Service Law - Accelerated promotion on the basis of higher educational qualifications - State of Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand) carved out of the State of Uttar Pradesh - 200 posts advertised for appointing Junior Engineers (JEs) in the Irrigation Department - Posts filled in by both, the one having the qualification of Diploma and the other having Degree in Engineering - 2003 Rules provided for recruitment to the next higher post, Assistant Engineers (AE, Civil), 50% by promotion from the JEs and the balance 50% through direct recruitment for which the qualification was, inter alia, Degree in Engineering In this 50% by promotion, there was further break up, i.e., 40% through the normal route, on the basis of seniority and the remaining 10% promotion quota was given through accelerated promotion in which 2.67% was meant for certain categories, while 7.33% was meant for JEs (Civil) holding Degree in Civil Engineering with 3 yrs' service, whereas normal promotion required minimum 10 yrs service - Amendment in 2004 sought to change the ratio of appointment, reducing the direct recruitment quota to 40% and increasing the promotion quota to 60% - Writ petitions filed by the Diploma-holders - Accelerated promotion quota struck down - Impugned order stayed - Held: Though equality is the very bulwark of the provisions of the Constitution, in service jurisprudence, classifications are a matter of necessity and judicial pronouncements have sought to balance the equality principle with the principle of classification, dependent on the nexus for making the classification- Higher educational qualifications have been repeatedly emphasized as an aspect which can give exclusive promotion, earlier promotion or as in this case, an accelerated promotion - Higher degree of qualification intrinsically would bring in certain skills, though undoubtedly, that should be useful and have a nexus with the job being performed - Examining this nexus has been left to the wisdom of the administrative authorities, best equipped to do so as held in M. Rathinaswami's case - Bringing forth from the direct recruitment quota (for which the qualification is the Degree) to the promotion quota and giving that through accelerated promotion for such persons who have degree can hardly have any intrinsic defects which could violate Arts.14 &
16 - Historical perspective also hardly supports the private respondents as even the State of Uttar Pradesh, as it existed earlier, and the Rules as they existed then, provided for such 7.33% quota, which was never assailed by any party - Impugned judgment unsustainable and the challenge to the Rule is misplaced - Writ petition of the Diploma-holders dismissed - Constitution of India Arts. 14, 16 - Uttaranchal Service of Engineers (Irrigation Department) (Group 'B') Rules, 2003 - Uttar Pradesh Public Works Department Assistant Engineers (Civil) Services Rules, 2003 United Provinces Service of Engineers (Buildings and Roads Branch) Class II Rules - Uttar Pradesh Irrigation Department Civil Engineer (Subordinate) Service Regulation, 1992 -Uttar Pradesh Service of Engineers (Irrigation Department) (Group 'B') Service Rules, 1993.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: Civil Appeal No.10194/2013
1.1 Both, for promotion and for direct appointment to AEs, Degree could be the essential qualification. Further the proposition could not be disputed that there are judicial pronouncements to support, providing for a differential in the period of service for two different sets of educational qualifications at the time of promotion. Thus, in a sense, the appellant would be within its right to provide for different periods of experience as JEs for Degree-holders and Diploma-holders, for the purposes of promotion. This is apart from the plea of the appellants that the accelerated promotion is to encourage the JEs to acquire higher qualifications, and once they acquire the higher qualification, whether they possess that qualification at the stage of entry or not would be immaterial (again a principle settled through judicial pronouncements). [Para 16] [808-C-E]
1.2 Though equality is the very bulwark of the provisions of the Constitution, in service jurisprudence, classifications are a matter of necessity and judicial pronouncements have sought to balance the equality principle with the principle of classification, dependant on the nexus for making the classification. Higher educational qualifications have been repeatedly emphasized as an aspect which can give exclusive promotion, earlier promotion or for that matter, as in this case, an accelerated promotion. A higher degree of qualification intrinsically would bring in certain skills, though undoubtedly, that should be useful and have a nexus with the job being performed. As to who should examine this nexus, that has been left to the wisdom of the administrative authorities, who are best equipped to do so. It has also been opined that even where persons having two different qualifications are given the opportunity of promotion, there cannot be an absolute equality for the reason that the administration may consider giving the lesser qualified an opportunity of promotion on different terms, rather than completely prohibiting them from promotion. In further posts, higher than AE, there is no distinction between persons having different qualifications. There are no direct appointments. The posts are filled in only through promotions. All that has been done is that, at a particular promotion stage, in the wisdom of the administration, recognising higher skills developed through higher qualifications, and as an incentive to others to acquire these higher qualifications, an accelerated promotion on a small percentage of posts had been granted. [Paras 26-28] [816-A-F]
1.3 It was put to the counsel for the private respondents if they could have been shut out from promotion, or if the time periods could have been different for promotion, then the result would have been the same as their grievance today, i.e., some of the Degree-holders would rank higher than the Diplomaholders. Thus, this is not something out of the ordinary which has happened, or would result in a situation which can be categorised extraordinary by reason of accelerated promotion to the Degree-holder. The direct recruitment to the post of AE required a candidate to be a Degree-holder. 50% of the posts were reserved for Degree-holding direct recruits. In the 50% promotion quota, a 10% promotion quota was carved out, leaving only 40% for promotion through the normal route. Possibly with the intention of obviating any grievance which the promotees may have, the normal promotion route was sought to be maintained at 50%, without any accelerated promotion in that portion, by bringing in 10% from the direct recruitment quota to the promotion quota, and that being utilised for accelerated promotion, for promotees with a Degree. Had this quota not been there at all, whether earlier or later, but the direct recruitment in promotion quota had been maintained in equal ratio, the Diploma-holders could, in any case, have had no grievance. The bringing forth from the direct recruitment quota (for which the qualification is the Degree) to the promotion quota and giving that through accelerated promotion for such persons who have a degree can, thus, hardly be said to have any intrinsic defects which could violate Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution. The historical perspective also cited before us hardly supports the private respondents as even the State of Uttar Pradesh, as it existed earlier, and the Rules as they existed then, provided for such 7.33% quota, which was never assailed by any party. There exist inconsistencies, pointed earlier in para 16, in the principles laid down in the impugned judgment in para 30. The impugned judgment cannot be sustained and the challenge to the Rule is misplaced. The consequence would be the dismissal of the writ petition by the Diploma-holders and the appeal of the Government being allowed. [Paras 29-33] [816-G-H; 817-A-F] Civil Appeal No.1317/2015
1.4 The appeal is dismissed in view of the order passed in CA No.10194/2013 as the appellant sought a greater relief than even that which was granted in the impugned order. [Para 34] [817-G]
Civil Appeal No.11307/2013
1.5 The appeal concerns the Uttar Pradesh Public Works Department Assistant Engineers (Civil) Services Rules, 2003. The relevant portion of the Rules, providing for accelerated promotion/sub quota for Degree-holders was struck down, relying upon the judgment of the High Court in WP No.267/2010 (S/B), which order has been set aside by in CA No.10194/2013. The result of the aforesaid is that this appeal is allowed and the impugned order set aside, upholding the relevant Rule. [Paras 35, 36] [817-H; 818-A]
IA No.88765/2018 in CA No.10194/2013
IA No.7/2016 in CA No.11307/2013
1.6 In view of the disposal of the appeals, no further orders are called for on these applications and the same stand disposed of. [Para 37] [818-C]
State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa (1974) 1 SCC 19 : [1974] 1 SCR771 – followed. P. Murugesan & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (1993) 2 SCC 340 : [1993] 1 SCR 405 ; Roop Chand Adlakha & Ors. v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors. (1989) Supp 1 SCC 116 – relied on.
Arunvendra Kumar Garg & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr. 2002 SCC OnLine ALL 196 : (2002) 2 AWC 1489 ; Mohammad Shujat Ali & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1975) 3 SCC 76 : [1975] 1 SCR 449 ; Punjab
State Electricity Board, Patiala & Anr. v. Ravinder Kumar Sharma & Ors. AIR 1987 SC 367 : [1987] 1 SCR 72 ; M. Rathinaswami & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (2009) 5 SCC 625 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.