Prescription of ratio not discriminatory.

S. Mohan, C.J.

1. Based on the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission, the rules relating to the promotion of Assistant Directors of Town Planning were amended by virtue of the power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. This was done in G.O.Ms.No.170, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 5.3.1984. In effect and substance, the amendment is as under:

3. A. Ratio of Appointment: Appointment to the post by recruitment by transfer shall be made from among the holders of the post of Architectural - Cum - planning Assistant/Supervisor in the ratio of 3:1 between Degree and Diploma holders. Out of every .unit of four vacancies, the first three vacancies shall be filed from among the holders of prescribed degree qualification and the remaining vacancy from among the holders of the prescribed post Diploma or Diploma qualification. If persons with the prescribed degree qualification as on the 1st September of the year for which the panel is prepared are not available, such vacancies are to be filled from among the holders of the Post Diploma Qualifications.

2. It was this rule which was successfully challenged before our learned brother Nainar Sundaram, J., who mainly relying on State of J. & K. v. T.N. Khosa A.I.R. 1974 S.C.I and Mohd. Shujat Ali v. Union of India came to the conclusion that when both the Diploma holder and Degree holders constituted the feeder category, there cannot be any prescription of ratio of 3:1 concerning promotion. Accordingly, he set aside the prescription of ratio of 3:1 as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is as against this, the present writ appeals have been preferred by the affected parties as well as the state.,

3. What is urged on behalf of the appellants is that the scope of the Rule has been misconstrued by the learned single judge; this is not a case of Diploma holders being denied any opportunity for promotion, but having regard to the superiority of educational qualifications in that the Degree-holders are better than the Diploma holders, notwithstanding the fact that both of them constituted the feeder category, there could be a discrimination under the Rule. In support of the same, reliance is placed on the decision in Roop Chand v. Delhi Development Authority.

4. In opposition to this, the learned Counsel for the respondents in the respective case stated that once Degree holders and Diploma holders have been absorbed into one category as a feeder category for the purpose of promotion, a further discrimination would amount to hostile discrimination, violative of Article 14; this has been precisely laid down in State of J & K v. T.M. Khosa and Mohd 'Shujet Ali v. University India ; and, therefore, no interference is called for.

5. We have given our careful consideration to the above arguments. It cannot be denied that both the Diploma holders and Degree holders do constitute the feeder category. However, to say that there cannot be a prescription of ratio based on educational qualifications, to our mind appears to be not correct. The very rulings in State of J & K v. T.M. Khosa and Mohad Shujel Ali v. University India came to be considered in the decision in Roop Chad v. Delhi Development Authority . Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held as follows at page 314 of the said decision:

"..." 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'.

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 diplomas holders does not violate