2021 Supreme(SC) 567

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, VIKRAM NATH, HIMA KOHLI, JJ.
CHANDAN BANERJEE & ORS - APPELLANTS
VERSUS
KRISHNA PROSAD GHOSH & ORS. - RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5582 OF 2021 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NOS. 11781 OF 2019)
DECIDED ON : 21-09-2021

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Classification between persons must not produce artificial inequalities. The classification must be founded on a reasonable basis and must bear nexus to the object and purpose sought to be achieved to pass the muster of Articles 14 and 16.
(2) Judicial review in matters of classification is limited to a determination of whether the classification is reasonable and bears a nexus to the object sought to be achieved. Courts cannot indulge in a mathematical evaluation of the basis of classification or replace the wisdom of the legislature or its delegate with their own.
(3) Educational qualification may be used for introducing quotas for promotion for a certain class of persons; or may even be used to restrict promotion entirely to one class, to the exclusion of others.

Headnote:

Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act 1980 - Section 20 – Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 -Circular imposing conditions for diploma and degree holder Sub-Assistant Engineers for supernumerary appointments as Assistant Engineers – Once direct recruits and promotees are integrated into a common pool, they cannot be treated differently based on the ‘source of recruitment’ – While creating supernumerary posts, KMC has not completely restricted the promotional avenues of diploma – Holder SAEs who have stagnated in their service - It has provided adequate opportunity to them to advance in their career, although on different terms and conditions - Thus, promotional policy of KMC for supernumerary posts is not irrational or arbitrary or to the detriment of diploma holder SAEs - In matters of public policy and public employment, the legislature or its delegate must be given sufficient room to decide the quality of individuals it seeks to employ as against different positions - As long as these decisions are not arbitrary, this Court must refrain from interfering in the policy domain - Clause 3 of the impugned circular provides that these supernumerary posts would be adjusted as and when a vacancy becomes available within the sanctioned posts of an AE – Further, Clause 5 stipulates that there would be no change in the Recruitment Regulations for the posts of AE – What this means is that the regular promotion of degree or diploma holder SAEs is not impacted by way of the impugned circular – As and when vacancies arise in the sanctioned AE posts, the AEs holding supernumerary posts would be subject to the Recruitment Regulations and the selection process for promotion of an SAE to an AE -Spernumerary posts are personal to the eligible AEs and will lapse on their being promoted on a regular basis as AEs or ceasing to remain in service - Impugned circular and the subsequent gradation list do not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness and discrimination. (Paras 38, 41 and 42)

Facts of the Case:

Challenge is to whether persons drawn from a common source who have been integrated into a cadre can be differentiated on the basis of educational qualifications for the purpose of promotion to supernumerary posts - Whether educational qualifications can be recognised as a criterion for classification – Appellants, who are SAEs possessing a diploma in engineering, instituted a writ petition before the High Court challenging the circular dated 3 July 2012 and gradation list on the ground that classification within the same cadre of SAE for the purpose of appointment to supernumerary posts violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. By a judgment dated 6 October 2015, the Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition and held the circular to be arbitrary and unconstitutional - In a Letters Patent Appeal, the Division Bench, reversed the decision of the Single Judge and held that classification made on the basis of educational qualifications for supernumerary appointments to the higher post of Assistant Engineer, is valid.

Finding of the Court:

It is not for this Court to decide whether a higher educational qualification would fulfil the objectives of the management, as long as the nexus between the educational qualification and the need for higher efficiency is not absurd, irrational or arbitrary. In a line of decisions, this Court has held that educational qualifications may be linked to higher administrative efficiency and thus classification on this basis is not in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Result: Appeal dismissed