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

PETITIONER: P.N. KOHLI & ORS., UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: R. IYYASWAMY & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       09/09/1997

BENCH: S. C. AGRAWAL, G. T. NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: Present               Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.C. Agrawal               Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.T. Nanavati Altaf Ahmed, Additional Solicitor General, Hemant Sharma, S.D. Sharma, S.K. Dwivedi, V.K. Verma, Advs with him for the appellant in C.A. No. 6122/97 Ranjit Kumar,  and Ms. Anu Mohla, Advs. for the Appellant in C.A. No. 6123/97 M.A. Krishna Moorthy, Adv. for the Respondent                       J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered: Union of India & Anr. V. R. Iyyaswamy & Ors.                             WITH                CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6123 OF 1997           [Arising out of SLP (C) No.22848 of 1996                       J U D G M E N T NANAVATI, J.      Leave granted.  Heard  learned  counsel  for  both  the sides.      Only question  that arises  for consideration  in these appeals is whether Rule 2 (1) (a) of the Assistant Engineers (Akashwani and  Doordarshan  Group  ’B’  Posts)  Recruitment (Amendment) Rules,  1985 is  discriminatory and,  therefore, violative of  Articles 14  and 16  of the  Constitution. The Principal Bench  of the  Central Administrative Tribunal has held that  it is,  Challenging the decision of the Tribunal, the Union  of India  and also P.N. Kohli and Malchar Malviya who were  respondent Nos.2  and 3  before the Tribunal, have filed these appeals.      The All  India Radio  and  Doordarshan  have  a  common technical cadre. The channel of promotion in the Engineering Section is  from the  post of  Engineering Assistant  to the post of Senior Engineering Assistant and then to the post of Assistant Engineer  (Gazetted). Earlier,  recruitment to the post of  Assistant Engineer  was made in accordance with the Recruitment Rules  of 1972.  Under those  Rules, 60 per cent posts  of   Engineering   Assistants   were   reserved   for departmental Engineering  Assistants who were degree-holders

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

and 40  per cent  posts were filled up by direct recruitment on the  basis of  Engineering Services Examination conducted by the  Union Public  Service Commission.  Those Rules  were replaced  by   the  Assistant   Engineers   (Akashwani   and Doordarshan Group  ’B’ Posts)  Recruitment  Rules  of  1982. Under these rules also, before they were amended in 1985, 60 per cent  of the  promotion quota was filled up from amongst Graduate Engineers  and remaining 40 per cent posts from the Diploma-holders  after   they   cleared   the   departmental examination. In 1985, the President made the following rules to amend the 1982 Rules:      "(1) These rules  may be called the           Assistant Engineers (Akashwani           and  Doordarshan   Group   ’B’           Posts) Recruitment (Amendment)           Rules, 1985.      (2)  They shall  come into force on           the date  of their publication           in the Official Gazette.      2.   In   the   Schedule   to   the           Assistant Engineers (Akashwani           and  Doordarshan   Group   ’B’           Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1982      (1)  In column  11, for  the entry,           the following  entry shall  be           substituted. namely:-           "Promotion".      (a)  25% of the Promotion quota           By  selection   in  accordance           with provisions  laid down  in           Appendix I to these rules.      (b)  75% of the promotion quota           By Selection  on the  basis of           Departmental       competitive           Examination    conducted    in           accordance   with   provisions           laid down in Appendices II and           III to these rules.           x   x    x    x    x    x    x           x   x   x   x   x      (ii) For Appendix  I, the following           Appendix shall  be substituted           namely:-           "APPENDIX - I"           (See rule 3)           Promotion by selection against           25% quota      (1)  The  promotion   by  selection           shall   be    made   by    the           Departmental         Promotion           Committee. The eligibility for           consideration for promotion by           the   Departmental   Promotion           Committee    shall    he    as           follows:-      (a)  Senior Engineering  Assistants           with 8  years regular  service           in the  grade;  failing  which           Senior Engineering  Assistants           with 8 years’ combined regular           service  in   the  grades   of           Senior  Engineering  Assistant           and  Engineering   Assistants;           and      (b)  Possessing         educational

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

         qualifications not  lower than           those  prescribed  for  direct           recruits  to   the   post   of           Engineering Assistant  in  the           Akashwani and Doordarshan."      We have  nor set  out the remaining rules, as they have no bearing on the question to be decided in these appeals.      These Amendment  Rules of  1985 were  challenged by the graduate Senior  Engineering Assistants/Assistant  Engineers as discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution by  filing a  writ petition  in the Madras High Court. It  was subsequently  transferred to the Madras Bench of the  Tribunal and  renumbered as  T.A. No.587 of 1986. It was then  transferred to the Principal Bench of the Tribunal and renumbered  as T.A. No.85 of 1987. The contention of the applicants was  that till  1972 all  the higher  posts  were reserved for  educationally  better  qualified  persons  and thereafter a  certain percentage was reserved for them; but, as a result of the 1985 Amendment, the reservation in favour of  educationally   better  qualified   persons   has   been completely done away with the result that they will now lose initiative obtaining  higher educational  qualifications. It was submitted that now the Engineering graduates are equated with diploma-holders  and the  earlier  distinction  between graduate  Engineers   and  diploma   holders,  which  was  a recognized and  valid distinction,  has been  obliterated to the  detriment   of  degree-holder  Engineers  The  Tribunal rejected the  contention raised  on behalf of the applicants that Rule  2 (1)  (b) of  the Amendment  Rules providing for filling up  of 75  per cent  of the  posts in  the promotion quota by  selection on the basis of departmental competitive examination was  either discriminatory  or arbitrary  merely because it provided for competitive examination and made the diploma-holder  eligible   for  competing  with  the  degree holders. It  held that  by permitting  both the  degree  and diploma-holders to  compete for 75 per cent promotion quota, the Government  cannot be  said to have made unequals equal, more particularly  in view  of the purpose and reason behind the said rule.      As regards  the rule  relating to  25% promotion quota, the Tribunal,  however, took  a different  view and  held as under:      "37. So far  as the  remaining  25%      quota is  concerned, as provided in      rule 2  (1) (a)  of the Appendix to      that  rule,   this  is   to  go  by      seniority.   Degree   holders   and      diploma holders have been placed on      par. This  may tend  to  discourage      persons from pursuing degree course      for  getting   higher  and   better      promotional avenues if the same can      be  available   after   getting   a      diploma. Degree and diploma holders      have   come    through    different      channels  and   they  have  entered      service through  their own channel,      and at that stage requisite minimum      qualifications are  different.  The      trend of cases referred to above is      that  even.   if  there   is   some      discrimination  as  recognition  of      this difference, it would be within      the constitutional  limits and will      not go  against the  constitutional

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

    provisions and aspirations.      38. The  contention  that  complete      obliteration of  difference between      degree  and   diploma   holder   by      promoting them  on seniority  basis      which may  even  give  an  edge  to      diploma holders over degree holders      because of  entry on  a lower  post      earlier, may create frustration and      take away  initiative  and  lmpetus      for higher  educational and  better      standard is not without force. They      have been  put on  the same  par so      far as  75% posts  are concerned as      stated above. If for 25% posts also      they are  also put  on the same par      with  even  some  edge  to  diploma      holders  because  of  their  longer      period of  service, the  same tends      to make  two channels equal. Inter-      rotation of  two channels may given      them double benefits.      "40. So  far as  this part  of  the      rule viz.,  regarding 25%  quota is      concerned, it is apparent, that the      same makes  unequal  as  equal  and      does not  fully  fit  in  with  the      equality  clause  which  stands  in      Article 14  of the  Constitution of      India  which   permits   reasonable      classifications.  Thus,   it  being      bad, discriminatory  and  violative      of Articles  14 of the Constitution      of India  and legally  barred,  the      same has  got  to  be  struck  down      .............."      In these  appeals, the  appellants have questioned that part of  the decision of the Tribunal whereby Rule 2 (1) (a) of the Amendment Rules of 1985 has been declared ultra vires Article 14  of the  Constitution. Mr.  Altaf Ahmad,  learned Additional Solicitor  General appearing  for  the  Union  of India, has  submitted that  the decision  of the Tribunal is wrong not only because it is based upon an incorrect premise that  degree   and  diploma-holders   enter  the   cadre  of Engineering Assistants  through different  channels at which stage the  minimum qualifications for them are different but also because  it is  inconsistent with  the decision of this Court in  N. Abdul  Basheer V/s.  K.K.  Karunakaran  [(1989) Supp. 2 SCC 344].      As noted  by the  Tribunal, minimum  qualification  for direct recruitment  as Engineering  Assistant is  diploma in Engineering  or  B.Sc.  degree  with  Physics  as  the  main subject.  All   those  who   are  recruited  as  Engineering Assistants  constitute   one  single   cadre.  There  is  no difference as  regards their  pay or other emoluments on the ground that  they are  degree-holders or diploma-holders. It is  nobody’s   case  that   the   nature   of   duties   and responsibilities of  diploma-holders is different from those of the  degree holders.  Thus no  distinction is  recognised between  graduates  and  diploma-holders  at  the  level  of Engineering  Assistants  and  they  are  all  considered  as equals. The  Tribunal was, therefore, wrong in proceeding on the basis  that the degree-holders and diploma-holders enter the  cadre   of  Engineering  Assistants  through  different channels and  that at  the stage  of  entry,  the  requisite

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

qualifications are also different. Even when the Engineering Assistants are  considered for  promotion to the higher post of Senior  Engineering Assistants  no distinction is made on the ground of their educational qualifications. The cadre of Senior Engineering  Assistants is  also a  single  undivided cadre and in the matter of pay, duties and responsibilities, all  Senior  Engineering  Assistants  are  treated  equally. Except that  the post  of Assistant  Engineer is a Group ’B’ gazetted post,  no other  reason could  be advanced  by  the learned counsel  appearing for  the  contesting  respondents justifying a  necessity to  make  a  distinction  between  a graduate Engineer  and diploma-holder  while  considering  a Senior Engineer  Assistants  for  promotion  to  that  post. Simply  because   a  certain  percentage  of  the  posts  of Assistant Engineers  was reserved  for graduate Engineers in the past,  that did  not create  any vested  right in  their favour. If merit and efficiency are the considerations while making promotions  to the  higher posts,  there is no reason why a  certain percentage  of posts  of Assistant  Engineers should be  reserved for  graduate Engineers  and they should not be  made to  compete with  diploma-holders. A  degree in Engineering is  a better  educational qualification  than  a diploma in  Engineering; and, therefore, while competing for the post of Assistant Engineers, the graduate Engineers will have an  edge over  the diploma-holders. By adopting the new policy contained in Rules 2 (1) (a) and (b) of the Amendment Rules, the  Government appears  to have  made an  attempt to balance the  advantages arising  out of merit and experience based on  long service.  The   per cent promotion quota rule enables  those   Senior  Engineering   Assistants  who  have rendered long  years of  service but  due to certain reasons like age  etc. do  not desire  to appear for the competitive examination but are otherwise fit for being promoted to such higher post.  The policy  underlying Rules 2 (1) (a) and (b) of the  Amendment Rules  of  1985,  therefore  -  cannot  be regarded either as discriminatory or a arbitrary. It is also not correct  to say  that  by  providing  for  promotion  by selection by  Department Promotion  Committee against the 25 per cent  promotion quota what the Government has done is to make unequals  equal. As stated earlier, the diploma-holders were treated  as equals  in all  respects in the subordinate cadres of  Senior  Engineering  Assistants  and  Engineering Assistants.      In N. Abdul Basheer’s case (supra), in the context of a rule fixing  graduate-non graduate  ratio for filling up the promotional post  of Excise Inspector this Court observed as under:           "13. ...  This is  not a  case      where the  cadre  of  officers  was      kept in  two separate divisions. It      was a  single cadre,  and they were      all equal  members of  it. There is      no    evidence     that    graduate      Preventive Officers  enjoyed higher      pay  than  non-graduate  Preventive      Officers.’ The High Court has noted      that the  nature of  the duties  of      Preventive     Officers     whether      graduate   or    non-graduate   was      identical, and  both  were  put  to      field work. Non-graduate Preventive      officers were regarded as competent      as  graduate  Preventive  Officers.      There  is   no  evidence  of    any      special responsibility being vested

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

    in  graduate  Preventive  Officers.      Once they  were promoted  as Excise      Inspectors     there     was     no      distinction  between  graduate  and      non-graduate Excise Inspectors."      While dealing  with the contention that the recognition of graduation is recognition of merit and that more merit in the post  of Excise  Inspector would  be conducive to better administrative efficiency, this Court further observed thus:      "15. ... Ordinarily, it is  for the      government  to   decide  upon   the      considerations   which,    in   its      judgment, should  underlie a policy      to be  formulated by it. But if the      considerations are such as prove to      be of no relevance to the object of      the   measure    framed   by    the      government it is always open to the      court   to    strike    down    the      differentiation as  being violative      of  Articles   14  and  16  of  the      Constitution. In  the present case,      we have  already commented  on  the      circumstance that the conditions of      employment  and  the  incidents  of      service  recognise  no  distinction      between graduate  and  non-graduate      officers and  that for all material      purposes   they   are   effectively      treated as equivalent. Accordingly,      this  contention   must   also   be      rejected."      In  view  of  this  clear  pronouncement  of  law,  the contrary view  taken by  the  Tribunal has to be regarded as bad. In  the result,  these appeals  are allowed.  The order passed by  the Tribunal  is set aside. Rule 2 (1) (a) of the Amendment Rules  of 1985  is held  to be  valid and the T.A. No.85 of  1987  filed  by  the  contesting  respondents,  is dismissed. In  view of  the facts  and circumstances  of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.