cases differently, and the denial was held arbitrary and unsustainable.

The ruling reinforces the constitutional principle under Article 14 that arbitrariness itself amounts to a violation of equality, independent of any classification argument. In service law, this means that once the State extends a benefit like a relaxation to some employees in a class, denying it to others similarly situated without a rational basis is discriminatory and unconstitutional, since Article 14 guards against arbitrary state action, not merely unequal classification.

For exam purposes, remember: this case illustrates the 'arbitrariness doctrine' under Article 14, showing how equality jurisprudence directly governs everyday service matters like promotions and relaxations, requiring consistent, non-arbitrary treatment of similarly situated government employees.