P.B. Gajendragadkar JUDGMENT
N. Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.
1. This appeal comes before us by virtue of a certificate of fitness granted under Art. 132 of the Constitution by the High Court of Patna. The question involved in the appeal is a short one but is of considerable public importance and of great constitutional significance. It is concerned with the constitutional validity of r. 4-A, which was introduced into the Bihar Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1956, by a notification of the Governor of Bihar dated August 16, 1957 and reads :
"4-A. - Demonstrations and strikes. -
No Government servant shall participate in any demonstration or resort to any form of strike in connection with any matter pertaining to his conditions of service."
2. Very soon after this rule was notified the six appellants, the first of whom is the President of the Patna Secretariat Ministerial Officers' Association and the others are Assistants or Clerks under the Bihar State Government, filed on August 26, 1957, a petition before the High Court of Patna under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the rule on various grounds including inter alia that it interfered with the rights guaranteed to the petitioners by sub-cls. (a), (b) and (c) of clause (1) of Art. 19 of the Constitution of India and that in consequence the rule was in excess of the rule-making power conferred by Art. 309 of the Constitution which was the source of the authority enabling service-rules to be framed. They prayed for an order restraining the respondent-State from giving effect to the rule and to desist from interfering with the petitioners' right to go on strike or to hold demonstrations. The learned Judges of the High Court who heard the petition were of the opinion that the freedom guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(c) of the Constitution did not include a right to resort to a strike or the right to demonstrate so far as servants of Government were concerned. The learned Judges however, further considered the validity of the rule on the assumption that the freedoms enumerated in sub-cls. (a) and (c) of Art. 19(1) did include those rights. On this basis they held that the rule impugned was saved as being reasonable restraints on these guaranteed freedoms. The learned Judges therefore directed the petition to be dismissed, but on application by the appellants they granted a certificate under Art. 132 of the Constitution to enable them to approach this Court.
3. At this stage it is necessary to mention that a similar conclusion as the one by the High Court of Patna now under appeal was reached by the learned Judges of the High Court of Bombay before whom the constitutional validity of a rule in identical terms as r. 4A of the Bihar Rules was ........