Back
2015 Supreme(J&K) 540
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
Hasnain Massodi and Janak Raj Kotwal, JJ.
All India NHPC Diploma Engineers Council and Ors. – Appellants
Vs.
National Hydro Electric Power Corporation and Ors. – Respondents
SWP Nos. 515, 885 of 1997 & SWP No. 849 of 2011 & MP Nos. 1228, 2180 of 2011 & MP No. 1243 of 2014 & IA Nos. 1, 11 of 1997
Decided On : 30-12-2015
For the Appellant :Pranav Kohli and P.S. Chandel, Advocates.
For the Respondent:R.S. Thakur, Sr. Advocate and Pankaj Jamwal, Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that classification based on educational qualification must have a nexus with the objectives of the promotion policy, and discrimination between officers with different educational backgrounds in the same cadre is impermissible.
Headnote:
Promotion Policy - NHPC Executives - Rule 36(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Rules, 1999 - The court discussed the New Promotion Policy introduced by NHPC, which discriminated against diploma holders in favor of degree holders. The court found that the policy violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and quashed the policy to the extent it pertained to Executives with a diploma in engineering.
Fact of the Case:
Diploma holders challenged the New Promotion Policy introduced by NHPC, which favored degree holders and blocked the promotional avenues for diploma holders beyond E-5 level. The Writ Court initially dismissed the petitions, but the matter was referred to a third judge who found the classification impermissible. NHPC introduced changes in the policy, which were also challenged in a separate writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the New Promotion Policy discriminated against diploma holders and violated their fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The court quashed the policy to the extent it pertained to Executives with a diploma in engineering and directed NHPC to give similar treatment to diploma holders as given to degree holders.
Issues: The issues revolved around the permissibility of classification based on educational qualification, discrimination between diploma and degree holders for promotional avenues, and the authority of NHPC to revise its promotion policy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that classification based on educational qualification must have a nexus with the objectives of the promotion policy. It emphasized that discrimination between officers with different educational backgrounds in the same cadre is impermissible. The court also highlighted that the right to be considered for promotion is an integral component of the right to equality of opportunity in public employment.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the New Promotion Policy to the extent it pertained to Executives with a diploma in engineering, and directed NHPC to give similar treatment to diploma holders as given to degree holders.
Hasnain Massodi, J.
1. Revised Promotion Policy for NHPC Executives introduced by National Hydro Power Corporation (NHPC) (hereinafter called as "New Promotion Policy") w.e.f., 5.3.1997 to the extent it relates to diploma holders is at the bottom of controversy in three writ petitions on hand i.e., SWP Nos. 515/1997, 885/1997 and 849 of 2011. Before mapping out contours of the controversy, it would be appropriate to trace the course of three writ petitions during the last two and half decades.
2. Diploma holders aggrieved with the New Promotion Policy, approached Writ Court with the writ petitions being SWP Nos. 515/1997 and 885/1997 respectively. Their grievance was that according to the old promotion policy i.e., the policy in vogue till New Promotion Policy was introduced w.e.f. 5.3.1997, both the diploma holders and degree holders had an equal opportunity to go up the promotional ladder. It was pleaded that the old promotion policy neither made a distinction on the basis of qualification between diploma holders and degree holders after a particular level nor were diploma holders required to have more experience as compared to the degree holders to their credit at a particular level, so as to be eligible for promotion to the next level in the Executive Cadre. Petitioners pleaded that new promotion policy not only prescribed a longer period at a particular level for diploma holders, for promotion to the next level in the Executive cadre, but blocked their promotional avenues after they reached E-5 level. In other words, petitioners insisted that diploma holders though having sufficient experience were not to cross E-5 level, in any circumstance.
3. Petitioners, on the grounds urged in the writ petitions, sought quashment of New Promotion Policy to the extent it blocked their promotion avenues beyond E-5 Executive Cadre and required diploma holders to have longer stay at a level as compared to the degree holders for their promotion to the next level. The writ petitions did not find favour with the Writ Court and were dismissed on 02.06.2000.
4. The Writ Court judgment was questioned in two Letters Patent Appeals being LPA (SW) Nos. 355/2000 and 328/2000. The matter was concluded by a split judgment. One of the Hon'ble Judges held the classification made between diploma holders and degree holders unreasonable without any nexus to the object sought to be achieved and, therefore, in conflict with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The view taken by other Hon'ble Judge was that diploma holders and degree holders were two distinct classes and the respondents were within their power to make the classification, prescribe different period of experience for diploma holders and to restrict, promotional avenues only to degree holders, beyond E-5 Executive Cadre.
5. The Division Bench stated points of difference as under:
"1. Whether classification based on educational qualification alone is permissible or nexus with the objectives of the statute or policy has to be established while making promotion to the higher post?
2. Whether Diploma Holder Engineers can be discriminated from Degree Holder Engineers for the purpose of promotional avenues beyond a particular level by prescribing higher qualification?"
6. The matter in terms of Rule 36(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Rules, 1999 was referred to third judge. The learned judge on hearing the matter recorded agreement with the view that classification made in the facts and circumstances of the case was impermissible. However, the learned judge on 18.02.2010, held the pleadings to be deficient and required to be supplemented by the parties, as in the opinion of the learned judge, it was only after the pleadings were supplemented, it would be possible to find out whether classification made on the basis of higher qualification has a reasonable nexus with the object intended to be achieved and determine validity of Rule 8 of New Promotion Policy. In the said backgroun
