http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 13  

PETITIONER: R.S.E.B.ACCOUNTANTS ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       04/02/1997

BENCH: S.C.AGRAWAL, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                      J U D G E M E N T S.C AGRAWAL, J.      The question  that  falls  for  consideration  in  this appeal is  whether Entry 19 of the Schedule to the Rajasthan State Electricity  Board Officers  [Recruitment, Promotion & Seniority] Regulations, 1974(hereinafter referred to as ’The 1974 Regulations’)  is violative  of the  provisions of  the Articles 14  and 16  of the  Constitution,  The  said  entry relates  to   promotion  to   the  post  of  Asst.  Accounts Officer/Asst.  Audit  officer/Asst.Revenue  Officer  in  the Rajasthan State  Electricity Board  (hereinafter to  as ’the Board’). It  prescribes that  75% of  the vacancies shall be filled by  promotion on merit basis from Accountants with at least 7 years service as Accountant and 25% of the vacancies shall be  filled by  promotion on  merit basis  out  of  the Accountants possessing  an Intermediate of Cost & Works from the Institute  of Cost  & Works  Accountants, Calcutta  with five years  experience as  Accountant  in  the  Board  or  a graduate holding  diploma in  Cost & Works from a university established by law in India with five years as Accountant in the Board.      The  1974   Regulations  came  into  force  on  October 30,11974. Prior  to the  making  of  the  1974  Regulations, appointment on  the  post  of  Asst.  Accounts  officer  was regulated by  the  Rajasthan  Subordinate  Accounts  Service Rules, 1963  which had  been   made applicable to the Board. Under the  said Rules Accountants with five years experience as Accountants  were eligible  for promotion  to the post of Asst. Accounts  officer. The next post higher to the post of Assistant Accounts  officer is  that of Accounts officer and under Entry  16 of  the schedule  to the  1974  Regulations, appointment to  the said  post is  by direct  recruitment as well  as   by  promotion  from  amongst  Assistant  Accounts officers.      Appointment to  the post  of Accountant  is governed by the RSEB  Ministerial Staff  Regulations, 1962 ( hereinafter referred  ratio,   through  (i)   departmental   competitive examination, (ii)  promotion of Junior Accountants and Upper Division Clerks  and above,  and  (iii)  direct  recruitment [Regulation 6(1)(xii)].  Rajasthan Rajya  Vidyut  karmachari

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 13  

Federation, a registered body of the staff employed with the Board filed  a Writ  Petition [D.B.Writ  Petition No.5720 of 1990] where  Entry 19  the Schedule  to the 1974 Regulations was assailed  on the ground that it is violative of Articles 14 and  16 of  the Constitution.  The said Writ Petition was dismissed by  a Division Bench of the High Court by judgment dated January 3,1991. Thereafter another Writ Petition [D.B. Civil  Writ  Petition  No.338/91]  was  filed  by  the  RSEB Accountants Association,  appellant herein.  The  said  Writ Petition came  up for  consideration before another Division Bench of  the High  Court and the learned judges were not in agreement with  the  view  taken  earlier  in  the  case  of Rajasthan Rajya  Vidyut  Karmachari  Federation  [supra]  as regards the validity of Entry 19 of the Schedule to the 1974 Regulations and  by  order  dated  February  21,  1991,  the following question  was referred for consideration by a Full Bench:      " Whether  in the  schedule to  the      Rajasthan State  Electricity  Board      officers  (Recruitment,   Promotion      and  Seniority)  Regulations,  1974      under Entry  No. 19 providing quota      of 25% for promotion of Accountants      holding   the    qualification   of      Intermediate with  ICWA or Graduate      with  DCWA  is  valid  and  is  not      violative of  Art. 14 and 16 of the      Constitution?"      By judgment dated June 30,1995, the Full Bench answered the said question in the affirmative and held that Entry No. 19 of  the 1974  Regulations is not violative of Articles 14 and 16  of the constitution. The matter was thereafter again placed before a Division Bench of the High Court and in view of the  judgment of  the Full Bench, the writ Petition filed by the  appellant was  dismissed by  order dated  August  3, 1995. Hence this appeal.      Dr. A.M.Singhvi,  the learned  senior counsel appearing for the  Board,  has  raised  an  objection  that  the  Writ Petition filed  by the appellant was not maintainable and it was barred  by the principle of res judicata. The submission is that  members of  the  appellant  Association  were  also members of  the Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Karmachari Federation which had  filed D.B. Writ Petition No. 5720/90 and that the order dated  January 3,  1991  on  the  said  Writ  Petition operates res  judicata and a fresh Writ Petition raising the same question  regarding the  validity of  Entry 19  of  the Schedule to  the 1974  Regulations could  not be  filed.  On behalf of  the appellant,  it is  , however, stated that the appellant is  a separate  Association and  that none  of the members of the appellant was a member of the Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Karmachari  Federation which  had filed  the  earlier Writ Petition and the members of the appellant are not bound by the  earlier judgment and ar not precluded from agitating the question  as to the validity of Entry 19 of the Schedule to the  1974 Regulations.  Since there is a dispute on facts as  to   whether  any   of  the  members  of  the  appellant Association  was   member  of  the  Rajasthan  Rajya  Vidyut Karmachari   Federation ,  we do  not propose to go into the objection regarding the maintainability of the Writ Petition filed by  the appellant  and will  deal with  the matter  on merits.      Entry 19  of  the  Schedule  to  the  1974  Regulations provides as follows; ------------------------------------------------------------ S.No      Category       Method of      Qualification

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 13  

                        recruitment                          with % age ------------------------------------------------------------ 19.  Asst.Accounts       100% by        1. 75%  by promotion      Officer/Asst.       selection      on     merit basis      Audit Officer/Asst.                from the  Accountant      Revenue Officer                    at  least   7  years                                         service as                                         Accountant        in                                         Rajasthan      State                                         Board.                                         2.   25%          by                                         promotion on merit                                         basis out of                                         Accountants                                         possessing                                         qualification/                                         experience as  given                                         below:                                         (a)  An Intermediate                                         of Cost & Works,                                         Calcutta with 5                                         years experience  as                                         Accountant in RSEB.                                              OR                                         A Graduate holding                                         diploma in Cost  &                                         Works from a                                         University                                         established by law                                         in India with 5                                         years experience  as                                         Accountant in RSEB.                                         NOTE: In the event                                         of non availability,                                         the vacancies may be                                         filled in by the                                         Accountants under                                         No. (1) and (2)                                         above and vice-                                         versa. -----------------------------------------------------------"      Shri  Rajinder  Sachher,  the  learned  senior  counsel appearing for  the appellant, has urged that in Column(4) of Entry  19   of  the  Schedule  to  the  1974  Regulations  a distinction has  been made  between Accountants on the basis of the  qualifications possessed  by  them  inasmuch  as  an Accountant who  is an  Intermediate of Cost & Works from the Institute of  Cost &  Works ,  Calcutta  or  is  a  Graduate holding  diploma   in  Cost   &  Works   from  a  University established by  law in  India is  eligible for  promotion as Asst. Accounts  Officer/Asst.  Audit  Officer/Asst.  Revenue Officer in  the Board  if he  has five  years experience  as Accountant in the Board while Accountants who do not possess these qualification become eligible for promotion only after seven years  service as Accountant in the Board. It has also been submitted  that reservation  of 25%  of  vacancies  for Accountants possessing  the qualifications referred to above results in hostile discrimination against Accountants who do not possess  those  qualifications.  In  this  context,  the learned counsel  has pointed out that all the Accountants in the  Board,   irrespective  of   their  qualifications,  are discharging the same functions and are similarly situate and that Entry  19 of the schedule to the 1974 Regulations in so far as  it makes a distinction in  the matter of eligibility

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 13  

on the basis of qualification and prescribing a quota of 25% posts   for    Accountants   possessing    the    prescribed qualifications  is   violative  of  the  right  to  equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in  Mohammad Shujat Ali & Ors. etc vs Union of India & Ors. etc.  1975 (1) SCR 449 ; Punjab State Electricity Board Patiala & Anr. vs. Ravinder Kumar Sharma & Ors., 1986(4) SCC 617, and  N, Abdul Basheer & Ors. etc . vs K.K.Karunakaran & Ors.,1989 (3) SCR 201.      On behalf  of the  Board, it  has been submitted by Dr. Singhvi that  for the purpose of promotion it is permissible to make  a classification on the basis of qualifications and that the provisions contained in Entry 19 of the Schedule to the 1974  Regulations prescribing  lesser experience of five years  service  as  Accountant  in  respect  of  Accountants possessing higher  qualifications and  higher experience  of seven years  service for  the  purpose  of  eligibility  for promotion in  respect of Accountants who do not possess such qualifications  and   prescribing  a   quota  of   25%   for Accountants possessing  those qualifications   do not offend the ’right  to equality’ guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of  the  Constitution.  Reliance  has  been  placed  on  the decisions of  this court  in State  of Jammu  & Kashmir  vs. Triloki Nath  Khosa &  Ors., 1974  (1) SCR  771; Roop  Chand Adlakha &  Ors. vs  Delhi Development Authority & Ors., 1988 Supp.(3) SCR 253; Shamkant Narayan Deshpande vs. Maharashtra Industrial Development  Corporation &  Anr., 1993  Supp. (2) SCC 194;  P. Murugesan & Ors. vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. 1993 (2) SCC 340; Nageshwar Prasad & Ors. Vs. Union of India & ors.,  1995 Supp.  (4) SCC  718, and  T.R.Kothandaraman  & Ors.vs. Tamil  Nadu Water  Supply &  Drainage Board  & Ors., 1994 (6) SCC 282.      As per the decisions of this Court the position is well settled that  educational qualifications  can  be  made  the basis for  classification of  employees in  State service in the matter  of pay  scale  to  employees  possessing  higher qualifications have been upheld as valid by this Court. [See; State  of Mysore  & Anr. vs. P. Narasing Rao, 1968 (1) SCR 407 , and V.Markendeya & Ors. vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.  1989 (3)  SCC  191).  Similarly  in  the  matter  of promotion  classification   on  the   basis  of  educational qualifications so  as to deny eligibility for promotion to a higher post  to an  employee possessing lesser qualification or require  longer experience  for those  possessing  lesser qualifications has been upheld as valid by this Court.      In Triloki  Nath Khosa  [supra], this  Court has upheld the  provisions   of  the  Jammu  &  Kashmir  Engineering  ( Gazetted)   Service    Recruitment   Rules,   1970   Whereby eligibility for promotion to the post of Executive Engineers was confined  to Assistant  Engineers who possessed a degree in Engineering  and Assistant  Engineers, who  were  diploma holders,  were  ineligible  for  such  promotion.  The  said provision was  upheld on  the ground that it was made with a view  to   achieving  administrative   efficiency   in   the engineering  service.   On  behalf   of  the   diplomaholder Assistant Engineers  it was urged that degreeholders (direct recruits)  and   diplomaholders  (promotees),   having  been appointed  as   Assistant  Engineers  on  equal  terms  they constitute an integrated class and for purposes of promotion they cannot  be  classified  on  the  basis  of  educational qualifications. Rajecting  the said  contention it  was held that though persons appointed directly and by promotion were integrated into  a common class of Assistant Engineers, they could, for  purposes of  promotion to the cadre of Executive

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 13  

Engineers,  be   classified  on  the  basis  of  educational qualifications.      In Roop  Chand Adlakha [supra] under the relevant rules Junior Engineers  were eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers.  Amongst Junior  Engineers  there  were graduates in  Engineering as  well as diplomaholders. 50% of the posts  of Assistant Engineers were required to be filled by promotion  and 50%  by direct recruitment. Out of the 50% posts required to be filled by promotion, half (25%) were to be filled  from amongst degreeholder Junior Engineers having three years  service experience  and  the  other  half  from amongst diplomaholder  Junior Engineers  having eight  years service experience.  Similarly for  promotion to the post of Executive Engineer  a degreeholder  Assistant  Engineer  was eligible for  promotion after eight years service experience as  Assistant   Engineer  while  a  diplomaholder  Assistant Engineer was so eligible after 10 years service as Assistant Engineer was so eligible after 10 years service as Assistant Engineer. Upholding the validity of the said provisions this Court has held;      "The inherent distinction between a      person with a Degree and one who is      merely Diploma  Holder is  much too      obvious. in  the   context such  as      the present  one,  is  whether  the      differences     have     reasonable      relation  to   the  nature  of  the      office to  which the  promotion  is      contemplated. The idea of  equality      in the  matter of  promotion can be      predicated only when the candidates      for promotion  are drawn  from  the      same source.  If the differences in      the qualification  has a reasonable      relation to  the nature  of  duties      and responsibilities,  that go with      and   are    attendant   upon   the      promotional    post,    the    more      advantageous treatment of those who      possess      higher       technical      qualifications can  be  legitimised      on the  doctrine of classification.      There may.  conceivably,  be  cases      where  the   differences   in   the      educational qualifications  may not      be   sufficient    to   give    any      preferential treatment to one class      of candidates  as against another .      Whether   the   classification   is      reasonable or  not must, therefore,      necessarily depend  upon  facts  of      each  case  and  the  circumstances      obtaining  at  the  relevant  time.      When    the     state    makes    a      classification between two sources,      unless    the     vice    of    the      classification is writ large on the      face of  it, the  person  assailing      the classification  must show  that      it is unreasonable and violative of      Articles 14."      [p.263]      It was further observed;      "If Diploma-Holders-  of course  on      the  justification  of  the  job  -

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 13  

    requirements and in the interest of      maintaining a  certain  quality  of      technical expertise  in the  cadre-      could validly  be excluded from the      eligibility for  promotion  to  the      higher   cadre,    it   does    not      necessarily  follow  an  inevitable      corollary that  the choice  of  the      recruitment policy  is limited only      to two  choices, namely,  either to      consider them  " eligible"  or "not      eligible". State.,  consistent with      the requirements of the promotional      posts and  in the  interest of  the      efficiency of  the service,  is not      precluded      from      conferring      eligibility   on    Diploma-Holders      conditioning    it     by     other      requirements which  may,  as  here,      include certain  quantum of service      experience. In  the  present  case,      eligibility determination  was made      by  a  cumulative  criterion  of  a      certain  educational  qualification      plus  a   particular   quantum   of      service experience.  It cannot,  in      our opinion, be said, as postulated      by the  High Court, that the choice      of  the   State   was   either   to      recognise    Diploma-Holders     as      "eligible" for  promotion or wholly      exclude them  as "not-eligible". If      the  educational  qualification  by      itself was recognised as conferring      eligibility  for  promotion,  then,      the super-  imposition  op  further      conditions  such  as  a  particular      period of  service, selectively, on      the Diploma  Holders alone to their      disadvantage      might      become      discriminatory.   This   does   not      prevent the  state from formulating      a policy  which  prescribes  as  an      essential part  to  the  conditions      for the  very eligibility  that the      candidate must  have  a  particular      qualification  plus   a  stipulated      quantum of service experience."      [pp.268-269]      In Shamkant  Narayan  Deshpande  [supra]  promotion  of Executive Engineers  to the  post of Superintending Engineer was on  the basis  of a  quota  whereunder  75%  posts  were reserved for degreeholders and 25% posts for diplomaholders. It was  contended that no classification could be made among Executive  Engineers  on  the  basis  of  their  educational qualifications for  the purpose  of promotion to the post of Superintending engineer  since they belong to the same cadre of Executive  Engineers and  do the  same work  and a common seniority list  was being  maintained. The  said  contention was, however,  rejected on  the basis  of  the  decision  in Triloki Nath Khosa [supra].      P. Murugesan vs. state of Tamil Nadu [supra] related to promotion to  the  post  of  Assistant  Executive  Engineer. Diplomaholders [Junior  Engineers] as  well as degreeholders [Assistant Engineers]  were eligible for such promotion. For

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 13  

diplomaholders to  become eligible  for promotion  10  years service was  required and  for degree-holders  the period of service required  was five  years. The  promotion was  to be made in  the  ratio  3:1  for  degree  holders  and  diploma holders. The  said provisions  were upheld. It was contended that  since  a  longer  qualifying  period  of  service  was prescribed for  diploma holders  they had  been equated with degreeholders and  thereafter no  distinction could  be made between them  by  prescribing  the  quota  amongst  the  two categories for  the purpose of promotion. Rejecting the said contention it  was observed  that if  the distinction in the matter  of  longer  qualifying  period  of  service  is  not discrimination it  was difficult  to see how and why another distinction in  the matter of quota rule was discriminatory. It was stated:      "Suppose,     if      these     two      requirements(i,e.,           longer      qualifying service and quota rule )      had been  introduced  at  the  same      time, there could have been no room      for the  present argument. The rule      would have  been good.  how does it      become bad,  if they are introduced      at different  times? Both relate to      their eligibility  and  chances  of      promotion."      [p.354]      In Nageshwar Prasad vs Union of India [supra] There was a quota  of 50:50  for promotion  to the  post of  Assistant Engineer and  different periods  of service  experience were prescribed for  diploma  holders  and  degree  holders.  The central  Administrative   Tribunal,  while   upholding   the difference in  the experience  criteria, had struck down the quota  rule   whereunder  promotion  of  diplomaholders  was limited to  50%. The  said  decision  of  the  Tribunal  was reversed by  this Court  on the  view that  the decision was clearly inconsistent with the ratio of the decisions of this Court in  Roop Chand  Adlakha [supra]  and  P.Murugesan  vs. State of Tamil Nadu [supra]. It was observed:      "The prescription of the quota rule      is obviously  to ensure that in the      immediate promotion  cadre there is      a fair  mix of  both degree-holders      and  diploma-holders   because  the      vertical movement  from that  stage      and upwards  in  the  hierarchy  is      restricted to degree-holders and if      they   are    not   available    in      sufficient number  in  the  feeding      channel the  said  channel would be      virtually dry and sufficient number      of  degree-holders   would  not  be      available for promotion to the next      higher  cadre.   The  efficacy   of      diploma-holders has been recognised      up to  a particular  stage  in  the      hierarchy  and   thereafter  it  is      realised that  for  manning  higher      posts a  degree in Engineering is a      must. We, therefore, do not see how      prescription of  the  50  per  cent      quota is in any manner arbitrary."      [p. 721]      In T.R.  Kothandaraman vs.  Tamil Nadu  Water Supply  & Drainage Board [supra], this Court has upheld the proviso to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 13  

Regulation 19(2)(b)  of the  Tamil  Nadu  Water  Supply  and Drainage Board  Service Regulations,  1972  which  permitted diploma-holder Assistant  Engineers to  become eligible  for the promotion to the post of Executive Engineer only if they were to  have exceptional  merit in  work and  otherwise the diploma-holder was not eligible for such promotion. The said provision was  upheld as  valid in view of the law laid down in   Triloki Nath  Khosa [supra]. In the said case the Court has also upheld the provisions of Rule 2(b) of Special Rules for  Tamil   Nadu  Agricultural  Engineering  Service  which prescribed the  ratio of  3.2 for  degree  holder  Assistant Engineers  and   diploma  holder   Assistant  Engineers  for promotion to  the post  of Executive  Engineer. It  was held that higher  educational qualification has relevance insofar as the  holding of  the higher promotional post is concerned in view  of the  nature of the functions and duties attached to that  post and that the classification and nexus with the object to  be achieved.  It was  observed that the reference given to  the degree holders would give fillip to the desire to receive higher education.      Reference may  now be  made to  the decisions  on which reliance has  been placed  by Shri  Sachher. In  Shujat  Ali [supra]  in  the  matter  of  promotion  of  Supervisors  as Assistant Engineers  preferential  treatment  was  given  to graduate   Supervisors    over   non-graduate   Supervisors. Initially two  out of every three vacancies, ( and after the amendment, three  out of   every three vacancies) in post of Assistant Engineer  were reserved  for promotion of graduate Supervisors. The  said preferential  treatment  of  graduate Supervisors  was   assailed  on   the  ground  that  it  was unreasonable and  violative of  Article 14  and  16  of  the Constitution. The  said provision  was upheld  by this Court for  the  reason    that  the  differentiation  between  the graduate and  non-graduate Supervisors had always been there in the  Engineering Service in the erstwhile Hyderabad State as well  as in  Andhara  Pradesh  State  and  that  graduate Supervisors had  always treated  as a  distinct and separate class from  non-graduate Supervisors and that they had never been integrated  into one  class. The  Court  has,  however, dealt  with   the  question   whether  such  a  preferential treatment on the basis of educational qualification would be in consonance  with the  ’right to equally’ guaranteed under Article 14  and 16 of the Constitution. It has been observed as forming  a educational  qualification, but  it cannot  be laid  down   as  an   invariable  rule   that  whenever  any classification is  made on  the basis of variant educational qualifications, such classification must be held to be valid irrespective of the nature and purpose of the classification or  the   quality  and  extent  of  the  difference  in  the educational qualifications  and that  the test of reasonable classification has  to be  applied in  such  case    on  its peculiar facts  and circumstances. Referring to the decision in Triloki Nath Khosa [supra], it was said :      "It may be perfectly legitimate for      the  administration   to  say  that      having regard  to the nature of the      functions and  duties  attached  to      the  post,   for  the   purpose  of      achieving  efficiency   in   public      service,  only  degree  holders  in      engineering shall  be eligible  for      promotion  and   not   diploma   or      certificate  holders   .........But      where graduates  and  non-graduates      are  both   regarded  as  fit  and,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 13  

    therefore, eligible  for promotion,      it  is   difficult  to   see   how,      consistently  with  the  claim  for      equal       opportunity,        any      differentiation can be made between      them by  laying  down  a  quota  of      promotion  for   each  and   giving      preferential treatment to graduates      over non-graduates in the matter of      fixation of  such quota. The result      of fixation  of quota  of promotion      for each  of the  two categories of      Supervisors would  be that  when  a      vacancy  arises   in  the  post  of      Assistant Engineer, which according      to  the   quota  is   reserved  for      graduate   Supervisors,    a   non-      graduate   Supervisor   cannot   be      promoted to  that vacancy,  even if      he is  senior to all other graduate      Supervisors and  more suitable than      they. His opportunity for promotion      would be  limited only Supervisors.      That would clearly amount to denial      of equal opportunity to him."      [p.480]      Shri  Sachher   has  placed   strong  reliance  on  the abovequoted observations  in Mohammad  Shujat  Ali  [supra]. These observations  have, however, to be read in the context of the  facts of  that case  where graduate  as well as non- graduate  Supervisors   were  both   equally  eligible   for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. This is evident from the  question which  was   posed by  the Court  in  the following words :      "I  am   senior  to   the  graduate      Supervisor who  is intended  to  be      promoted. I  am more  suitable than      he is.  It is  no doubt true that I      am a non-graduate, but my not being      a graduate  has not been branded as      a disqualification.  I am  regarded      fit for  promotion  and,  like  the      graduate Supervisor,  I am  equally      eligible  for  being  promoted.  My      technical equipment supplemented by      experience is  considered  adequate      for discharging  the  functions  of      Assistant Engineer.  Then why  am I      being denied  the  opportunity  for      promotion    and    the    graduate      Supervisor is preferred ?"           [emphasis supplied]           [p.480]      While saying  that "there can be no satisfactory answer to this question" the Court has proceeded to hold:      "It is  of  the  essence  of  equal      opportunity for  such persons  with      humble and  depressing  backgrounds      that they  should have opportunity,      through experience  or  self-study,      to  level   up  with   their   more      fortunate colleagues who, by reason      of favourable  circumstances, could      obtain  the   benefits  of   higher      education,  and   if   they   prove

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 13  

    themselves fit  and  more  suitable      than others,  why  should  they  be      denied   an   opportunity   to   be      promoted in a vacancy on the ground      that vacancy belongs to Supervisors      possessing    higher    educational      qualifications."[p.480]      The decision  in Mohammad Shujat Ali [supra] thus gives recognition to  the principle that difference in educational qualifications can  be made  up by  longer experience.  This principle was  given effect  to in  the  various  provisions which came  up for  consideration before  this Court  in the cases referred  to earlier  wherein  longer  experience  was prescribed for employees possessing lesser qualification for the purpose  of promotion to higher post and such provisions were upheld as valid.      In Roop Chand Adlakha [supra] this Court has taken note of the  observation in  Mohammad Shujat Ali [supra] on which the reliance  has  been  placed  by  Shri  Sachher  and  has observed :      "Shujat    Ali’s     case    itself      recognised the  permissibility  and      validity of  such classification if      the nature  of  the  functions  and      duties attached to the promotional-      post are  such as  to  justify  the      clarification in  the  interest  of      efficiecny in  public service; but,      where  both   graduates  and   non-      graduates were  regarded as equally      fit and eligible for promotion, the      denial of  promotion  to  a  person      otherwise  eligible   and  due  for      promotion on  the basis  of a quota      was         not          justified,      ................In   Shujat   Ali’s      case   the    infirmity   of    the      differential treatment stemmed from      the fundamental basis that, at that      point, both  Graduates and Diploma-      holders were  equally but  the Rule      operated to  deny  promotion  to  a      Diploma-holder on  the basis  of  a      quota.  The  observations  in  that      case pertained  to  a  stage  which      arose   after   the   equality   of      eligibility for  promotion  between      the two classes of persons had been      recognised."      [pp.265-266]      Again in  P. Murugesan  vs. State of Tamil Nadu [supra] this Court  has taken  note of  the observations in Mohammad Shujat  Ali   [supra]  and   has  observed   that  the  said observations cannot  be read  in isolation  nor can  they be read as  running counter  to the ratio of Triloki Nath Khosa [supra].      In Punjab  State Electricity  Board, Patiala & Anr. Vs. Ravinder Kumar Sharma [supra] [decided by a Two-Judge Bench] diploma-holder linemen as well as non-diploma-holder linemen were both  eligible  for  promotion  to  the  post  of  Line Superintendent and  a quota  of 33%   was fixed for diploma- holder linemen  and 33%  was  fixed  for  non-diploma-holder linemen.  In   respect  of  diploma-holder  linemen  it  was prescribed that  they should  have   worked as  linemen  for three years  continuously and  immediately before  promotion

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 13  

while non-diploma-holder  linemen who had passed 1.1/2 years course      in       the      Electrical      Trades      of Electrician/Lineman/Wireman   from   recognised   Industrial Training Institutes  were required  to have  worked for four years  as   lineman  continuously   and  immediately  before promotion. The  Validity of  the fixation  of quota  in  the matter of  promotion of diplomaholder and non-diploma-holder linemen to  the post  of Line  Superintendent was held to be violative of  the equality  clause contained  in Articles 14 and 16  of the  Constitution on  ground that Linemen, either diploma-holders of  non-diploma-holders, were performing the same kind  of work  and duties  and they  belong to the same cadre having  a common/joint seniority list for promotion to the post  of Line  Superintendent and reliance was placed on the observations  in Mohammad  Shujat Ali  [supra] on  which reliance has  been placed by Shri Sachher.  No reference was made to  Triloki Nath  Khosa [supra].   In  P. Murugesan vs. State of  Tamil Nadu  [supra].   [decided by  a  Three-Judge Bench] while  referring to  the said  decision  in  Ravinder kumar Sharma [supra].  It has  been observed:      "It   is    evident    that    non-      consideration  of   T.N.Khosa   and      other decisions  relevant under the      subject has  led to the laying down      of a proposition which seems to run      counter to  T.N.Khosa. With   great      respect to  the learned  judges who      decided that case, we are unable to      accept   the    broad   proposition      flowing form the case."      [p.353]      In  N.   Abdul  Basheer   vs.  K.K.Karunakaran  [supra] graduate  as well as non-graduate Excise Preventive officers were eligible  for promotion  to the  post of  Second  Grade Excise   Inspectors.  Earlier such promotions to the post of Second Grade  Excise   Inspectors.   Earlier such promotions were to  be to  be made  in  the  ration  of  3:1    between graduates   and non-graduates  which ration was subsequently reversed to  1:3.   The fixation  of the  said ration in the matter of  promotion of  graduates and  non-graduate  Excise Preventive officers  was held  by this Court to be violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Taking note of the history of evolution of the Kerala Excise and Prohibition  Subordinate Service  it was observed that a consistent or  coherent policy  in favour  of graduates  was absent and  that originally  more emphasis  was laid  on the induction of  graduates and  the ration of graduate and non- graduates were  inducted in the Service,  The Court rejected the contention  that the  ration of 3:1 but subsequently the ration was  changed inversly  to 1:3  and more non-graduates were inducted  in the  Service.    The  Court  rejected  the contention that  the ratio of 3:1 between graduates and non- graduation is  recognition of  merit and  that more merit in the post  of Excise  Inspectors would be conducive to better administrative efficiency on the view that the conditions of employment  and   the  incident   of  service  recognise  no distinction between  graduate and  non-graduate officers and that for  all material purposes they are effectively treated as equivalent.   The  said decision  has,  therefore  to  be considered in  the light  of its facts,  It falls within the principle laid  down in  Mohammad Shujat  Ali [supra]  since graduates and  non-graduates were  both equally eligible for promotion to the higher post.      The decision  in Mohammad  Shujat Ali  [supra] and  the subsequent decisions in Ravinder Kumar sharama [supra] and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 13  

Abdul Basheer  [supra] do  not, therefore,  detract form the law laid  down in  Triloki Nath  Khosa [supra],  Roop  Chand Adlakha [supra],  P.  Murugesan  vs.  State  of  Tamil  Nadu [supra],  Shamkant   Narayan  Deshpande  [supra],  Nageshwar Prasad [supra]  and T.R.  Kothandaraman  [supra],  where  in provisions prescribing  higher experience  on the  basis  of difference in educational qualifications for eligibility for promotion and prescribing a quota based on qualifications in the matter of promotion to higher post have been uphled.      Entry 19 of the Schedule to the  1974 Regulations in so far as  it prescribes  longer service  of  seven  years  for Accountants who do not possess the additional qualifications of an  Intermediate of  Cost &  Works from  the Institute of Cost &  Works Accountants  of India  ora Graduate  holding a diploma in Cost & Works from a University established by law in India  is in  consonance with  the decision in Roop Chand Adlakha [supra],  and the said entry in so far it prescribes a quota  of 25%  of vacancies  in the  higher posts of Asst. Accounts  Officers/Asst.     Audit   Officer/Asst.   Revenue Officers for  the purpose of promotion is in consonance with the  decisions   in  Shamkant   narayan  Deshpande  [supra], P.Murugesan, Nageshwar Prasad [supra] and T.R. Kothandaraman [supra].      It  has,   however,  been   submitted  that   the  said classification  of   the  Accountants   on  the   basis   of qualification  of   the  Accountants   on   the   basis   of qualifications has  no nexus  with the  object sought  to be achieved by the Regulations which is to secure efficiency in the Service.   It  has been  pointed out  that  as  per  the qualification  prescribed for appointment on the higher post of Accounts  Officer under  Entry 16  of the Schedule to the 1974 Regulations  it is  not necessary that a person  should possess a  Diploma in  Cost &  Works or  should be  a Cost & Works  Accountant   of  the   Institute  of   cost  &  Works Accountants of  India and  that  a  person  having  Master’s degree in  Arts or  Science or  Commerce from  a  University established by  law in  India with at least 55% marks in the degree as  well as Master Degree examination is eligible for appointment  as   Accountants   Officers   by   the   Direct recruitment.   On behalf of the Board  it has however,  been pointed out  that in  the Board  there are    sub-divisional Accountant/Internal Auditor/Accountant  and that  though all the three  categories of  Accountants are  in a common cadre but the  Board is  having water  Light  compartment  meaning thereby an accountant working in Revenue Section continue to work in  Revenue Section  and an  Accountant posted in Audit Section will  continue there and that when they are assigned similar type of duties which they can discharge but a person who is  holding ICWA  or DCWA qualifications can be assigned any of  the duties  , whether it relates to Audit Section or budget preparation  or  account  compilation  and  that  the Services of  an Assistant Accounts Officer possessing higher qualifications can  be better  utilised in  various projects taken up  by the  Board from time to time.  It has also been pointed out  that till  July 31,1972, 25% Accountants in the Board were  appointed from  amongst persons  having ICWA  or DCWA qualification   and  that since October 30, 1974 in the matter of  direct recruitment  on  the  post  of  Accountant weightage is  given to  persons possessing the qualification of DCWA.   It  has also been submitted that on April 22,1966 the  Board  decided  that  to  give  filip  to  all  Working personnel in  the Board  to study  and equip  themselves and persons  qualifying  the  Intermediate  examination  of  the Institute of  Cost &  Works  Accountants  of  India  may  be offered the  post of  Assistant Accounts  Officer and  those

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 13  

qualifying the final examination that of Accounts Officer in the Board’s  services and  that the  personnel of all levels may be freely allowed and encouraged to study for and appear in these  examinations.   With regard to the fixation of 25% quota   for    Accountants   possessing    the    additional qualifications referred  to above  it has ben submitted that one  of   the  Unions   Known  as  Prantiya  Vidyut  Majdoor Federation had  Submitted a charter of demand as far back as on February  1,1971 where in one of the demands was that 25% posts of  the Assistant  Accounts officer be filled from the departmental graduates with Cost And Works Diploma.      As regards qualifications prescribed for appointment on the post  of Accounts Officer/Audit Officer /Revenue Officer in Entry  16 of the Schedule to the 1974 Regulations we find that in  the matter of direct recruitment against 50% of the post persons  who were  eligible for promotion are Chartered Accountants  (Member   of   the   Institute   of   Chartered Accountants of  India); or  Cost &  Works Accountants of the Institute of  Cost &  Works Accountants of India; or holders of Cost  & Works  Diploma of  any recognised  University  in India  with   with  five  years  experience  in  responsible position  in   Accounts  Department  of  Public  or  Private Undertaking   preferable    Electricity   Undertakings;   or Constitution.  The  contention  urged  by  Shri  Sachher  is accordingly rejected.      It was  contended by Shri Sachher that the facility for obtaining the  ICWA/DCWA qualifications  can be availed only be these Accountants who are posted at Jaipur or Jodhpur and the Same cannot be availed by Accountant  posted in outlying places. There  is no  merit in  this contention  because, as pointed out  on behalf of the Board, the Institute of Cost & Works Accountants  of India imparts postal and oral  courses and that in Rajasthan, Oral courses are available at Jaipur, Kota, Udaipur   and  Jodhpur and that on the same guidelines and almost  the same  syllabus the  various Universities  in Rajasthan are  conducting the  DCWA course at jaipur, Ajmer, Jodhpur, Bikaner, Laxmangarh and Ganganagar.      The apeal,  therefore,  fails  and  it  is  accordingly dismissed. But  in the Circumstances there is no order as to costs.