SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V.R. KRISHNA IYER, A.D. KOSHAL AND O. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.
C. C. Padmanabhan and others, Appellants
Versus
Director of Public Instruction and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 3520-3524 of 1979,
D/-30-7-1980.
Advocates appeared
P. Govindan Nair Sr. Advocate Mrs. Baby Krishnan and Mr. N. Sudhakaran Advocates, for Appellants; Mr. M. M. Abdul Khader Sr. Advocate (Mr.V. J. Francis and Mr. Sushil Kumar, Advocates with him), for Respondents.
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Kerala Education Act, 1958 - Section 12A - Kerala Education Rules, 1959 - Rule 2 – Employment and Service matter - Post of Assistant Educational Officer - Promotion - Appellants had been holding post of A. E. O. for more than six years continuously when his reversion was ordered in implementation of instructions issued by State Government through a letter dated to effect that every A. E. O. should be transferred back as H. S. A. after six years of service as A. E. O. or even earlier on administrative grounds - Each reversion was challenged before Kerala High Court by means of a petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India with prayer that same be quashed - Two of petitions were dismissed by a learned single Judge whose orders were challenged in Letters Patent appeals which were heard and dismissed by impugned judgment along with other three petitions - Post of A. E. O. lies in a category and carries a grade higher than those of post of H. S. A. and is a post of promotion vis-a-vis other so that two cannot be considered as interchangeable especially because there is no rule, direction or instruction laying down expressly or by necessary implication that they are equivalent to each other – Held, post of an A. E. O. thus carries with it not only benefits enjoyable by incumbent so long as he holds post but also such as are available to him after retirement - Direction contained in the letter dated that an A. E. O. should be transferred back as an H. S. A. after six years of service as A. E. O. is wholly arbitrary and not based on any principle - Impugned judgment is set aside and orders transferring the appellants from posts of A. E. Os. to those of H. S - As. are quashed - As a necessary consequence if any of appellants has had to relinquish charge of post of A. E. O. in compliance with such orders, he shall be deemed to have continued to hold post of an A. E. O. and to be entitled to all benefits pertaining to that post, and respondents are directed to repost him as A. E. O. as expeditiously as possible and within a month from date of this order at latest - Court make it clear that vice of arbitrariness and other infirmities Court have pointed out are curable if only State Government amends rules fairly and rationally - Judgment does not stand in way of Government framing new rules or amending old rules but such rules must be in conformity with Part III of Constitution - Appeals allowed.
Judgment
KOSHAL, J.:- By this judgment we shall dispose of Civil Appeals Nos. 3520 to 3524 of 1979 which are directed against a common judgment dated 11-9-1979 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala holding that in the Department of Education of the State of Kerala the post of Assistant Educational Officer (hereinafter described as A. E. O.) is not a promotion post vis-a-vis that of a High School Assistant (hereinafter referred to as H. S. A.), that the two posts are interchangeable and that consequently the reversion of the solitary appellant in each case from the post of A. E. O. to that of H. S. A. is not violative of Article 16 of the Constitution.
2. It is not disputed before us that each of the appellants had been holding the post of A. E. O. for more than six years continuously when his reversion was ordered in implementation of the instructions issued by the State Government through a letter dated the 19th May, 1977 to the effect that every A. E. O. should be transferred back as H. S. A. after six years of service as A. E. O. or even earlier on administrative grounds. Each reversion was challenged before the Kerala High Court by means of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer that the same be quashed. Two of the petitions were dismissed by a learned single Judge whose orders were challenged in Letters Patent appeals which were heard and dismissed by the impugned judgment along with the other three petitions. The five appeals have been admitted in pursuance of special leave granted by this Court.
3. On behalf of the appellants two contentions have been raised :
(a) The post of A. E. O. lies in a category and carries a grade higher than those of the post of H. S. A. and is, therefore, a post of promotion vis-a-vis the other so that the two cannot be considered as interchangeable especially because there is no rule, direction or instruction laying down expressly or by necessary implication that they are equivalent to each other.
(b) Even if the appointment of an H. S. A. as an A. E. O. cannot be regarded as a promotion, the impugned reversions are violative of Article 14 as no guidelines to regulate them have been provided in spite of the fact that the post of an A. E. O. carries a special pay which is not) available to an H. S. A.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length we find both these contentions to be weighty.
4. Promotion is thus defined in cl. (11) of R. 2 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. 1958:
"(11) Promotion means the appointment of a member of any category or grade of a service or a class of service to a higher category or grade of such service or class."
This definition fully conforms to the meaning of promotion as understood in ordinary parlance and also as a term frequently used in cases involving service laws. According to it a person already holding a post would have a promotion if he is appointed to another post which satisfies either of the following two conditions, namely-
(i) that the new post is in a higher category of the same service or class of service :
(ii) the new post carries a higher grade in the same service or class.
It is common ground between the parties that in the instant case the two posts belong to the same service or class of service. Applying the above test, therefore, to them it would follow that the appointment of an H. S. A. to the post of an A. E. O. would be a promotion if, and only if
(a) the post of an A. E. O. is of a higher category than that of an H. S. A., or
(b) the post of an A. E. O. carries a higher grade than that of an H. S. A. In case of either of these conditions being fulfilled, the appointment of an H. S. A. to the post of an A. E. O. would be a promotion within the meaning of the clause above reproduced.
5. For ascertaining whether or not the post of A. E. O. lies in a category higher than that of an H. S. A. a reference may be made to clauses (5) and (7a) of Rule 2 of the Kerala Education Rules, 1
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.