What two conditions must a classification satisfy to survive the equality mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution?

First, an intelligible differentia — a yardstick, real and pertinent, distinguishing those grouped together from those left out; in its absence the differentiation is unreasonable. Second, that differentia must bear a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the law.

Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 — s.3(b) — s.5 — SRO No. 384 of 2009 — Constitution of India — Art.14 — Art.16 — Regularisation of service — Academic arrangement basis — Reasonable classification — Intelligible differentia — Model employer — Constitution of India — Art.14 — Classification of employees — Nomenclature not determinative — Held: Where appointees on an academic arrangement basis discharge duties, tenure and conditions of service identical to ad hoc, contractual or consolidated appointees, they are similarly situated. Denial of equal treatment resting only on the nomenclature of the engagement is impermissible under Article 14. (¶12) Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 — s.3(b) — Exclusion of academic arrangement appointees — Held further: The exclusion in Section 3(b) lacks an intelligible differentia and bears no rational nexus with the object of regularising long-standing irregular appointments. It results in invidious discrimination and is unconstitutional and violative of Article 14. (¶12, 13) Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 — s.5 — Second proviso — Qualifying seven years of service — Held further: Once the conditions in Section 5(i) to (v) stand satisfied, the nature of the initial engagement ceases to have any legal relevance. The second proviso is a beneficial provision and must receive purposive interpretation, protecting employees who complete the qualifying service period. (¶12) Constitution of India — Art.14 — Art.16 — State as model employer — Repackaging of contractual engagement — Held further: The State, as a model employer, cannot repackage a substantially similar mode of engagement under a new nomenclature and then deny regularisation. Section 3(b) declared unconstitutional; the State directed to consider the appellants under Section 5. Appeals allowed. (¶13)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of ABHISHEK SHARMA v. THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & ORS — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India