http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: C. C. PADMANABHAN & OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT30/07/1980

BENCH: KOSHAL, A.D. BENCH: KOSHAL, A.D. KRISHNAIYER, V.R. REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)

CITATION:  1981 AIR   64            1981 SCR  (1) 128

ACT:      Promotional post-Post  of Assistant Educational Officer in Kerala  Educational Service  is a  promotional post and a reversion therefrom  is, therefore,  invalid-Articles 14, 16 of the Constitution read with Clause (2) of the Rules of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1915, Rule 2(5) and 2(7) (a) of the Kerala Education Rules, 1958 and Section 12A of  the Kerala  Education Act,  1958-The  two  posts  of Assistant Educational  Officer and the High School Assistant are  not   inter-changeable-Kerala   Education   Subordinate Service (Special) Rules, 1972, Rule 3.

HEADNOTE:      Each of  the appellants  had been  holding the  post of Assistant  Educational  Officer  for  more  than  six  years continuously   when    his   reversion    was   ordered   in implementation of  the  instructions  issued  by  the  State Government through  a letter  dated 19th  May, 1977  to  the effect that  every Assistant  Educational Officer  should be transferred after  six years  of service  as  such  or  even earlier, on administrative grounds. Having failed before the High Court  to get  these orders  quashed on the ground that the  posts   of  Assistant   Educational   Officers,   being promotional posts,  their transfer  to  the  posts  of  High School  Assistant  amounted  to  reversion  and,  therefore, violated  Articles  14  and  16  of  the  Constitution,  the appellants have now come up in appeal by special leave.      Allowing the appeals, the Court, ^      HELD: (1)  The directions contained in the letter dated 19th May,  1977 that an Assistant Educational Officer should be transferred  back as  a High  School Assistant  after six years of  incumbency as  Assistant  Educational  Officer  is wholly arbitrary  and not  based on  any  principle  and  is therefore violative  of  Article  16  of  the  Constitution. Firstly, the  post of  A.E.O. carries  a special  pay of Rs. 50/- per  month and  therefore  ensures  for  its  incumbent higher emoluments  than  are  available  to  a  High  School Assistant. Secondly,  the special  pay  is  counted  towards pension under  Rules 12,  23 and  62 of  the Kerala  Service Rules. Any  transfer of  an Assistant Educational Officer to that of High School Assistant deprives him of these benefits

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

and, therefore, is violative of Article 14. [137H, 138A-D]      P. C.  Joshi  and  others  etc.  etc  v.  The  Director General, Posts  and Telegraphs,  New Delhi  etc.,  [1975]  2 S.C.R. 115, distinguished.      (2)  The   very  fact   that  the   post  of  Assistant Educational Officer  carries  a  special  pay  of  Rs.  50/- falling within  sub-clause (a) of clause 31 of Section 12 of the Kerala  Service Rules,  goes to  prove that  the post is higher than that of High School Assistant. [136B-C, 137F-G]      (3) Rule  2(ii) of  the Kerala  State  and  Subordinate Service Rules, 1958, Rule 2(v), Rule 2(vii)(a) of the Kerala Education  Rules,   1959  and  Section  12A  of  the  Kerala Education Act,  1958 make  it clear that if so authorised by the 129 Government  an   A.E.O.  shall   have  the   power  to  take disciplinary proceedings  against  a  teacher,  including  a Headmaster, of  an aided  school, to  suspend him  when such proceedings are  proposed to be taken and to impose upon him all or  any of the penalties to which he may be liable under the relevant  rules. Item 4 of the functions to be performed by  an   Assistant  Educational   Officer  detailed  in  the Education  Department  Guide  Book,  1978  empowers  him  to institute  disciplinary   proceedings  against  non-gazetted officers under  his control  as per  Kerala  Civil  Services (Qualification, Control  and Appeal)  Rules, and  admittedly High School  Assistants are  non-gazetted officers  who  are eligible for  appointment  and  are  normally  appointed  as Headmasters of  upper primary  school and,  therefore,  they would  while  functioning  as  Headmasters  be  amenable  to disciplinary   action    by   their   respective   Assistant Educational  Officers.  It  follows  that  the  post  of  an Assistant Educational Officer lies in a higher category than that of  a High  School Assistant  who does  not  wield  any corresponding disciplinary jurisdiction. [132C-G]      The qualifications  prescribed by  the Government order dated 25th  June, 1966  and Rule  3 of  the Kerala Education Subordinate Service (Special) Rules, 1972 make it clear that the two  posts of  Assistant Educational  Officer  and  High School Assistant  are not  inter-changeable. A  High  School Assistant cannot  be  posted  as  an  Assistant  Educational Officer unless  he has  the qualification  (in  addition  to those making  him eligible  to hold  the post of High School Assistant) of having passed the test in Kerala Education Act and  Rules.   The  broad  guidelines  issued  by  the  State Government to  the effect  that "care  must be  taken to see that only  officers of  high integrity and efficiency should be posted  to work  as Assistant  Educational Officers", the Government Order  of 29th August, 1961, the letter dated 7th February, 1969 issued by the Director of Public Instructions and the  Order dated  19th October, 1974 issued by the State Government introducing  direct recruitment  to the  posts of A.E.Os. and  District Educational Officers also specifically indicate that  the functions to be performed by an Assistant Educational Officer  are substantially  different  from  and entail higher responsibility than those of an H.S.A. so that the appointment to the post of A.E.O. from amongst officials already  serving   the  State  Government  is  a  matter  of promotion and not a mere transfer and that is how the Kerala Government itself  has been  viewing the  matter  all  along prior to  the issuance  of the  letter dated 19th May, 1977. [131G, 133B-C, E, F, 134G-H]      (4) If  the rules  do not  permit Assistant Educational Officers to  become Headmasters  of  High  Schools  but  the Government has been posting them as such in contravention of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

the rules  it would  not follow that the rules automatically stand  amended   to  be   read  in   conformity   with   the contravention. There is no incongruity in the two categories of the posts, one higher and the other lower, furnishing two sources of  recruitment to  another higher post and it would not necessarily  follow from  such a  practice that  the two sources must be regarded as equivalent to each other for all purposes. [135G-H, 136A]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal Nos. 3520- 3524 of 1979.      (Appeals by  Special Leave  from the Judgment and Order dated 11-9-1979  of the  Kerala High  Court in  Writ Appeals Nos. 241,  242/77 and  Original Petition  Nos. 1791,  1836 & 1892/79.) 130      P. Govindan  Nair. Mrs. Baby Krishnan and N. Sudhakaran for the Appellants.      M. M.  Abdul Khader, V. J. Francis and Sushil Kumar for the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      KOSHAL, J.-By  this judgment  we shall dispose of Civil Appeal Nos.  3520 to 3524 of 1979 which are directed against a common judgment dated 11-9-1979 of a Division Bench of the High Court  of Kerala  holding that  in  the  Department  of Education of  the State  of Kerala  the  post  of  Assistant Educational officer (hereinafter described as A.E.O.) is not a promotion  post vis-a-vis  that of a High School Assistant (hereinafter referred  to as H.S.A.), that the two posts are interchangeable and  that consequently  the reversion of the solitary appellant  in each  case from the post of A.E.O. to that of  H.S.A. is  not  violative  of  article  16  of  the Constitution.      2. It  is not  disputed before  us  that  each  of  the appellants had been holding the post of A.E.O. for more than six years  continuously when  his reversion  was ordered  in implementation of  the  instructions  issued  by  the  State Government through  a letter dated the 19th May, 1977 to the effect that every A.E.O. should be transferred back as H.S.A after six  years of  service as  A.E.O. or  even earlier  on administrative grounds. Each reversion was challenged before the Kerala  High Court  by means of a petition under article 226 of  the Constitution  of India  with the prayer that the same be  quashed. Two  of the  petitions were dismissed by a learned single Judge whose orders were challenged in letters Patent  appeals  which  were  heard  and  dismissed  by  the impugned judgment  along with the other three petitions. The five appeals  have been  admitted in  pursuance  of  special leave granted by this Court.      3. On  behalf of  the appellants  two contentions  have been raised:      (a)   The post of A.E.O. lies in a category and carries           a grade  higher than  those of  the post of H.S.A.           is, therefore,  a post  of promotion vis-a-vis the           other so  that the  two cannot  be  considered  as           inter-changeable especially  because there  is  no           rule,  direction   or  instruction   laying   down           expressly or  by necessary  implication that  they           are equivalent to each other.      (b)   Even if the appointment of an H.S.A. as an A.E.O.           cannot be  regarded as  a promotion,  the impugned           reversions are  violative  of  article  14  as  no

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

         guidelines to  regulate them  have  been  provided           inspite of  the fact  that the  post of  an A.E.O.           carries a special pay which is not available to an           H.S.A. 131      After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length we find both these contentions to be weighty.      4. Promotion  is thus  defined in clause (11) of rule 2 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958:           "(11)  ’Promotion’  means  the  appointment  of  a      member of any category or grade of a service or a class      of service  to a  higher  category  or  grade  of  such      service or class." This definition fully conforms to the meaning of ’promotion’ as understood  in ordinary  parlance  and  also  as  a  term frequently used  in cases  involving service laws. According to it a person already holding a post would have a promotion if he is appointed to another post which satisfies either of the following two conditions, namely-      (i)   that the  new post is in a higher category of the           same service or class of service;      (ii) the  new post  carries a  higher grade in the same           service or class.      It is  common ground  between the  parties that  in the instant case  the two  posts belong  to the  same service or class of  service. Applying  the above  test, therefore,  to them it  would follow  that the  appointment of an H.S.A. to the post of an A.E.O. would be a promotion if, and only if-      (a)  the post of an A.E.O. is of a higher category than           that of an H.S.A.                              or      (b)   the post of an A.E.O. carries a higher grade than           that of an H.S.A. In case  of either  of these conditions being fulfilled, the appointment of an H.S.A. to the post of an A.E.O. would be a promotion within the meaning of the clause above reproduced.      5. For  ascertaining whether  or not the post of A.E.O. lies in a category higher than that of an H.S.A. a reference may be  made to clauses (5) and (7a) of rule 2 of the Kerala Education  Rules,   1959  and  section  12A  of  the  Kerala Education Act,  1958. Rule  2(5) defines Educational officer as meaning the District Educational officer or the Assistant Educational  officer   having  immediate   inspectional  and administrative  control   over  the   schools   within   his respective jurisdiction,  while rule  2(7a) states  that the term ’Teacher’  includes the  Headmaster. Sub-sections (1) & (2) of section 12A run thus: 132           "(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section      11 or  section 12  and subject  to such rules as may be      prescribed, the  Government or  such officer  not below      the  rank   of  an   Educational  officer,  as  may  be      authorised by the Government in this behalf, shall have      power  to   take  disciplinary  proceedings  against  a      teacher of  an aided  school and to impose upon him all      or any  of the  penalties specified  in the rules under      this Act.           "(2) The  Government  or  the  officer  authorised      under sub-section (1) as the case may be, may suspend a      teacher  of  an  aided  school  when  any  disciplinary      proceedings are  proposed to be taken against him under      that sub-section  or when such disciplinary proceedings      are pending: .....".      The combined  effect of  these provisions is that if so authorised by  the Government an A.E.O. shall have the power

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

to  take   disciplinary  proceedings   against  a   teacher, including a  Headmaster, of  an aided school, to suspend him when such proceedings are proposed to be taken and to impose upon him  all or  any of  the penalties  to which  he may be liable under the relevant rules.      The Education Department Guide Book, 1978 issued by the State Government  contains a  detailed  description  of  the powers and  duties assigned  to  various  officials  of  the Department. The  list of  functions to  be performed  by the A.E.Os. contains 40 items of which item 4 reads:           "To  institute  disciplinary  proceedings  against      non-gazetted officers  under his  control as per Kerala      Civil Services (C. C. and A.) Rules."      Now H.S.As.  are admittedly  non-gazetted officers  who are eligible  for appointment  and are normally appointed as Headmasters of Upper Primary schools (vide paragraph 1(a)(i) of G.O.(Ms)  No. 32/71/S. Edn., dated 19-3-1971). They would thus  while  functioning  as  Headmasters,  be  amenable  to disciplinary action  by their  respective A.E.Os. It follows that the  post of  the A.E.O. lies in a higher category than that of  the H.S.A.  who does  not wield  any  corresponding disciplinary jurisdiction.      6. The  qualifications for  the two  posts may  now  be looked into.  A.E.Os. are appointed from amongst first grade graduate teachers  having the following qualifications (vide No. G.O.M.S. 393/Edn., dated 25-7-1966):      (a) General: B.A. or B.Sc. 133      (b)  Special:   (i)  B.T.  or  B.Ed.  of  a  recognised      University.           (ii) Account Test Lower.           (iii) Kerala Education and rules.      Rule 3  of the  Kerala  Education  Subordinate  Service (Special) Rules framed in 1972 runs thus:           "3. No  High School  Assistant shall be considered      for  being   selected  for   posting  as  an  Assistant      Educational officer  unless he  has passed  the test in      Kerala Education Act and Rules."      This rule  seriously militates  against the proposition propounded on  behalf of  the State  that the  two posts are inter-changeable. An  H.S.A. cannot  be posted  as an A.E.O. unless he has the qualification (in addition to those making him eligible  to hold  the post  of H.S.A.) of having passed the test  in Kerala  Education Act and Rules. The reason for the additional  qualification is obvious and that is that in his supervisory and disciplinary jurisdiction the A.E.O. has to discharge functions which he cannot efficiently carry out if he  is not a master of the law which calls for day to day application by  him to  different cases with which he has to deal. This  is another factor pointing in the same direction that the post of an A.E.O. lies in a higher category.      7. An  additional  circumstance  leading  to  the  same inference is  provided by the broad guidelines issued by the State Government  to the  effect that "care must be taken to see that  only officers  of high  integrity  and  efficiency should be  posted to work as Assistant Educational officers" (vide judgment dated 11th January, 1977 of the High Court of Kerala in  O.P. No.  3627 of  1974). H.S.As, are, therefore, appointed to  the posts of A.E.Os. not as a matter of course but under  a process  of selection  for which  the basic  is integrity-cum-efficiency.      Further evidence  in the  same direction is provided by three documents  forming part of the paper book at pages 31- 38 and  market as  annexures ’C’,  ’D’ and ’E’ respectively. Annexure ’C’  is an  order dated  29th August 1961 issued by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

the State  Government, a  part of paragraph 3 of which reads thus:      "Criteria for promotion:           "(1)  Appointment   to  the   posts  of   District      Educational officers, Headmasters of High Schools, High      School Assistants  and Assistant  Educational  officers      are  now   made  mainly  on  the  basis  of  seniority.      Promotion on  the  basis  of  seniority  alone  is  not      conducive to efficiency. Promotions to these posts will      hereafter be made on a selection basis. 134           "(2) The  above orders  will be  given effect from      the 1st September 1961.."      Annexure ’D’  is a letter dated 17th February 1969 from the  Director   of  Public   Instructions  to  the  District Educational officer, Trivandrum and states, inter alia,:           "The question  of probation arises only when there      are functional differences. So in the case of Assistant      Educational officers probation has to be insisted on."      The last  of the three documents is an order dated 19th October 1974  issued by  the  State  Government  introducing direct recruitment  to the  posts of  A.E.Os.  and  District Educational  officers.  It  contains,  amongst  others,  the following directions:           "The  persons   selected  will   be  required   to      undergo/pass       the        following        training      programme/departmental tests:      "Assistant Educational officers,      "Training: One  year as  Headmaster of an Upper Primary      School.           "2. Six  months with Assistant Educational officer      of which  the last  three months shall be as Head Clerk      of the Assistant Educational officer’s office.           "3.  Six   months  in   the  District  Educational      officer’s office of which the last three months will be      as Junior  Superintendent  in  charge  of  one  of  the      sections.           "4. Two  months OM(?)  training in the Directorate      or Secretariat Training School.           "5.  Four   months  as   personal   assistant   to      Educational officer. "Departmental Tests:           1. Account test (Lower).           2. Test in Kerala Education Act and Rules.           3. Test in Manual of office Procedure." The integrated  effect of  these three documents is that the functions to  be performed  by an  A.E.O. are  substantially different from  and entail  higher responsibility than those of an  H.S.A., that the appointment to the post of an A.E.O. from amongst  officials already serving the State Government is a  matter of  promotion and not a mere transfer, and that that is  how the  Kerala Government  itself has been viewing the matter  all along  prior to  the issuance  of the letter dated 19th May, 1977 mentioned above. 135      8. Here  we may  briefly advert  to the constitution of the Kerala General Education Service as detailed in G.O. (P) No. 356/PD, dated 28th October, 1967 and published in Kerala Gazette No.  46, dated  21st November  1967. That Service is divided  into   two  classes.   The  post  of  the  District Educational officer  falls in  Class I  which is superior to Class II.  The posts enumerated in Class II include those of Headmasters of  High Schools.  The post  of H.S.A.  does not find a  place in  either Class. On the other hand the H.S.A. belongs to  the Kerala  Educational Subordinate Services and works  under  the  Headmaster  of  a  High  School.  He  is,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

therefore,  two   steps  below   the  District   Educational officers. Mr.  Nair sought  to utilise  this circumstance as another pointer  to the  post of  H.S.A. lying in a category lower than  that of  an A.E.O.  for, according  to him,  the latter was  only one  step below  the  post  of  a  District Educational officer.  The argument  has not commended itself to us as no foundation has been laid for the assumption that the post  of an  A.E.O. furnishes  an  immediate  avenue  of promotion to  that of  the District  Educational officer. In fact an  indication to  the  contrary  is  provided  by  the various categories  listed in  Classes I  and  II  mentioned above, neither  of which  includes either H.S.As. or A.E.Os. This may  well mean  that the  A.E.O. too is to hold another post (out  of those  listed for the purpose in the G.O. last mentioned) before  he would  have a chance of promotion as a District Educational  officer. And  if that be so, an A.E.O. must  also  be  regarded  as  two  steps  below  a  District Educational  officer.   The  G.O.  under  consideration  is, therefore, of no help to the case of the appellant, but then this  conclusion  does  not  adversely  affect  the  finding already arrived  at by  us otherwise  to the effect that the post of an A.E.O. lies in a higher category.      9. The  only argument  which Mr.  Abdul Khader advanced against the  proposition that the post of an A.E.O. lay in a higher  category  may  be  stated  thus.  According  to  the available rules  and instructions  an  H.S.A.,  but  not  an A.E.O., may be appointed to the post of Headmaster of a High School. However,  the Government has been appointing A.E.Os, also as  Headmasters of High Schools which means that A.E.Os are equated  with H.S.As.  Now this  is, to say the least. a strange argument.  If the  rules do  not permit  A.E.Os.  to become Headmasters  of High  Schools but  the Government has been posting  them as  such in contravention of the rules it would not  follow that the rules automatically stand amended to be  read in  conformity with  the contravention.  In  any case, there  is no  incongruity in  two categories of posts, one higher  and the  other lower,  furnishing two sources of recruitment  to  another  higher  post;  and  it  would  not necessarily 136 follow from  such a  practice that  the two  sources must be regarded as equivalent to each other for all purposes.      10. Let  us now  see if the post of an A.E.O. carries a higher grade.  It is  common ground between the parties that although the two posts are in the same time scale, a special pay of  Rs. 50/- per mensem is attached to post of an A.E.O. in accordance  with  the  orders  of  the  State  Government contained in  clause (v)  of paragraph  5 of  G.O.  (P)  No. 300/66/Fin., dated  5-7-1966 which  also  states  that  this special pay  is to  be treated  as Class  I special  pay  in accordance with  Appendix IV,  Kerala  Service  Rules.  That Class consists of two items:      (a)  Special pay in lieu of higher time scale of pay.      (b)   Special pay  for specifically  arduous nature  of           work. The expression  ’special pay in lieu of higher time scale of pay’  may   be  better  understood  with  reference  to  the provisions of  rule 12(31) of the Kerala Service Rules which may be extracted here:           "12(31) Special  Pay:-means  an  addition  of  the      nature of  pay to  the emoluments  of a  post or  of an      officer granted in consideration of the following:           "(a) Where a post would call for a higher scale of      pay  in   view  of   the   additional   and/or   higher      responsibilities attached to it: or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

         "(b)  Where   the  nature  of  work  is  specially      arduous; or           "(c) Where  an officer  has to  attend to  work in      addition to normal duties attached to his post." Sub-clauses (b)  & (c)  of clause  (31) obviously  relate to posts having  the same  designation or  the same  nature  of duties in the same time scale which is not the case here. On the other  hand, the  special pay granted to an A.E.O. would squarely fall  within the  sub-clause (a) of clause (31), in view of  the nature of higher responsibilities shouldered by him. And  if that  be so, the grade of the post of an A.E.O. must be  equated to  the time  scale plus special pay, which would be a grade higher than the one available to an H.S.A.      11. In  contending to  the contrary  Mr.  Abdul  Khader sought support from P. G. Joshi and others, etc. etc, v. The Director General,  Posts and Telegraphs, New Delhi, etc.(1), in which  the posts  of Wireless Licence Inspectors and Town Inspectors, to  such of  which a special pay of Rs. 30/- was attached, were  held equivalent to those of clerks, the time scale for  all the  three being the same. The dictum in that case is,  however, not applicable to the facts with which we are  concerned.   Therein  this   Court  took  note  of  the definition of  special pay  occurring in  Fundamental  9(25) which states: 137           "Special pay  means, an  addition of the nature of      pay, to  the emoluments  of a  post or  of a Government      servant, granted in consideration of      (a)  the specially arduous nature of the duties; or      (b)  a specific addition to the work or responsibility;           or      (c)   the unhealthiness  of the  locality in  which the           work is performed." then proceeded to observe:           "The provision for payment of a special pay of Rs.      30/- in  addition to the time scale of pay of clerks is      inconsistent with  the constitution of a separate cadre      of Wireless Licence Inspectors and Town Inspectors. The      provision for  special pay  shows that they continue in      the cadre of time-scale clerks. Appointment as Wireless      Licence Inspectors  or Town Inspectors is not a case of      transfer from  one  cadre  to  another  or  a  case  of      promotion from  a lower cadre to a higher cadre or from      a lower  post to  a higher  post. Though,  for directly      recruited Wireless  Inspectors, there  is an  avenue of      promotion from  those posts  to the  post  of  Wireless      Investigating Inspectors,  no such  avenue of promotion      has been shown to exist for Wireless Licence Inspectors      appointed from amongst time-scale clerks. Their avenues      of promotion  are from their substantive posts of time-      scale clerks.  The posts of Wireless Licence Inspectors      to which  time-scale clerks  are appointed by selection      did  not   constitute  a   separate   cadre   and   the      appointments are  not by way of promotion. The posts of      Wireless Licence  Inspectors are  in the cadre of time-      scale clerks  and carry  a special  pay on  account  of      additional work."      Special pay  of Rs.  30/- in  that case, it may thus be seen something  quite different  from the special pay in the instant case  which, as we have already found, was fitted in lieu of  a higher  scale of  pay consistent  with the higher responsibilities which  are entailed  in the  performance of his  functions  by  an  A.E.O.  All  the  three  clauses  of Fundamental Rule  9(25) correspond  with the  definition  of special pay  contained in  sub-clauses (b)  & (c)  of clause

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

(31) of rule 12 of the Kerala Service Rules and none of them takes within  its sweep the type of special pay envisaged by sub-clause (a)  of rule 12(31). The case cited is thus fully distinguishable  and   is  of  no  assistance  to  the  case propounded on behalf of the State Government.      12. We  now take  up the second limb of the argument of Mr. Nair,  namely, that even if the post of an A.E.O. is not regarded as higher to that of an H.S.A. either category-wise or grade-wise,  the impugned  reversions are  still  hit  by article 14 of the Constitution of 138 India. In  this connection  two important factors have to be taken note  of. The  first is  that the  post of  an  A.E.O. carries a special pay of Rs. 50/- per month, and, therefore, ensures  for  its  incumbents  higher  emoluments  than  are available to an H.S.A. The second is that the special pay is counted towards pension as is made out on a reading of rules 12(23) and 62 of the Kerala Service Rules. According to rule 12(23) special  pay is  part of  ’pay’ while  rule 62 states inter alia  that emoluments  which are  reckoned for pension include pay as defined in rule 12(23). The post of an A.E.O. thus carries  with it  not only  benefits enjoyable  by  the incumbent so  long as he holds the post but also such as are available  to   him  after   retirement.   The   substantial improvements in  the benefits  which an  H.S.A. thus  enjoys after his  posting as  an  A.E.O.  constitute  a  compelling circumstance which  would  necessitate  the  formulation  of rational criteria  to be  followed in transferring an H.S.A. as an  A.E.O. and  vice-versa so  that mere caprice does not deprive an  A.E.O. of  the  benefits  enjoyed  by  him.  The direction contained  in the  letter dated  19-5-1977 that an A.E.O. should  be transferred  back as  an H.S.A.  after six years of service as A.E.O. is wholly arbitrary and not based on any  principle. It is, therefore, violative of article 14 and we hold it to be so.      13. In  the result all the five appeals succeed and are accepted. The  impugned judgment is set aside and the orders ’transferring’ the  appellants from  the posts of A.E.Os. to those of  H.S.As. are quashed. As a necessary consequence if any of  the appellants  has had  to relinquish charge of the post of  A.E.O. in  compliance with such orders, he shall be deemed to  have continued  to hold the post of an A.E.O. (in spite of  and right  from the  date  of  the  order  of  his transfer as  H.S.A.) and  to be entitled to all the benefits pertaining to that post, and the respondents are directed to repost him as A.E.O. as expeditiously as possible and within a month from the date of this order at the latest.      14. We make it clear that the vice of arbitrariness and other infirmities  we have  pointed out  are curable if only the State Government amends the rules fairly and rationally. This judgment  does not  stand  in  the  way  of  Government framing new  rules or  amending the old rules but such rules must be in conformity with Part III of the Constitution. S.R.                                        Appeals allowed.                                             Appeal, allowed. 139