http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 12446-12447 1996.

PETITIONER: KULDEEP KUMAR GUPTA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: H.P.S.E.B.  & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       12/12/2000

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

JUDGMENT:

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

     JUDGMENT

     PATTANAIK,J.

     These  appeals  are directed against the order of  the Himachal  Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, disposing of O.A. No.   276/87  with  O.A.  No.226 of  1989.   The  applicants before  the  tribunal  were  Junior  Engineers,  working  in Himachal  Pradesh  State  Electricity  Board.   The  dispute centres  round the question as to whether it is  permissible for  the employer to frame Regulations, providing a separate quota  of promotional avenues for the less qualified  junior Engineers  in  preference  to  the claim  of  the  qualified diploma  holder  Junior Engineers.  The feeder category  for promotion  to  the  post  of Assistant  Engineer  is  Junior Engineer.   In  the  cadre of Junior Engineer,  95%  of  the vacancies  are  filled up by direct recruitment of  persons, who  are  diploma holders and only 5% is by  promotion  from amongst  the  lower category, who are  usually  matriculates with I.T.I.certificate.  So far as the promotion to the post of  Assistant  Engineers  is concerned, the Board  has  been amending  the  promotion  Regulation   from  time  to  time, providing  for  a  ratio  between the  direct  recruits  and promotees  and  again, further providing a quota within  the promotion    quota,   to   be     filled   up   by    Junior Engineers(qualified) and Junior Engineers(unqualified).  The original  Regulation of the year 1973 has been amended  from time  to  time  in 1979, 1983 and 1986 and  under  the  1986 Regulations,  46%  of  the posts in the cadre  of  Assistant Engineer  was  available in promotion quota and out  of  the same,  28%  were  to  be   filled  up  by  Junior  Engineers (qualified),  8%  by Junior Engineers(unqualified), 6%  from amongst those who have passed Section A and B examination of the  Institute of Engineers(service) and 4% from  Draftsman. It  may  thus  be  noticed that from the  inception  of  the service,  a  specified  percentage of quota  has  been  made

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

available in the promotional cadre of Assistant Engineer for the  unqualified  Junior Engineers notwithstanding the  fact that  Junior  Engineers form one cadre.  In December,  1987, the  direct  recruits  qualified   Junior  Engineers   filed application  before  the   Himachal  Pradesh  Administrative Tribunal,  praying for quashing of the quota rule  vis-a-vis them  and  the unqualified Junior Engineers, essentially  on the  ground that there has been a total integration of  both categories  of Junior Engineers and they discharge identical functions,   their   duties    being   interchangeable   and inter-transferable  and  from  the fused cadre,  it  is  not permissible  to  provide a different quota for promotion  to the  higher  post and the said provision must be held to  be arbitrary  and irrational and as such is liable to be struck down.   The  Board  took  a  decision  to  prepare  separate seniority  list of the Junior Engineers, which is the feeder category  for  promotion to the post of Assistant  Engineer. The separate seniority list in the cadre of Junior Engineer, one  for  diploma  holder Junior Engineers and  another  for unqualified Junior Engineers was prepared in November, 1989. As  by  preparation  of such seniority  list,  the  original application  filed  by the direct recruit  qualified  Junior Engineers  before  the  tribunal  became  infructuous,  they approached  this Court in Special Leave Petition No.1072/89. A  petition  under  Article  32 was also  filed,  which  was registered  as  Writ  Petition No.  91/89,  challenging  the self-  same  issue  of preparation of two  seniority  lists. Notwithstanding the filing of Special Leave Petition in this Court,  a separate application was filed before the tribunal also, which stood registered as O.A.No.  226/89, challenging the  issue  of separate seniority lists.  The Special  Leave Petition  filed  in  this Court stood disposed of  by  order dated   5.10.1993   with  the    directions   that   pending applications  before  the Administrative tribunal should  be disposed  of  within  six months.  The  tribunal  ultimately disposed  of the applications filed before it by order dated 29.9.1995.   Out  of the three members of the tribunal,  the majority  judgment  upheld the validity of the  Regulations, providing  for a different quota for promotion in respect of the  unqualified  Junior Engineers inter alia on the  ground that  it  is  permissible for the employer  to  provide  for promotion  on the basis of educational qualification and the Junior  Engineers who are matriculates and I.T.I.  qualified from  a  different  class, than the direct  recruit  diploma holder  Junior Engineers, who are otherwise called qualified Junior Engineers and this position has been maintained right from  the  inception  of  the  service  and  the  Regulation providing  such a position cannot be held to be arbitrary or discriminatory.    The  minority  view   was  that  of  Vice Chairman,  Shri  M.G.  Chitkara, who came to the  conclusion that  there has been a complete fusion between qualified and unqualified  Junior  Engineers and after such fusion, it  is not  legally  permissible to provide a different  quota  for promotion   to   the  post  of  Assistant   Engineer.    The applications  before  the tribunal having been dismissed  in view of the majority judgment, the present appeals have been filed by the direct recruits qualified Junior Engineers.

     Mr.   Gopal  Subramanium, the learned senior  counsel, appearing  for the appellants, contended with vehemence that the Junior Engineers, having formed a cadre, people from two different  sources  being  brought to the cadre  namely  the direct  recruit  qualified diploma holders and the  promotee matriculate I.T.I.  certificate persons, there cannot be any

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

further  differentiation  amongst them, providing for  quota for promotional post and the Regulation providing such quota must be struck down as violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.   In  support of this contention, the  learned senior  counsel  relied upon Roshan Lal Tandon, 1968(1)  SCR 185, Mervyn Coutindo, 1966(3) SCC 600 and Mohd.  Shujat ali, 1975  (5)  SCC 76.  Mr.  Subramanium also further  contended that  in  the cadre of Junior Engineer, which is the  feeder cadre  for  promotion to the post of Assistant  Engineer,  a common  seniority  list having been drawn up,  the  employer cannot only for the purpose of promotion, direct preparation of  two  seniority lists and such a direction  violates  the equality   clause,   engrafted   in   Article  16   of   the Constitution.  The learned counsel also urged that except in cases  where constitution itself provides for a  reservation in  favour  of a specified group of people, as  provided  in Article  16(4),  there cannot be a reservation by any  other mode  and providing a quota in favour of unqualified  Junior Engineers, tantamounts to reservation in their favour, which is  not  constitutionally  permissible.   According  to  the learned  counsel,  prescribing  a quota in  the  promotional cadre  itself  is  discriminatory and the decision  of  this Court   in  Murugesan,  1993(2)  SCC   340,  will  have   no application  to  the facts and circumstances of the  present case.

     Mr.   V.A.Bobde, the learned senior counsel, appearing for  the Board-respondent, on the other hand contended  that right  from  the inception of the Regulations  in  December, 1973, the diploma holder direct recruits and the unqualified matriculate  Junior Engineers have been treated  differently and there has all along been a specified percentage of posts in  the cadre of Assistant Engineer, made available to  such qualified  matriculate  Junior Engineers, though such  quota has  been  increased from time to time, depending  upon  the cadre  strength and chances of promotion of such unqualified Junior  Engineers  and  this being the  position,  the  said Regulation  cannot be struck down.  According to Mr.  Bobde, the  Regulation, itself by suitable provisions balances  the equity amongst the qualified diploma holder Junior Engineers and  unqualified  matriculate Junior Engineers, inasmuch  as for  a  diploma holder Junior Engineer, mere seven years  of service  as Junior Engineer is sufficient for  consideration of  promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer, whereas  in case  of  unqualified  matriculate Junior Engineers,  it  is twelve and fifteen years of service, that is necessary.  The Rule   making  authority  have   specified  this   condition notwithstanding  the fact that all of them have been working as   Junior  Engineers.   According  to  Mr.    Bobde,   the Regulation  itself  considers the diploma  holder  qualified Junior   Engineers   and   matriculate  unqualified   Junior Engineers   differently,  obviously   depending  upon  their respective  qualification and such a differential  treatment is  permissible  and  does  not violate Article  14  of  the Constitution,  as has been held by this Court in  Murugesan, 1993(2)  SCC 340 as well as in the case of S.N.Deshpande vs. Maharashtra  I.D.   Corpn.,  1993 (Supp.) 2  SCC  194.   Mr. Bobde  also  urged that the direction to have two  seniority lists is obviously dependant upon the provisions of separate quota  for  promotion  to the post  of  Assistant  Engineer, depending  upon their basic qualification and the object  of such  direction  is to have competition amongst  equals  and this  is  permissible under the Constitution.  According  to Mr.   Bobde,  providing  quota  for  different  category  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

persons  available in the feeder cadre for promotion to  the higher  cadre  only  effectuates   the  guarantee  of  equal opportunity, enshrined in Article 16(1) and such a provision cannot  be  held  to be reservation, as  contemplated  under Article  16(4).  The learned counsel urged that the employer is  duty bound to see that stagnation at a particular  stage is  avoided,  if  possible,  which   is  conducive  for  the Administration and with that point in view, fixing of quotas to ensure an efficient service is a matter of policy for the employer  to decide and unless the decision is arbitrary  or irrational,  cannot  be  interfered with by the  Court,  and therefore   the  majority  judgment  of  the   tribunal   is unassailable.

     Before  we  examine  the   correctness  of  the  rival submissions,  it would be appropriate for us to notice  that under  the provisions of Electricity (Supply) Act, a set  of Regulation  have  been  framed called the  Himachal  Pradesh State  Electricity Board Regulation (relating to Recruitment and  Promotion  to  the post of Junior  Engineer)  and  this Regulation  has  been  amended from time to  time  but  such amendments  are  only  in altering the percentage  of  posts available  to  different category of people.   The  Himachal Pradesh  State Electricity Board has farmed the  Regulations in  exercise  of  power conferred under  Section  79(c)  and Section  15  of  the  Electricity (Supply)  Act  called  the Recruitment  and  Promotion  Regulations for  the  posts  of Assistant  Engineers and above and the said regulations also have  all  along  provided a definite percentage  of  posts, meant  for  unqualified Junior Engineers having a  specified years  of regular service.  Thus right from inception of the Board,  a  quota  has been fixed in the cadre  of  Assistant Engineer  for the unqualified matriculate Junior  Engineers. The  aforesaid  history  in  the  formation  of  service  of Engineers  under  the Electricity Board should be  borne  in mind  while  deciding  the question of law raised  in  these appeals.

     From  the facts asserted and the contentions raised in these  appeals,  following  questions really arise  for  our consideration:   1.   The feeder cadre of Junior  Engineers, having  been filled up from two recruitment sources, one  by qualified  diploma holders by way of direct recruitment  and the  other  by unqualified matriculate  I.T.I.   Certificate holders  by promotion, can there be a separate consideration for them in the matter of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer  and  whether such separate consideration  violates any  constitutional  mandate?  2.  Providing a quota in  the promotional  cadre, whether can be said to be a  reservation within  the  meaning of Article 16(4) and as such can it  be held  to be violative of Article 16(4) of the  Constitution? 3.   Administrative  efficiency   being  the  consideration, though  it may be permissible to have a specified percentage of   posts  in  the  promotional   quota  on  the  basis  of educational  qualification, as held in Murugesan, can it  be held  to  be  violative of Articles 14 and 16, when  such  a quota  is  meant  for  unqualified  persons  in  the  feeder category?

     So  far  as the first question is concerned, it is  no doubt true that in earlier decisions of this Court in Roshan Lal  Tandon, 1968(1) SCR 185 and Mervyn Coutindo, 1966(3)SCC 600,  this Court has held that once the direct recruits  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

promotees  were  absorbed in one cadre, they form one  class and they could not be discriminated against, for the purpose of further promotion to the higher grade.  But this view has not  been found favour with in the later Constitution  Bench decision in Triloki Nath Khosa, 1974(1) SCC 19.  It has been laid  down  in  the aforesaid case that  even  where  direct recruits  and promotees are integrated into a common  class, they could, for the purpose of promotion to the higher cadre be classified on the basis of educational qualification.  It was  held by this Court in Triloki Nath that  classification in   matters  of  promotion   with  academic  or   technical qualification   as  basis  is  a  matter   for   legislative determination  and  such  a  classification  is  permissible unless  it  is found to be unjust on the face of it and  the onus  lies  upon the party attacking the  classification  to show  by  pleadings the necessary material before the  Court that  the said classification is unreasonable and  violative of  Article  16.   It is in that context the  Court  further observed   that   discrimination   is    the   essence    of classification  and  does  violence  to  the  constitutional guarantee  of  equality only if it rests on an  unreasonable basis and that being the position, it would be for the party assailing   such  classification  to   establish  that   the classification  is unreasonable and bears no rational  nexus with  its  purported object.  In the absence  of  furnishing necessary particulars, it must be construed that the plea of unlawful  discrimination  had no basis.  In Triloki Nath,  a word  of  caution  has  been indicated  that  the  right  to classify   is   hedged   in    with   salient    restraints. Classification   must  be  truly   founded  on   substantial differences  which distinguish person grouped together  from those left out of the group and such differential attributes must  bear a just and rational relation to the object sought to  be  achieved  and judicial scrutiny extend only  to  the consideration   whether  the  classification   rests  on   a reasonable  basis and whether it bears nexus with the object in  view.   It  cannot extend to embarking upon  a  nice  or mathematical  evaluation on the basis of classification.  In Triloki  Nath,  the court held that Roshan Lals case is  no authority  for  the  proposition  that  there  cannot  be  a classification for the purpose of promotion on a basis other than  the  one that they were drawn from different  sources. Triloki  Nath, thus distinguishes both the earlier  decision in  Mervyn  Coutindo and Rohan Lal Tandon.  Trilokinath  has been  followed in Murugesan , where this Court held that  it would  be open for the rule making authority, having  regard to  the efficiency of the administration and other  relevant circumstances  to  restrict the chance of promotion  of  the less qualified people in the feeder category.  In Murugesan, the  Court  upheld the quota in the matter of  promotion  in favour  of  graduate engineers.  It may be noticed  that  in Murugesan,  the Court over-ruled the earlier decision in the Punjab   State   Electricity   Board,    1986(4)   SCC   617 distinguished  in  Abdul Basheers case, 1989  Supp.(2)  SCC 344.   The contention of Mr.  Subramanium, is no doubt  that there  can  be a classification in favour of  the  qualified people having regard to the efficiency of the administration but  a classification in the manner of providing a quota for unqualified  people cannot be held to be in the interest  of administration  and,  therefore, cannot be sustained on  the principles  of  Murugesan.   We are unable  to  accept  this contention  of the learned counsel for the appellants.  Once a  classification  is permissible notwithstanding  that  the feeder  category  is  one, when the said  classification  is challenged  being  discriminatory,  then  unless  and  until

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

sufficient materials are produced and it is established that it  is unjust on the face of it by the persons assailing the classification,  the  Court would be justified in coming  to the conclusion that such plea of unlawful discrimination had no  basis,  as was observed in Triloki Nath.  Adjudged  from the  aforesaid stand point when the pleadings in the case in hand  are examined, we do not find any materials to  sustain the plea of discrimination raised by the appellants, who are direct  recruits  diploma holder Junior Engineers.   In  the case  in  hand, the Regulations from time to time  on  being examined,  unequivocally show that right from the inception, quota  has  been  provided for promotion in  favour  of  the unqualified  promotee Junior Engineers, though the quota has been  changed  from  time to time and while  providing  such quota, the longer experience as Junior Engineer has been the basis  for  being eligible for promotion.  Providing such  a quota  in the service history right from inception is also a germane  consideration for the Court, while considering  the question  of  alleged discrimination.  That apart  when  the feeder  category  itself  is  filled up  by  direct  recruit diploma holders and promotee unqualified matriculates and if no  quota  is provided for such unqualified matriculates  in the  promotional  cadre of Assistant Engineer then they  may stagnate  at that stage which will not be in the interest of administration.    If   the  rule    making   authority   on consideration  of such stagnation, provides a quota for such unqualified  promotee  Junior Engineers, the same cannot  be held  to  be violative of any constitutional mandate and  on the other hand would come within the ratio of Murugesan.  In our  considered opinion, therefore, there can be a  separate consideration  for  the   promotee  unqualified  matriculate Junior  Engineers in the matter of promotion to the post  of Assistant  Engineer and the impugned Regulation providing  a quota for them cannot be held to be violative of Article 14.

     So  far  as the second question is concerned,  we  are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the submission of Mr.   Subramanium  that  providing a  quota  tantamounts  to reservation.   Article 16 deals with equality of opportunity in  matters  of public employment and Article 16(4)  enables the  State  from  making any provision  for  reservation  of appointments  or  posts in favour of any backward  class  of citizens which in the opinion of the State is not adequately represented  in the services under the State.  This Court in Indira  Sawhneys case has held that no such reservation  is permissible  in  the promotional posts and to get  over  the said  decision  Article  16(4A)  has been  inserted  by  the Constitution  (Seventy seventh Amendment) Act.  But we  fail to  understand  as to how providing a quota for a  specified category of personnel in the promotional post can be held to be  a  reservation  within  the   ambit  of  Article  16(4). Providing  a  quota is not new in the service  jurisprudence and   whenever  the  feeder   category  itself  consists  of different  category of persons and when they are  considered for  any  promotion,  the employer fixes a  quota  for  each category   so   that   the   promotional  cadre   would   be equi-balanced  and at the same time each category of persons in  feeder  category  would  get the  opportunity  of  being considered  for  promotion.  This is also in a sense in  the larger  interest  of  the  administration  when  it  is  the employer,  who  is best suited to decide the  percentage  of posts  in the promotional cadre, which can be earmarked  for different   category  of  persons.   In  other  words   this provision  actually  effectuates the constitutional  mandate

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

engrafted  in  Article 16(1), as it would offer equality  of opportunity  in  the matters relating to employment  and  it would not be the monopoly of a specified category of persons in the feeder category to get promotions.  We, therefore, do not  find  any  infraction of the  Constitutional  provision engrafted  in  Article  16(4)  while providing  a  quota  in promotional  cadre, as in our view it does not tantamount to reservation.

     So  far  as the third question is concerned, if it  is permissible  to have a specified percentage of posts on  the basis of educational qualification, as has been held by this Court  in Murugesan, we really fail to understand, as to why employer  or the rule making authority would be debarred  to allot  a  specific  percentage  in  favour  of   unqualified matriculate  promotee  Junior   Engineers.   The  Regulation provides  that out of 46% of promotional quota in the  cadre of  Assistant Engineer, 28% will be available for  qualified diploma  holder  Junior  Engineers  and   8%  would  be  for unqualified matriculate Junior Engineers, 6% meant for A and B   passed  and  4%  for   draftsman.   According   to   Mr. Subramanium  the  quota available for A and B and  Draftsman could come within the ambit of the decision of this Court in Triloki   Nath  or  Murugesan,   but  not  the  respondents- unqualified  matriculate Junior Engineers in whose favour 8% quota  has  been  fixed.   We  are  unable  to  accept  this contention  of  the learned counsel.  It may be  noticed  at this  stage that so far as the unqualified Junior  Engineers are   concerned   those   of   them   who   possess   I.T.I. qualification must have twelve years of service in the grade for  being eligible for promotion to the Assistant Engineers and  those  who are merely matriculates and  without  I.T.I. qualification,  must  have fifteen years of service  in  the grade  for  being  eligible  for promotion to  the  post  of Assistant Engineer.  These unqualified Junior Engineers have been  brought to the cadre of Junior Engineers by  promotion and  in  most  cases they can maximum aspire  to  retire  as Assistant Engineers.  If the rule making authority considers that the stagnation at the stage of Junior Engineer will not be conducive for administration and provides the promotional avenue  for  them, by providing a quota in  the  promotional cadre  and  the service history itself indicates  that  such provision  has  been made right from the inception,  we  see really  no  constitutional infraction therein, so as  to  be interfered  with by this Court.  We, therefore, do not  find any  substance  in  submission of Mr.  Subramanium  on  this Score  and  in  our considered opinion there is no  bar  for providing a quota in the promotional post, even in favour of unqualified matriculate Junior Engineers.

     In  the aforesaid premises, these appeals fail and are dismissed.