A classification based on educational qualifications for promotion of Talathis to Circle Inspectors is valid under Arts.14 and 16 of the Constitution if it is based on a substantial difference which distinguishes the respondents from the petitioners and is well correlated to the object sought to be achieved.

ORDER :- This is a writ petition against the order dated September 10, 1973, of the Collector promoting the respondents from Talathis to Circle Inspectors under the Goa Government Subordinate Revenue Service (Combined Cadre of Aval Karkuns, Circle Inspectors and Talathis of the Collectorate of Goa and Directorate of Land Survey) (non-Gazetted non-Ministerial) Recruitment Rules 1973, (hereinafter referred to as "the 1973 Rules").

2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this petition fall within a very narrow compass. The petitioners and the respondents were appointed Talathis in the year 1966 under what we shall for brevitys sake refer to as "the 1966 Rules". On 28-6-1973 Government framed "the 1973 Rules" in supersession to "the 1966 Rules. Both under "the 1966 Rules" and "the 1973 Rules" the minimum qualification required for appointment as Talathis was the passing of the VIII Standard with English or equivalent. The petitioners and the respondents were recruited by the same method (direct recruitment) and from the same source. Under "the 1966 Rules" all the Talathis who possessed the VIII Class with English or equivalent were eligible for promotion to the post of Circle Inspector. Under "the 1973 Rules" only the Talathis who possessed the S.S.C.E. or equivalent qualification were eligible for promotion to the posts of Circle Inspectors. The order dated September 10, 1973, promoting the respondents was passed under "the 1973 Rules". It is therefore that the appointment and the rules are challenged on the ground that that part of the rules which creates two classes of Talathis for the purpose of promotion, out of one class of Talathis which existed prior to 1973, is unconstitutional.

3. The case of the respondents is that "the 1973 Rules" are valid in law and not violative of Arts.14 and 16 as alleged by the petitioner as the classification is based on intelligible differentia and bears a nexus to the object sought to be achieved.

4. The classification is based purely on educational qualifications. Such a classification is founded on a substantial difference which distinguishes the respondents from the petitioners and is well correlated to the object sought to be achieved, namely, efficiency of Circle Inspectors. It is true that there may be in the class of Talathis constituted by the petitioners who are now not eligible for promotion in view of "the 1973 Rules", some persons who might prove to be more efficient Circle Inspectors than the respondents, but I am concerned only with the question whether the classification rests on a reasonable basis and whether it bears a nexus with the object in view. It will not be open for me to go into a minute evaluation of the basis of classification and thereby arrogate to myself legislative powers. It cannot be gainsaid that Talathis possessing higher educational qualifications can be presumed to have better mental equipment.

5. Roshanlal v. Union of India (AIR 1967 SC 1889), Mervyn Coutimho v. Collector of Customs, Bombay (AIR 1967 SC 52), S.M. Pandit v. State of Gujarat (AIR 1972 SC 252) were relied upon by Shri Kakodkar, but The State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa (AIR 1974 SC 1), provides a complete answer to all the arguments advanced and authorities cited by Shri Kakodkar. The authorities on which Shri Kakodkar relies were considered in "Khosa" and distinguished, Union of India v. Dr. (Mrs.) S.B. Kohli, (AIR 1973 SC 811), Ganga Ram v. Union of India (AIR 1970 SC 2178), State of Mysore v. P. Narasing Rao (AIR 1968 SC 349), Mervyn. Coutinho (AIR 1967 SC 52) and Roshanlal (AIR 1967 SC 1889) and various other authorities were also considered.

6. In Narsing Rao (AIR 1968 SC 349) the cadre of tracers was re-organized into two, one consisted of matriculate tracers with a higher scale of pay and the other of non-matriculate tracers in a lower scale of pay and it was held that Arts.14 and 16 do not exclude the laying down of selective tests, nor do they preclude the Govern