IMPORTANT POINT
Providing a quota in the promotional cadre cannot be said to be reservation within the meaning of Article 16(4) of the Constitution.

Headnote:(i) Service Law-Promotion-Quota system-Legality of-Junior Engineer in Himachal Pradesh Electricity Board-Promotion to Post of Assistant Engineer-Direct recruit Junior Engineers and promotee Junior Engineers who are having ITI qualification-Quota for ITI qualified promotee Junior Engineer-Not violative of Article 14 of Constitution.
       Held : 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 cannot be accepted. Once a classification is permissible notwithstanding that the feeder category is one, when the said classification is challenged being discriminatory, then unless and until 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. 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 Engineer, 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. (Para 5)
       (ii) Service Law-Promotion-Quota system-Quota for a specified category of personal in promotional post cannot be held to be a reservation within ambit of Article 16(4) of Constitution.
       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. 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 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. (Para 6)
       (iii) Service Law-Promotion-Quota system-Quota for unqualified persons in the feeder category-Not violative of Article 14 of Constitution. (Para 7)

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 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-à-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 (Appeals) holding that the assessee is entitled to investment allowance on the generating station building considering it as plaint ?"

2. It is not in dispute that the first two questions must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee having regard in the judgments of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar v. Bokaro Steel Limited, Bokaro1 and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Alcock Ashdown & Co. Ltd.2 respectively :

3. The issue to be decided relates to the third question.

4. It was the case of the assessee that it was entitled to investment allowance as applicable to a plaint in respect of its power generating station building. In a note filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) it stated that it had included for the purpose the value of its Potential Transforme

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2000 Supreme(SC) 2030

IMPORTANT POINTProviding a quota in the promotional cadre cannot be said to be reservation within the meaning of Article 16(4) of the Constitution.

Cases Referred (6)

IMPORTANT POINT
Providing a quota in the promotional cadre cannot be said to be reservation within the meaning of Article 16(4) of the Constitution.