2006 Supreme(Kar) 455

2007(4) Kar. L.J. 235
CYRIAC JOSEPH, C.J. AND N. KUMAR, J.
KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD EMPLOYEES UNION, BAN GALORE - Appellant
versus
KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD, BANGALORE, AND OTHERS - Respondent
Writ Appeal No. 1953 of 1994 connected with Writ Appeal No. 2595 of 1994 and Writ Petition No. 29573 of 1996 (S).
Decided on 16th June, 2006

Headnote:Constitution of India - Article 16 - Equality of opportunity in employment - Reasonable classification. [Cyriac Joseph, CJ and N. Kumar, J]: The law on the point is well settled. Where direct recruits and promotees are integrated into a common cadre, they could for the purposes of promotion to the next higher cadre, be classified on the basis of educational qualifications. The classification is clearly correlated to the higher educational qualifications. At least it has a presumptive evidence of a higher mental equipment. Formal education may not always produce excellence, but a classification formed on variant educational qualifications is, for purposes of promotion is not unjust. Discrimination is the essence of classification and does violence to the constitutional guarantee of equality, only, if it rests on an unreasonable basis. Classification must be truly founded on substantial differences which distinguish persons grouped together from those left out of the group and such differential attributes must bear a just and rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. Article 16 gives effect to the doctrine of equality in the matter of appointment and promotion. It follows that there can be a reasonable classification of the employees for the purpose of appointment or promotion. The concept of equality in the matter of promotion can be predicated only when the promotees are drawn from the same source. If the preferential treatment of one source in relation to the other is based on the differences between the said two sources, and the said differences have a reasonable relation to the nature of the office or offices to which recruitment is made, the said recruitment can legitimately be sustained on the basis of a valid classification. Therefore, the promotions based on the higher qualification among the persons from a common class is not arbitrary and suffers from the vice of discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Settled principles: Under Article 16 of the Constitution, there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State or to promotion from one office to a higher office thereunder. Article 16 of the Constitution is only an incident of the application of the concept of equality enshrined in Article 14 thereof. It gives effect to the doctrine of equality in the matter of appointment and promotion. It follows that there can be a reasonable classification of the employees for the purpose of appointment or promotion. The concept of equality in the matter of promotion can be predicated only when the promotees are drawn from the same source. If the preferential treatment of one source in relation to the other is based on the differences between the said two sources, and the said differences have a reasonable relation to the nature of the office or offices to which recruitment is made, the said recruitment can legitimately be sustained on the basis of a valid classification [AIR 1967 SC 1427]. Where appointment are made from more than one source, it is permissible to fix the ratio for recruitment from the different sources, and if rule are framed in this regard they must ordinarily be followed strictly. But if it becomes impossible to adhere to the existing quota rule, it should be substituted by an appropriate rule to meet the needs of the situation. In case, however, the quota rule is not followed continuously for a number of years because it was impossible to do so the inference is irresistible that the quota rule had broken down. Where the quota rule has broken down and the appointments are made from one source in excess of the quota, but are made after following the procedure prescribed by the rules for the appointment, the appointees should not be pushed down below the appointees from the other source inducted in the service at a later date [AIR 1990 SC 1607]. Where direct recruits and promotees are integrated into a common class, they could for purposes of promotion to the higher cadre be classified on the basis of educational qualifications. When the rules can be framed barring altogether the diploma holders from promotion, the rule making authority cannot be precluded from restricting the promotion. The rule making authority may be of the opinion, having regard to the efficiency of the administration and other relevant circumstances that while it is not necessary to bar the diploma holders from promotion altogether, their chances of promotion should be restricted [(1993) 2 SCC 340].

       Cases Referred: AIR 1974 SC 1; AIR SC 1967 1427; AIR 1990 1607; (1993) 2 SCC 340.

       Constitution of India -Equality of opportunity in employment -Article 14 -Equality of opportunity in employment -Reasonable classification.

       Cases Referred: AIR 1974 SC 1: AIR SC 1967 1427: AIR 1990 1607: (1993) 2 SCC 340.

       Constitution of India -Equality of opportunity in employment -Article 14 -Equality of opportunity in employment -Reasonable classification. Settled Principles. See, Article 16.

       Cases Referred: AIR 1974 SC 1; AIR SC 1967 1427; AIR 1990 1607; (1993) 2 SCC 340.

       Karnataka Electricity Board Recruitment and Promotions Regulations - Regulation 7(d) - Promotions -Whether clause 7( d) of Chapter V of the Regulations provide for promotion to non-graduate Assistant Engineers to the upgraded post of Assistant Executive Engineers to the extent of 30%?. [Cyriac Joseph, CJ and N. Kumar, J.]: All the 109 posts which were upgraded for the purpose of granting promotion to graduate AEE (Electrical) were posts to which recruitment was made under 1 O( e) of the regulations. None of the non-graduate AE (El) were entitled to be appointed to such post. Therefore, when those posts were upgraded as AEE posts, they have to be filled up by graduate AE (Electrical). The non-graduate AE (Electrical) did not have the requisite qualification or eligibility for being promoted to the said post. The object behind this upgradation of posts and promotion to the said post only graduate AE (Electrical) is, those AEs were stagnating in the entry cadre without any promotion for more than 10 to 15 years whereas non-graduate AEE occupied the said post by way of promotion. It is to give a promotional opportunity to those persons who were stagnating at the entry cadre, this rule was introduced. .It is just, reasonable and fair. This object is achieved by clause 7(d). Therefore, in granting promotion to these upgraded posts, the criteria to be followed is firstly by a legal fiction, treat this post as the cadre of AE only and then grant promotion as per clause 10(a) to (e) depending upon the nature of the post and functions attached to the said post. In the event the upgraded posts fall within sub-clause (a) to (d) of clause 10, then even a non-graduate AE (Electrical) would be entitled to promotion in the ratio fixed in the said clause. But, if the upgraded post would fall under clause 10(e), as the said posts are not available for a non-graduate AE (Electrical) and they have to be filled up by direct recruitment among the graduate possessing a decree in RE. those posts have to be filled up only by a graduate AE (Electrical). Therefore, the interpretation on clause 7 (d) placed by the Board as affirmed by the Learned Single Judge cannot be found fault with. The said clause achieves the object sought to be achieved by amending the regulations.

       Cases Referred: AIR 1974 SC 1: AIR SC 1967 1427: AIR 1990 1607: (1993) 2 SCC 340.

       Service Jurisprudence - Promotion - Whether persons drawn from different sources when integrated into one class can be classified for purposes of promotion on basis of their educational qualifications? Settled principles: Though persons appointed directly and by promotion were integrated into a common class of Assistant Engineers, they could, for purposes of promotion to the cadre of Executive Engineers, be classified on the basis of educational qualifications. The rule providing that graduates shall be eligible for such promotion to the exclusion of diploma-holders does not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Since the constitutional code of equality and equal opportunity is a charter for equals, equality of opportunity in matters of promotion means an equal promotional opportunity for persons who fall, substantially, within the same class. A classification of employees can therefore be made for first identifying and then distinguishing members of one class from those of another. The classification of Assistant Engineers into Degree holders and Diploma holders could not be held to rest on any unreal or unreasonable basis. The classification was made with a view to achieving administrative efficiency in the Engineering services. If this be the object, the classification is clearly correlated to it for higher educational qualifications are at least presumptive evidence of a, higher mental equipment. Classification on the basis of educational qualifications made with a view to achieving administrative efficiency cannot be said to rest on any fortuitous circumstances and one has always to bear in mind the facts and circumstances of the case in order to judge the validity of a classification. Unless the classification is unjust on the face of it, the burden is on the petitioners to set out facts necessary to sustain the plea of discrimination and to adduce cogent and convincing evidence to prove those facts, for there is a presumption that every factor which is relevant or material has been taken into account in formulating the classification. Thus, it is no part of the respondents (State s) burden to justify the classification or to establish its constitutionality. Formal education may not always produce excellence but a classification founded on variant educational qualifications is, for purposes of promotion to the post of an Executive Engineer. To say the least, not unjust on the fact of it and the onus therefore cannot shift from where it originally lay. Classification is primarily for the legislature or for the statutory authority charged with the duty of framing the terms and conditions of service; and if, looked at from the standpoint of the authority making it, the classification is found to rest on a reasonable basis, it has to be upheld. In order to establish that the protection of the equal opportunity clause has been denied to them, it is not enough for the petitioners to say that they have been treated differently from others, not even enough that a differential treatment has been accorded to them in comparison with others similarly circumstanced. Discrimination is the essence of classification and does violence to the constitutional guarantee of equality only if it rests on an unreasonable basis. It was therefore incumbent on the petitioners to plead and show that the classification of Assistant Engineers into those who hold diplomas and those who hold degrees is unreasonable and bears no rational nexus with its purported object. Classification must be truly founded on substantial differences which distinguish persons grouped together from those left out of the group and such differential attributes must bear a just and rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. Judicial scrutiny can therefore extend only to the consideration whether the classification rests on a reasonable basis and whether it bears nexus with the object in view. It cannot extend to embarking upon a nice or mathematical evaluation of the basis of classification, for were such an inquiry permissible it would be open to the Courts to substitute their own judgment for that of the legislature or the rule-making authority on the need to classify or the desirability of achieving a particular object [AIR 1974 SC 1].