Wa-I-Sa Sumer vs State of Meghalaya - 2023 Supreme(Megh) 50

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Megh) 50

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
H.S. THANGKHIEW, J.
Smti. Wa-I-Sa Sumer & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State of Meghalaya & Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No. 327 of 2020
Decided on : 08-02-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Philemon Nongbri, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. B. Bhattacharjee, Ms. Z. E. Nongkynrih, Mr. S. Sen, Adv.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Promotion in Meghalaya School Education Service - Writ petition challenging notification prescribing 75% promotion from Vice-Principal/Assistant Headmaster and 25% from Assistant Lecturers - Court found classification reasonable based on intelligible differentia and rational relation to object sought by rules - Impugned notification not in violation of constitutional rights. (Paras 3, 19, 21, 23)

(B) Judicial Scrutiny - Classification in service rules allowed under Article 14 if founded on reasonable grounds with rational relation to object of the law, ensuring no artificial inequalities. (Paras 20, 22)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, Assistant Lecturers competing for promotion to Junior Grade-II service, challenged the classification discriminating against them due to prescribed promotion quotas in favor of Vice-Principals, asserting it violated Articles 14 and 16.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the validity of the classification for promotions as reasonable, stating that the criteria reflected a distinction in roles and experience between the two categories.

Issues: Main issues pertained to the reasonableness and legality of the classification for promotions under the service rules.

Ratio Decidendi: Court reasoned that reasonable classification for practical functioning of service is not arbitrary; validity of rules governing promotions not challenged nor found unconstitutional.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. challenge to notification and classification based on service rules. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. petitioners argue classification violates constitutional provisions. (Para 4 , 5)
3. respondents defend classification based on service roles. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
4. court examines recruitment methods and separate cadres. (Para 9 , 10 , 12)
5. court's rationale on reasonable classification and rule validity. (Para 14 , 16 , 18 , 19)
6. cited judgments reinforce classification arguments. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)
7. final conclusion upholding classification and dismissal of petition. (Para 23 , 24)

JUDGMENT :

H.S. THANGKHIEW, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed for recall of impugned notification dated 11-12-2012 whereby under the Meghalaya School Education Service Rules , 2012, the State-respondents have prescribed the proportion for filling up of vacancies under Junior Grade-II service from amongst the categories of Vice-Principal/Assistant Headmaster/Assistant DAEOs at 75 per cent and from Assistant Lecturer at 25 per cent.

2. The writ petitioners herein, are all direct recruits to the post of Assistant Lecturer and their services are governed by the Meghalaya School Service Rules , 2012. Under these Rules the service comprises of ‘Senior School Service’ and ‘Junior School Service’. For the purposes of this case what is relevant, is the Senior School Service, which comprises of Grade-I and Grade-II. The petitioners belong to Senior Grade-I category along with the Vice-Principal/Assistant Headmaster etc. and having served for a number of years are eligible for promotion to the next higher post in Junior Grade-II under the Meghalaya School Education Service Rules , 2012.

3. The writ petitioners’ main grievance is with the classification of the Senior Grade-I into two groups for the purposes of appointment/promotion, and by the prescription of percentage or quota, of persons to be promoted from amongst these two categories which they contend is violative of Articles and 16 of the Constitution of India.

4. Mr. Philemon Nongbri, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners (Assistant Lecturers) fall under the same cadre as Vice-Principal/Assistant Headmaster/Headmistress etc. in the Grade-I service as provided under Rule-4 of the Meghalaya School Service Rules , 2012 and, as such, form a single class. He further submits that the source of entry into the cadre is irrelevant and that seniority is always based on the date of entry into a cadre, and by this estimate the petitioners are senior to the private-respondents in service. The action of the State-respondents, he contends, in issuing the impugned notification creating two categories of posts, by classifying the Vice-Principal/Assistant Headmaster/Headmistress repeatedly and providing 75 percent reservation in promotion for them, and the remaining 25 percent for Assistant Lecturers is unsustainable in law and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

5. The learned Counsel submits that this classification of reservation of percent for Vice-Principal/ Assistant Headmaster/Headmistress, as opposed to 25 percent for Assistant Lecturers, is totally unreasonable, inasmuch as, the State-respondents have taken into account all the other grades i.e. Grade-I and Grade-II, in computing the strength of service of the Vice-Principal/Assistant Headmaster/Headmistress etc., instead of considering only the actual strength of Grade-I who are in service. He further submits that the strength of Assistant Lecturers in Grade-I service as on 2012, was 147 whereas, the strength of Vice-Principal/Assistant Headmaster/Headmistress etc., in Grade-I service was 28. In this scenario, he contends the provision for reservation by the impugned notification is disproportionate, unreasonable and has resulted in the deprivation of the petitioners from being considered for promotion inspite of having served long years.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his arguments has pl