Back
2000(8) Supreme 385
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Karnataka High Court)
G.B. Pattanaik & B.N. Agrawal, JJ.
K.R. Lakshman & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Karnataka Electricity Board & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 811-822 of 1998
Decided on 12-12-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : M. Rama Jois, Sr. Advocate, S.R. Bhat, Naveen R. Nath, Mrs. Lalit Mohini Bhat, Ms. Hetu Arora, Advocates.
For the Respondents : S.K. Kulkarni and Ms. Sangeeta Kumar, Advocates.
The concept of equality before law means that among equals the law should be equal and should be equally administered and that the likes should be treated alike. All that Article 14 guarantees is a similarity of treatment and not identical treatment. The guarantee of equal protection of law and equality before the law does not prohibit reasonable classification. Equality before law does not mean that things which are different shall be treated as though they were the same. The principle of equality does not absolutely prevent the State from making differentiation between the persons and things. The State has always the power to have a classification on a basis of rational distinctions relevant to the particular subject to be dealt with but such permissible classification must satisfy the two conditions namely the classification to be founded on intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped from others who are left out of the group and that the different must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the legislation. In other words, there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the legislation. So long as the classification is based on rational basis and so long as all persons falling in the same class are treated alike, there can be no question of violating the equality clause. If there is equality and uniformity within each group, the law cannot be condemned as discriminatory, though due to some fortuitous circumstances arising out of a peculiar situation, some included in the class get an advantage over others, so long as they are not singled out for special treatment. When a provision is challenged as violative of Article 14, it is necessary in the first place to ascertain the policy underlying the statute and the object intended to be achieved by it and having ascertained the policy and object of the Act, the Court has to apply a dual test namely whether the classification is rational and based upon an intelligible differentia which distinguished persons or things that are grouped together from others that are left out of the group and whether the basis of differentiation has any rational nexus or relation with its avowed policy and objects. The power to make classification can be exercised not only by the legislature but also by the Administrative Bodies acting under an Act. (Para 4)
When the validity of the amended Regulation, providing ratio for promotion between the technically qualified and technically unqualified persons in 1:1 is examined from the aforesaid stand point, we are unable to hold that the direct recruit technically qualified personnel had been treated with hostile discrimination. The feeder category for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer is the combined cadre of Operator - Overseer - Meter Reader - Assistant Store Keeper. To the aforesaid combined cadre, a direct recruitment is possible and those with ITI Certificate in Electrical or Telecommunication or electronic Trade, after passing of 10th standard could be recruited. Whereas in case of promotees, the qualification required is only study upto 10th standard and for them the entry point is Mechanic Grade II, from where they get promoted to the combined cadre, as noted above. For the technical post of Junior Engineer, which is the next higher post, the Regulation itself provided that 35% of the said posts could be filled up by promotion from the common cadre and the aforesaid provision for promotion from the common cadre had been made, after prescribing different quotas for direct recruitment of in service personnel having diploma qualification, promotion from the combined cadre who have diploma qualification and promotion of Mechanics with five years service. According to the Board, though the Regulation, initially provided for promotion to the extent of 35% in the cadre of Junior Engineer from the common cadre but it used to work out gross injustice to the technically unqualified promotees inasmuch as such technically unqualified operators could be considered for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer only after they have rendered more than 15 years of service. That apart the only promotional avenue available to such technically unqualified promotees is the 35% quota in the cadre of Junior Engineer and they could not aspire of any further promotion, whereas the qualified direct recruits could be promoted still further higher ups. The Board claimed that while fixing the ratio as 1:1, it took into account the qualification, the experience and the smooth functioning of the Board and for striking a balance between the qualification on the one hand and the experience on the other. Under the Regulation itself, both the technically qualified direct recruits and non-technical promotees were entitled to 35% quota in the cadre of Junior Engineer and the amendment of the year 1982 merely provided a ratio between them namely 1:1 and this amendment was brought about in the Regulation itself to ameliorate the stagnation of the unqualified promotees in the cadre. That apart, it is not correct to hold that there has been a complete fusion in the combined cadre inasmuch as the Regulation did provide for promotion at different percentage for in service personnel, possessing diploma qualification, then diploma holders from amongst the combined cadre namely Operator, Meter Reader, Overseers and Assistant Store Keepers and 5% by promotion of Mechanics with five years service. Thus, 60% of the posts in the cadre of Junior Engineers were meant to be filled up by different ratio from amongst the persons in the so-called combined cadre and 35% quota, which was available for promotion for such common cadre people was further bifurcated between qualified direct recruits, who are the appellants and technically unqualified promotees, who are the private respondents in the ratio 1:1. Such a classification, in our considered opinion, cannot be held to be discriminatory, if the object sought to be achieved, as indicated by the Board in its counter affidavit is looked into. By providing a ratio of 1:1 in the matter of promotion to the post of Junior Engineer between directly recruited technically qualified people and promotee technically not qualified people, there has been no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. (Para 5)
JUDGMENT
Pattanaik, J.-The Judgment of the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court, setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge is the subject matter of challenge in these appeals. The appellants are technically qualified direct recruits to the post of Operator/Overseer/Meter Reader/Assistant Store Keeper. The Karnataka Electricity Board Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, 1969 were amended on 3.2.1982, providing a ratio of 1:1 for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) between technically qualified (Direct Recruit) and technically not qualified (Promotees). The present appellants, assailed the aforesaid amendment by filing writ petitions, inter alia, on the ground that it is highly discriminatory and arbitrary and that there is no rational basis for providing a ratio between technically qualified and technically unqualified people for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer. The learned Single Judge accepted the contention of the appellants and allowed the writ petitions by judgment dated 12th of January, 1994. In arriving at its conclusion that providing ratio for promotion is discriminatory, the learned Single Judge relied upon the decisions of this Court in Mervyn Coutindo1, Roshan Lal Tandon2, Punjab State Electricity Board3, Mohammed Shujat Ali4, G.M.S.C. Rly. v. AVR Siddanti5, and N. Abdul Basheer6. The Board assailed the judgment of the learned Single Judge by preferring an appeal. The Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, set aside the judgement of the Single Judge and allowed the appeal, preferred by the Board, relying upon the decisions of this Court in P. Murugeshan v. State of Tamil Nadu7, and S.N. Deshpande v. Maharashtra I.D. Corporation8. It is this judgment of the Division Bench, which is the subject matter of these appeals.
2. Mr. M. Rama Jois, the learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellants, contended that providing a ratio for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer for the unqualified promotees, would not tantamount to a classification based on qualification, as in the case of Murugeshan, and as such the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court committed serious error in interfering with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. According to Mr. Rama Jois, the amendment to the regulation is nothing but an act of hostile discrimination against the qualified direct recruits inasmuch as there is no rationale behind providing such a ratio, which jeopardises the chances of promotion of the qualified people and consequently, the regulation is liable to be struck down, being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Mr. Rama Jois, further urged that the unqualified people, who are not ordinarily entitled to the promotion to the post of Junior Engineer, were being shown favouritism by providing a channel of promotion to them. But without any rational basis for providing a ratio and putting the unqualified people at more advantageous position, must be held to be discriminatory and the Division Bench of the High Court committed error in holding that in does not work out any discrimination.
3. The learned counsel, appearing for the respondents on the other hand contended that stagnation in any public service, not being in the interest of administration and taking into account the experience of the unqualified promotees, when the Rule making Authority, provided for a ratio for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer, the same cannot be struck down, as being violative of Article 14, unless it is positively shown that either it is mala fide or that it really works out any hostile discrimination between the two category of employees. According to the learned counsel, no doubt in the feeder category, the appellants had entered by direct recruitment, while respondents had entered by way of promotion, but the further promotion to the post of Junior Engineer is the maximum rank to which the unqualified promotee could ever aspire of, whereas qualified direct recruits can go stil
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
