Judgment

KRISHNA IYER, J.:- The petitioner who really represents a class of aggrieved persons who are employees under the Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking (DESU) has come up to this Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution claiming that his fundamental right under Art. 16 of the Constitution has been violated and that an appropriate writ should be issued in enforcement of that right.

2. A detailed narration of the facts is uncalled for and a capsulated statement sufficient to bring out the core contention will now be made.

3. Among the various categories of posts in the hierarchy under the DESU are two posts designated as steno-typist and junior stenographer. They were different in the nature of their duties. different in the salary scales and naturally different in their status. Indeed, steno-typists form the basic cadre from which promotion is given as junior stenographers. At some intermediate stage in the history of this service (around 1973) distinctions in regard to salary scales got blurred and steno-typists and stenographers were given the same scales of salary. This confusion led to a demand from steno-typists that they should also be allowed to be posted as junior stenographers.

4. Some misapprehension crept in as a consequence of which steno-typists were posted as junior stenographers although counsel for respondents Nos. 3 to 46 has a case that this was done in accordance with the extant executive instructions.

5. On a later date, thanks to an award of Industrial Tribunal relating to the junior stenographers, the DESU introduced a prescription by way of qualification for promotion as junior stenographers. This prescription otherwise called trade test insisted upon a speed of 100 words per minute in shorthand as an eligibility qualification for becoming junior stenographers. It must be stated here that tests were conducted in this behalf to enable the steno-typists as well as the junior stenographers who had not possessed this test to acquire this qualification. However, the steno-typists who had already been functioning as junior stenographers without passing the trade test declined to take advantage of the trade test held by the DESU, and insisted that regardless of such additional qualification they should be entitled to hold the posts of junior stenographers.

6. As a consequence of this stance, the steno-typists who were not occupying the post of junior stenographers, the petitioner (representing many of his ilk) has come up to this Court stating that this is an invidious discrimination. He has not passed the test but has recently appeared for the test. If he passes the test, he must be entitled to be a junior stenographer over the heads of steno-typists who are currently occupying the posts of junior stenographers without passing the test. This, in brief is the bone of contention raised in this writ petition.

7. We see no difficulty in resolving the conflict and we discern a plain discrimination in the petitioner being denied the claims, that he puts forward that if he passes the trade test which is the qualification for junior stenographers post, he should be posted in displacement of steno-typists who have not passed the trade test but are still functioning as junior stenographers. It is well established law that qualifications for a particular post can be a rational differentia within the meaning of Art. 16. It is equally clear that when a qualification has been prescribed for a post, that cannot be obliterated by posting those who do not have that qualification as against those who have that qualification. It is within the powers of the DESU to prescribe relevant qualifications and the prescription of stenographic ability of 100 words per minute is a relevant qualification.

8. In this view there is substance in the submission of the petitioners counsel that the scheme of posting hence as junior stenographers must be rationalised, classified and harmonised with Art. 16. Having heard counsel for respondents 3 to 4