http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 811 1998         Appeal (civil)  822     1998

PETITIONER: K.R.  LAKSHMAN & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       12/12/2000

BENCH: B.N.Agrawal, G.B.Pattanaik

JUDGMENT:

L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

     JUDGMENT

     PATTANAIK,J.

     The  Judgment of the Division Bench of Karnataka  High Court,  setting  aside  the judgment of the  learned  Single Judge  is the subject matter of challenge in these  appeals. The  appellants are technically qualified direct recruits to the  post of Operator/Overseer/Meter Reader/Assistant  Store Keeper.   The  Karnataka Electricity Board  Recruitment  and Promotion  Regulations,  1969  were   amended  on  3.2.1982, providing a ratio of 1:1 for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer  (Electrical) between technically qualified (Direct Recruit)  and  technically not qualified  (Promotees).   The present  appellants,  assailed  the aforesaid  amendment  by filing  writ petitions, inter alia, on the ground that it is highly  discriminatory  and arbitrary and that there  is  no rational  basis  for providing a ratio  between  technically qualified  and technically unqualified people for  promotion to  the  post of Junior Engineer.  The learned Single  Judge accepted  the  contention of the appellants and allowed  the writ  petitions by judgment dated 12th of January, 1994.  In arriving   at  its  conclusion   that  providing  ratio  for promotion is discriminatory, the learned Single Judge relied upon  the  decisions  of  this  Court  in  Mervyn  Coutindo, 1966(3)SCC  600,  Roshan Lal Tandon 1968(1) SCR 185,  Punjab State  Electiricity Board, 1986(4) SCC 617, Mohammed  Shujat Ali,   1975(5)  SCC  76,   G.M.S.C.Rly  Vs.   AVR  Siddanti, 1974(4)SCC  335, and N.Abdul Basheer- 1989(Supp.)2 SCC  344. The  Board assailed the judgment of the learned Single Judge by  preferring  an  appeal.   The   Division  Bench  of  the Karnataka  High Court, set aside the judgment of the  Single Judge  and  allowed  the  appeal, preferred  by  the  Board, relying upon the decisions of this Court in P.Murugeshan vs. State  of Tamil Nadu, 1993(2) SCC 340 and S.  N.   Deshpande vs.   Maharashtra  I.D.  Corporation, 1993(Supp.)2 SCC  194.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

It  is  this  judgment of the Division Bench, which  is  the subject matter of these appeals.

     Mr.    M.Rama  Jois,  the   learned  senior   counsel, appearing  for  the appellants, contended that  providing  a ratio  for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer for  the unqualified   promotees,   would  not    tantamount   to   a classification  based  on qualification, as in the  case  of Murugeshan,  and as such the Division Bench of the Karnataka High  Court committed serious error in interfering with  the judgment  of  the  learned Single Judge.  According  to  Mr. Rama Jois, the amendment to the regulation is nothing but an act  of hostile discrimination against the qualified  direct recruits  inasmuch as there is no rationale behind providing such  a ratio, which jeopardises the chances of promotion of the  qualified  people and consequently, the  regulation  is liable  to be struck down, being violative of Article 14  of the  Constitution.   Mr.  Rama Jois, further urged that  the unqualified  people, who are not ordinarily entitled to  the promotion  to the post of Junior Engineer, were being  shown favoritism by providing a channel of promotion to them.  But without any rational basis for providing a ratio and putting the  unqualified people at more advantageous position,  must be  held to be discriminatory and the Division Bench of  the High  Court committed error in holding that it does not work out any discrimination.

     The  learned counsel, appearing for the respondents on the  other  hand  contended that stagnation  in  any  public service,  not  being in the interest of  administration  and taking  into  account  the  experience  of  the  unqualified promotees,  when  the Rule making Authority, provided for  a ratio for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer, the same cannot  be  struck down, as being violative of  Article  14, unless it is positively shown that either it is mala fide or that  it really works out any hostile discrimination between the  two  category of employees.  According to  the  learned counsel, no doubt in the feeder category, the appellants had entered by direct recruitment, while respondents had entered by  way of promotion, but the further promotion to the  post of  Junior  Engineer  is  the  maximum  rank  to  which  the unqualified promotee could ever aspire of, whereas qualified direct  recruits  can go still higher up in the  ladder  and that  being the provision to avoid harassment of stagnation, the  authorities  having  provided for a ratio  between  the qualified  direct  recruits  and unqualified  promotees,  on consideration  of  germane and relevant materials, the  same should  not be interfered with by this Court.  According  to the  learned  counsel for the respondents, the ratio of  the judgment  of this Court in Murugeshan, squarely applies and, therefore,  the  Division Bench of the Karnataka High  Court was  fully  justified in interfering with the conclusion  of the learned Single Judge.

     The Recruitment and other service conditions including promotion  in the Karnataka Electricity Board is governed by a  set of regulations called the Karnataka Electricity Board Recruitment  and Promotion Regulations (hereinafter referred to as the Recruitment Regulations).  The Recruitment to the post  of Operator, Meter Reader and Assistant Store  Keeper, which  constitute  a combined cadre, is made both by  direct recruitment  as  well  as  by promotion,  on  the  basis  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

seniority-cum-merit.   The  Regulation provides that 50%  of the  combined cadre would be filled up by direct recruitment and 40% of the cadre by promotion on the basis of seniority- cum-merit  and equivalent post and 10% by direct recruitment from   among   the  in-service   personnel.    The   minimum qualification  for direct recruitment is I.T.I.  certificate in  Electrical  or Telecommunication or Electronic trade  or certificate  in Lineman trade of Karnataka Electricity Board Training  Institute,  after  passing of the  10th  standard, whereas  for  promotees,  from the Mechanic  Grade  II,  the minimum  educational  qualification is up-to 10th  standard. The  next higher rank is the Junior Engineer(Electrical) and the cadre of Junior Engineer is required to be filled up, by direct   recruitment  of  persons   possessing  diploma   in Electrical  or  Computer Engineering to the extent  of  40%. Against  this  40%  quota,  appointment  could  be  made  by transfer  of  inservice  personnel,  possessing  Engineering Degree  qualification.  10% of the cadre of Junior  Engineer could  be  filled  up by direct recruitment  of  in  service personnel possessing diploma qualification.  10% of the post could be filled up by promotion of Operators, Meter Readers, Overseers,   Assistant   Store   Keepers,   having   diploma qualification.   35% of the post of Junior Engineer could be filled  up  by promotion from the common cadre of  Operator, Overseers, Meter Readers and Asstt.  Store Keepers and 5% by promotion  of Mechanics with five years of service.  By  the amendment  of the Regulation in February, 1982, a ratio  was provided in respect of the 35% quota, which was to be filled up  by promotion for the common cadre, the same ratio as 1:1 between  the  technically  qualified   direct  recruits  and technically  unqualified  promotees.  It is  this  amendment which  had been assailed by the present appellants by filing writ  petitions  in Karnataka High Court.  The question  for consideration,  therefore is whether the amended Regulation, providing  a ratio of 1:1 between the technically  qualified direct  recruits  and technically unqualified promotees,  as against  35% quota available to them in the cadre of  Junior Engineer,  could  be held to be violative of Article  14  or such  a  classification is permissible in law and  the  Rule making  Authority  had considered all relevant  and  germane materials in providing for the aforesaid ratio?  The concept of  equality  before  law means that among  equals  the  law should  be equal and should be equally administered and that the  likes  should  be treated alike.  All that  Article  14 guarantees  is  a similarity of treatment and not  identical treatment.   The  guarantee of equal protection of  law  and equality  before  the  law   does  not  prohibit  reasonable classification.   Equality  before  law does not  mean  that things  which are different shall be treated as though  they were  the  same.   The  principle   of  equality  does   not absolutely  prevent  the State from  making  differentiation between  the  persons and things.  The State has always  the power  to  have  a  classification on a  basis  of  rational distinctions  relevant to the particular subject to be dealt with  but  such permissible classification must satisfy  the two  conditions  namely the classification to be founded  on intelligible  differentia  which  distinguishes  persons  or things  that are grouped from others who are left out of the group and that the differentia must have a rational relation to  the object sought to be achieved by the legislation.  In other  words,  there  must be a nexus between the  basis  of classification  and the object of the legislation.  So  long as the classification is based on rational basis and so long as  all persons falling in the same class are treated alike, there  can be no question of violating the equality  clause.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

If  there is equality and uniformity within each group,  the law  cannot  be condemned as discriminatory, though  due  to some  fortuitous  circumstances  arising out of  a  peculiar situation,  some included in the class get an advantage over others,  so  long  as they are not singled out  for  special treatment.   When a provision is challenged as violative  of Article  14, it is necessary in the first place to ascertain the policy underlying the statute and the object intended to be  achieved  by  it and having ascertained the  policy  and object  of  the  Act,, the Court has to apply  a  dual  test namely whether the classification is rational and based upon an  intelligible differentia which distinguished persons  or things  that are grouped together from others that are  left out  of  the group and whether the basis of  differentiation has  any  rational nexus or relation with its avowed  policy and  objects.   The  power  to make  classification  can  be exercised  not  only  by  the legislature but  also  by  the Administrative Bodies acting under an Act.

     When the validity of the amended Regulation, providing ratio  for  promotion between the technically qualified  and technically  unqualified persons in 1:1 is examined from the aforesaid stand point, we are unable to hold that the direct recruit  technically  qualified personnel had  been  treated with  hostile  discrimination.   The   feeder  category  for promotion  to  the post of Junior Engineer is  the  combined cadre  of  Operator-Overseer-Meter   Reader-Assistant  Store Keeper.    To  the  aforesaid   combined  cadre,  a   direct recruitment  is  possible and those with ITI Certificate  in Electrical  or Telecommunication or electronic Trade , after passing  of  10th standard could be recruited.   Whereas  in case  of promotees, the qualification required is only study upto  10th standard and for them the entry point is Mechanic Grade  II,  from  where they get promoted  to  the  combined cadre,  as  noted above.  For the technical post  of  Junior Engineer,  which  is  the next higher post,  the  Regulation itself  provided that 35% of the said posts could be  filled up  by  promotion  from the common cadre and  the  aforesaid provision for promotion from the common cadre had been made, after prescribing different quotas for direct recruitment of in service personnel having diploma qualification, promotion from  the combined cadre who have diploma qualification  and promotion  of Mechanics with five years service.   According to  the Board, though the Regulation, initially provided for promotion  to  the  extent  of 35% in the  cadre  of  Junior Engineer from the common cadre but it used to work out gross injustice  to the technically unqualified promotees inasmuch as   such  technically  unqualified   operators   could   be considered for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer only after  they  have  rendered more than 15 years  of  service. That  apart  the only promotional avenue available  to  such technically  unqualified  promotees is the 35% quota in  the cadre  of  Junior Engineer and they could not aspire of  any further  promotion,  whereas the qualified  direct  recruits could  be  promoted  still further higher  ups.   The  Board claimed  that  while fixing the ratio as 1:1, it  took  into account  the  qualification, the experience and  the  smooth functioning  of the Board and for striking a balance between the  qualification on the one hand and the experience on the other.    In  Trilokinath,  this   court  has  affirmed  the principle  of classification but has held that it should  be founded  on a reasonable differentia which distinguishes the persons  grouped together from those who are left out of the group  and  in that case the classification was between  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

Degree  holder  Assistant  Engineers   and  Diploma   holder Assistant  Engineers.  The Court upheld such  classification as  it was intended to achieve administrative experience  in the  Engineering Service.  In Murugesan, a three judge Bench of  this  Court  upheld the ratio of  3:1  between  graduate Assistant  Engineers and Diploma holder Junior Engineers for promotion  to  the post of Assistant Executive Engineer,  as such  a distinction had been maintained through out  between the  two categories.  It is no doubt true that in that case, it  is  the  diploma holders who had approached  the  Court, challenging  the  introduction of ratio of 3:1 between  such diploma  holders  and graduate Assistant Engineers  and  the Court upheld the provisions, whereas in the case in hand, it is  the  qualified direct recruits, who have approached  the Court.   But  in  deciding  the   question  whether  such  a provision  can  be held to be violative of Article  14,  the principle  in  Murugesan would apply with full force to  the case  in  hand.  It may be noticed that the  learned  Single Judge relied upon the two earlier decisions of this Court in Roshan Lal Tandon and Mervyn Coutindo and both the decisions have  been  noticed and distinguished in Murugesan  and  the other  decision on which the learned Single Judge has relied upon  namely Shujat Ali, has also been explained away in the aforesaid three Judge Judgment in Murugesan.  It is no doubt true  that in Trilokinath, Chandrachud, J had observed  that the classification should not be carried too far lest it may subvert,   perhaps  submerge  the   precious  guarantee   of equality,  but such word of caution will have no application to the facts of the present case, where under the Regulation itself,  both the technically qualified direct recruits  and non-technical  promotees  were entitled to 35% quota in  the cadre  of Junior Engineer and the amendment of the year 1982 merely  provided  a ratio between them namely 1:1  and  this amendment  was  brought  about in the Regulation  itself  to ameliorate  the  stagnation of the unqualified promotees  in the cadre.  That apart, it is not correct to hold that there has been a complete fusion in the combined cadre inasmuch as the  Regulation  did  provide  for  promotion  at  different percentage  for  in  service personnel,  possessing  diploma qualification,  then  diploma  holders   from  amongst   the combined  cadre namely Operator, Meter Reader, Overseers and Assistant  Store  Keepers and 5% by promotion  of  Mechanics with  five  years  service.  Thus, 60% of the posts  in  the cadre  of  Junior  Engineers were meant to be filled  up  by different  ratio  from amongst the persons in the  so-called combined  cadre  and  35%  quota, which  was  available  for promotion   for  such  common   cadre  people  was   further bifurcated  between  qualified direct recruits, who are  the appellants  and  technically unqualified promotees, who  are the   private  respondents  in  the   ratio  1:1.   Such   a classification, in our considered opinion, cannot be held to be  discriminatory, if the object sought to be achieved,  as indicated  by  the Board in its counter affidavit is  looked into.   The  decision  of this Court in the case  of  Punjab State  Electricity  Board, Patiala and Anr.   vs.   Ravinder Kumar Sharma and Ors., 1986(4) SCC 617, on which the learned Single  Judge had relied upon and Mr.  Rama Jois,  appearing for  the appellants had strongly relied upon was  over-ruled by  the three Judge Bench Judgment in P.  Murugesan and Ors. Vs.   State  of Tamil Nadu and Ors., 1993(2) SCC, 340.   The decision  of  this Court in N.  Abdul Basheer and Ors.   Vs. K.K.Karunakaran  and  Ors., 1989 Supp.(2) SCC 344, on  which also, the learned Single Judge had relied upon and Mr.  Rama Jois,  also strongly relied upon, has been distinguished  in the aforesaid case of Murugesan.  The decision of this Court

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

in  Mohammad  Shujat Ali and Ors.  Vs.  Union of  India  and Ors., 1975(3) SCC 76, which was followed in the Punjab State Electricity  Board case, has been explained in the aforesaid three   Judge  Bench  Judgment.    The  decision  of  Mervyn Coutindo,  1966(3)SCC 600, as well as Roshan Lal Tandon  vs. Union  of  India, 1968(1) SCR 185, has also been noticed  in Murugesan,  and  not  followed,  but in the  later  case  of Shamkant  Narayan  Deshpande   vs.   Maharashtra  Industrial Development  Corpn.   &  anr., 1993 Supp.(2) SCC  194,  both these  decisions have been distinguished, in view of the law laid  down in Triloki Nath Khosas case, 1974(1) SCC 19.  In the  aforesaid premises and in view of the judgment of  this Court  in Triloki Nath Khosa, in P.Murugesan and in Shamkant Narayan  Deshpande, the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court  was fully justified in setting aside the judgment  of the  learned  Single Judge and in coming to  the  conclusion that  by providing a ratio of 1:1 in the matter of promotion to  the  post of Junior Engineer between directly  recruited technically  qualified  people and promotee technically  not qualified  people, there has been no violation of Article 14 of  the  Constitution  and  we see  no  infirmity  with  the aforesaid conclusion of the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court.   Accordingly, these appeals fail and are  dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs.

     21