Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 13
PETITIONER:
R.S.E.B.ACCOUNTANTS ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/02/1997
BENCH:
S.C.AGRAWAL, G.B. PATTANAIK
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
J U D G E M E N T
S.C AGRAWAL, J.
The question that falls for consideration in this
appeal is whether Entry 19 of the Schedule to the Rajasthan
State Electricity Board Officers [Recruitment, Promotion &
Seniority] Regulations, 1974(hereinafter referred to as ’The
1974 Regulations’) is violative of the provisions of the
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, The said entry
relates to promotion to the post of Asst. Accounts
Officer/Asst. Audit officer/Asst.Revenue Officer in the
Rajasthan State Electricity Board (hereinafter to as ’the
Board’). It prescribes that 75% of the vacancies shall be
filled by promotion on merit basis from Accountants with at
least 7 years service as Accountant and 25% of the vacancies
shall be filled by promotion on merit basis out of the
Accountants possessing an Intermediate of Cost & Works from
the Institute of Cost & Works Accountants, Calcutta with
five years experience as Accountant in the Board or a
graduate holding diploma in Cost & Works from a university
established by law in India with five years as Accountant in
the Board.
The 1974 Regulations came into force on October
30,11974. Prior to the making of the 1974 Regulations,
appointment on the post of Asst. Accounts officer was
regulated by the Rajasthan Subordinate Accounts Service
Rules, 1963 which had been made applicable to the Board.
Under the said Rules Accountants with five years experience
as Accountants were eligible for promotion to the post of
Asst. Accounts officer. The next post higher to the post of
Assistant Accounts officer is that of Accounts officer and
under Entry 16 of the schedule to the 1974 Regulations,
appointment to the said post is by direct recruitment as
well as by promotion from amongst Assistant Accounts
officers.
Appointment to the post of Accountant is governed by
the RSEB Ministerial Staff Regulations, 1962 ( hereinafter
referred ratio, through (i) departmental competitive
examination, (ii) promotion of Junior Accountants and Upper
Division Clerks and above, and (iii) direct recruitment
[Regulation 6(1)(xii)]. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut karmachari
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 13
Federation, a registered body of the staff employed with the
Board filed a Writ Petition [D.B.Writ Petition No.5720 of
1990] where Entry 19 the Schedule to the 1974 Regulations
was assailed on the ground that it is violative of Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution. The said Writ Petition was
dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court by judgment
dated January 3,1991. Thereafter another Writ Petition [D.B.
Civil Writ Petition No.338/91] was filed by the RSEB
Accountants Association, appellant herein. The said Writ
Petition came up for consideration before another Division
Bench of the High Court and the learned judges were not in
agreement with the view taken earlier in the case of
Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Karmachari Federation [supra] as
regards the validity of Entry 19 of the Schedule to the 1974
Regulations and by order dated February 21, 1991, the
following question was referred for consideration by a Full
Bench:
" Whether in the schedule to the
Rajasthan State Electricity Board
officers (Recruitment, Promotion
and Seniority) Regulations, 1974
under Entry No. 19 providing quota
of 25% for promotion of Accountants
holding the qualification of
Intermediate with ICWA or Graduate
with DCWA is valid and is not
violative of Art. 14 and 16 of the
Constitution?"
By judgment dated June 30,1995, the Full Bench answered
the said question in the affirmative and held that Entry No.
19 of the 1974 Regulations is not violative of Articles 14
and 16 of the constitution. The matter was thereafter again
placed before a Division Bench of the High Court and in view
of the judgment of the Full Bench, the writ Petition filed
by the appellant was dismissed by order dated August 3,
1995. Hence this appeal.
Dr. A.M.Singhvi, the learned senior counsel appearing
for the Board, has raised an objection that the Writ
Petition filed by the appellant was not maintainable and it
was barred by the principle of res judicata. The submission
is that members of the appellant Association were also
members of the Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Karmachari Federation
which had filed D.B. Writ Petition No. 5720/90 and that the
order dated January 3, 1991 on the said Writ Petition
operates res judicata and a fresh Writ Petition raising the
same question regarding the validity of Entry 19 of the
Schedule to the 1974 Regulations could not be filed. On
behalf of the appellant, it is , however, stated that the
appellant is a separate Association and that none of the
members of the appellant was a member of the Rajasthan Rajya
Vidyut Karmachari Federation which had filed the earlier
Writ Petition and the members of the appellant are not bound
by the earlier judgment and ar not precluded from agitating
the question as to the validity of Entry 19 of the Schedule
to the 1974 Regulations. Since there is a dispute on facts
as to whether any of the members of the appellant
Association was member of the Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut
Karmachari Federation , we do not propose to go into the
objection regarding the maintainability of the Writ Petition
filed by the appellant and will deal with the matter on
merits.
Entry 19 of the Schedule to the 1974 Regulations
provides as follows;
------------------------------------------------------------
S.No Category Method of Qualification
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 13
recruitment
with % age
------------------------------------------------------------
19. Asst.Accounts 100% by 1. 75% by promotion
Officer/Asst. selection on merit basis
Audit Officer/Asst. from the Accountant
Revenue Officer at least 7 years
service as
Accountant in
Rajasthan State
Board.
2. 25% by
promotion on merit
basis out of
Accountants
possessing
qualification/
experience as given
below:
(a) An Intermediate
of Cost & Works,
Calcutta with 5
years experience as
Accountant in RSEB.
OR
A Graduate holding
diploma in Cost &
Works from a
University
established by law
in India with 5
years experience as
Accountant in RSEB.
NOTE: In the event
of non availability,
the vacancies may be
filled in by the
Accountants under
No. (1) and (2)
above and vice-
versa.
-----------------------------------------------------------"
Shri Rajinder Sachher, the learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellant, has urged that in Column(4) of
Entry 19 of the Schedule to the 1974 Regulations a
distinction has been made between Accountants on the basis
of the qualifications possessed by them inasmuch as an
Accountant who is an Intermediate of Cost & Works from the
Institute of Cost & Works , Calcutta or is a Graduate
holding diploma in Cost & Works from a University
established by law in India is eligible for promotion as
Asst. Accounts Officer/Asst. Audit Officer/Asst. Revenue
Officer in the Board if he has five years experience as
Accountant in the Board while Accountants who do not possess
these qualification become eligible for promotion only after
seven years service as Accountant in the Board. It has also
been submitted that reservation of 25% of vacancies for
Accountants possessing the qualifications referred to above
results in hostile discrimination against Accountants who do
not possess those qualifications. In this context, the
learned counsel has pointed out that all the Accountants in
the Board, irrespective of their qualifications, are
discharging the same functions and are similarly situate and
that Entry 19 of the schedule to the 1974 Regulations in so
far as it makes a distinction in the matter of eligibility
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 13
on the basis of qualification and prescribing a quota of 25%
posts for Accountants possessing the prescribed
qualifications is violative of the right to equality
guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution. The
learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions of this
Court in Mohammad Shujat Ali & Ors. etc vs Union of India &
Ors. etc. 1975 (1) SCR 449 ; Punjab State Electricity Board
Patiala & Anr. vs. Ravinder Kumar Sharma & Ors., 1986(4) SCC
617, and N, Abdul Basheer & Ors. etc . vs K.K.Karunakaran &
Ors.,1989 (3) SCR 201.
On behalf of the Board, it has been submitted by Dr.
Singhvi that for the purpose of promotion it is permissible
to make a classification on the basis of qualifications and
that the provisions contained in Entry 19 of the Schedule to
the 1974 Regulations prescribing lesser experience of five
years service as Accountant in respect of Accountants
possessing higher qualifications and higher experience of
seven years service for the purpose of eligibility for
promotion in respect of Accountants who do not possess such
qualifications and prescribing a quota of 25% for
Accountants possessing those qualifications do not offend
the ’right to equality’ guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16
of the Constitution. Reliance has been placed on the
decisions of this court in State of Jammu & Kashmir vs.
Triloki Nath Khosa & Ors., 1974 (1) SCR 771; Roop Chand
Adlakha & Ors. vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors., 1988
Supp.(3) SCR 253; Shamkant Narayan Deshpande vs. Maharashtra
Industrial Development Corporation & Anr., 1993 Supp. (2)
SCC 194; P. Murugesan & Ors. vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
1993 (2) SCC 340; Nageshwar Prasad & Ors. Vs. Union of India
& ors., 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 718, and T.R.Kothandaraman &
Ors.vs. Tamil Nadu Water Supply & Drainage Board & Ors.,
1994 (6) SCC 282.
As per the decisions of this Court the position is well
settled that educational qualifications can be made the
basis for classification of employees in State service in
the matter of pay scale to employees possessing higher
qualifications have been upheld as valid by this Court.
[See; State of Mysore & Anr. vs. P. Narasing Rao, 1968 (1)
SCR 407 , and V.Markendeya & Ors. vs State of Andhra Pradesh
& Ors. 1989 (3) SCC 191). Similarly in the matter of
promotion classification on the basis of educational
qualifications so as to deny eligibility for promotion to a
higher post to an employee possessing lesser qualification
or require longer experience for those possessing lesser
qualifications has been upheld as valid by this Court.
In Triloki Nath Khosa [supra], this Court has upheld
the provisions of the Jammu & Kashmir Engineering (
Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1970 Whereby
eligibility for promotion to the post of Executive Engineers
was confined to Assistant Engineers who possessed a degree
in Engineering and Assistant Engineers, who were diploma
holders, were ineligible for such promotion. The said
provision was upheld on the ground that it was made with a
view to achieving administrative efficiency in the
engineering service. On behalf of the diplomaholder
Assistant Engineers it was urged that degreeholders (direct
recruits) and diplomaholders (promotees), having been
appointed as Assistant Engineers on equal terms they
constitute an integrated class and for purposes of promotion
they cannot be classified on the basis of educational
qualifications. Rajecting the said contention it was held
that 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 13
Engineers, be classified on the basis of educational
qualifications.
In Roop Chand Adlakha [supra] under the relevant rules
Junior Engineers were eligible for promotion to the post of
Assistant Engineers. Amongst Junior Engineers there were
graduates in Engineering as well as diplomaholders. 50% of
the posts of Assistant Engineers were required to be filled
by promotion and 50% by direct recruitment. Out of the 50%
posts required to be filled by promotion, half (25%) were to
be filled from amongst degreeholder Junior Engineers having
three years service experience and the other half from
amongst diplomaholder Junior Engineers having eight years
service experience. Similarly for promotion to the post of
Executive Engineer a degreeholder Assistant Engineer was
eligible for promotion after eight years service experience
as Assistant Engineer while a diplomaholder Assistant
Engineer was so eligible after 10 years service as Assistant
Engineer was so eligible after 10 years service as Assistant
Engineer. Upholding the validity of the said provisions this
Court has held;
"The inherent distinction between a
person with a Degree and one who is
merely Diploma Holder is much too
obvious. in the context such as
the present one, is whether the
differences have reasonable
relation to the nature of the
office to which the promotion is
contemplated. The idea of equality
in the matter of promotion can be
predicated only when the candidates
for promotion are drawn from the
same source. If the differences in
the qualification has a reasonable
relation to the nature of duties
and responsibilities, that go with
and are attendant upon the
promotional post, the more
advantageous treatment of those who
possess higher technical
qualifications can be legitimised
on the doctrine of classification.
There may. conceivably, be cases
where the differences in the
educational qualifications may not
be sufficient to give any
preferential treatment to one class
of candidates as against another .
Whether the classification is
reasonable or not must, therefore,
necessarily depend upon facts of
each case and the circumstances
obtaining at the relevant time.
When the state makes a
classification between two sources,
unless the vice of the
classification is writ large on the
face of it, the person assailing
the classification must show that
it is unreasonable and violative of
Articles 14."
[p.263]
It was further observed;
"If Diploma-Holders- of course on
the justification of the job -
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 13
requirements and in the interest of
maintaining a certain quality of
technical expertise in the cadre-
could validly be excluded from the
eligibility for promotion to the
higher cadre, it does not
necessarily follow an inevitable
corollary that the choice of the
recruitment policy is limited only
to two choices, namely, either to
consider them " eligible" or "not
eligible". State., consistent with
the requirements of the promotional
posts and in the interest of the
efficiency of the service, is not
precluded from conferring
eligibility on Diploma-Holders
conditioning it by other
requirements which may, as here,
include certain quantum of service
experience. In the present case,
eligibility determination was made
by a cumulative criterion of a
certain educational qualification
plus a particular quantum of
service experience. It cannot, in
our opinion, be said, as postulated
by the High Court, that the choice
of the State was either to
recognise Diploma-Holders as
"eligible" for promotion or wholly
exclude them as "not-eligible". If
the educational qualification by
itself was recognised as conferring
eligibility for promotion, then,
the super- imposition op further
conditions such as a particular
period of service, selectively, on
the Diploma Holders alone to their
disadvantage might become
discriminatory. This does not
prevent the state from formulating
a policy which prescribes as an
essential part to the conditions
for the very eligibility that the
candidate must have a particular
qualification plus a stipulated
quantum of service experience."
[pp.268-269]
In Shamkant Narayan Deshpande [supra] promotion of
Executive Engineers to the post of Superintending Engineer
was on the basis of a quota whereunder 75% posts were
reserved for degreeholders and 25% posts for diplomaholders.
It was contended that no classification could be made among
Executive Engineers on the basis of their educational
qualifications for the purpose of promotion to the post of
Superintending engineer since they belong to the same cadre
of Executive Engineers and do the same work and a common
seniority list was being maintained. The said contention
was, however, rejected on the basis of the decision in
Triloki Nath Khosa [supra].
P. Murugesan vs. state of Tamil Nadu [supra] related to
promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer.
Diplomaholders [Junior Engineers] as well as degreeholders
[Assistant Engineers] were eligible for such promotion. For
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 13
diplomaholders to become eligible for promotion 10 years
service was required and for degree-holders the period of
service required was five years. The promotion was to be
made in the ratio 3:1 for degree holders and diploma
holders. The said provisions were upheld. It was contended
that since a longer qualifying period of service was
prescribed for diploma holders they had been equated with
degreeholders and thereafter no distinction could be made
between them by prescribing the quota amongst the two
categories for the purpose of promotion. Rejecting the said
contention it was observed that if the distinction in the
matter of longer qualifying period of service is not
discrimination it was difficult to see how and why another
distinction in the matter of quota rule was discriminatory.
It was stated:
"Suppose, if these two
requirements(i,e., longer
qualifying service and quota rule )
had been introduced at the same
time, there could have been no room
for the present argument. The rule
would have been good. how does it
become bad, if they are introduced
at different times? Both relate to
their eligibility and chances of
promotion."
[p.354]
In Nageshwar Prasad vs Union of India [supra] There was
a quota of 50:50 for promotion to the post of Assistant
Engineer and different periods of service experience were
prescribed for diploma holders and degree holders. The
central Administrative Tribunal, while upholding the
difference in the experience criteria, had struck down the
quota rule whereunder promotion of diplomaholders was
limited to 50%. The said decision of the Tribunal was
reversed by this Court on the view that the decision was
clearly inconsistent with the ratio of the decisions of this
Court in Roop Chand Adlakha [supra] and P.Murugesan vs.
State of Tamil Nadu [supra]. It was observed:
"The prescription of the quota rule
is obviously to ensure that in the
immediate promotion cadre there is
a fair mix of both degree-holders
and diploma-holders because the
vertical movement from that stage
and upwards in the hierarchy is
restricted to degree-holders and if
they are not available in
sufficient number in the feeding
channel the said channel would be
virtually dry and sufficient number
of degree-holders would not be
available for promotion to the next
higher cadre. The efficacy of
diploma-holders has been recognised
up to a particular stage in the
hierarchy and thereafter it is
realised that for manning higher
posts a degree in Engineering is a
must. We, therefore, do not see how
prescription of the 50 per cent
quota is in any manner arbitrary."
[p. 721]
In T.R. Kothandaraman vs. Tamil Nadu Water Supply &
Drainage Board [supra], this Court has upheld the proviso to
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 13
Regulation 19(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and
Drainage Board Service Regulations, 1972 which permitted
diploma-holder Assistant Engineers to become eligible for
the promotion to the post of Executive Engineer only if they
were to have exceptional merit in work and otherwise the
diploma-holder was not eligible for such promotion. The said
provision was upheld as valid in view of the law laid down
in Triloki Nath Khosa [supra]. In the said case the Court
has also upheld the provisions of Rule 2(b) of Special Rules
for Tamil Nadu Agricultural Engineering Service which
prescribed the ratio of 3.2 for degree holder Assistant
Engineers and diploma holder Assistant Engineers for
promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. It was held
that higher educational qualification has relevance insofar
as the holding of the higher promotional post is concerned
in view of the nature of the functions and duties attached
to that post and that the classification and nexus with the
object to be achieved. It was observed that the reference
given to the degree holders would give fillip to the desire
to receive higher education.
Reference may now be made to the decisions on which
reliance has been placed by Shri Sachher. In Shujat Ali
[supra] in the matter of promotion of Supervisors as
Assistant Engineers preferential treatment was given to
graduate Supervisors over non-graduate Supervisors.
Initially two out of every three vacancies, ( and after the
amendment, three out of every three vacancies) in post of
Assistant Engineer were reserved for promotion of graduate
Supervisors. The said preferential treatment of graduate
Supervisors was assailed on the ground that it was
unreasonable and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the
Constitution. The said provision was upheld by this Court
for the reason that the differentiation between the
graduate and non-graduate Supervisors had always been there
in the Engineering Service in the erstwhile Hyderabad State
as well as in Andhara Pradesh State and that graduate
Supervisors had always treated as a distinct and separate
class from non-graduate Supervisors and that they had never
been integrated into one class. The Court has, however,
dealt with the question whether such a preferential
treatment on the basis of educational qualification would be
in consonance with the ’right to equally’ guaranteed under
Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It has been observed
as forming a educational qualification, but it cannot be
laid down as an invariable rule that whenever any
classification is made on the basis of variant educational
qualifications, such classification must be held to be valid
irrespective of the nature and purpose of the classification
or the quality and extent of the difference in the
educational qualifications and that the test of reasonable
classification has to be applied in such case on its
peculiar facts and circumstances. Referring to the decision
in Triloki Nath Khosa [supra], it was said :
"It may be perfectly legitimate for
the administration to say that
having regard to the nature of the
functions and duties attached to
the post, for the purpose of
achieving efficiency in public
service, only degree holders in
engineering shall be eligible for
promotion and not diploma or
certificate holders .........But
where graduates and non-graduates
are both regarded as fit and,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 13
therefore, eligible for promotion,
it is difficult to see how,
consistently with the claim for
equal opportunity, any
differentiation can be made between
them by laying down a quota of
promotion for each and giving
preferential treatment to graduates
over non-graduates in the matter of
fixation of such quota. The result
of fixation of quota of promotion
for each of the two categories of
Supervisors would be that when a
vacancy arises in the post of
Assistant Engineer, which according
to the quota is reserved for
graduate Supervisors, a non-
graduate Supervisor cannot be
promoted to that vacancy, even if
he is senior to all other graduate
Supervisors and more suitable than
they. His opportunity for promotion
would be limited only Supervisors.
That would clearly amount to denial
of equal opportunity to him."
[p.480]
Shri Sachher has placed strong reliance on the
abovequoted observations in Mohammad Shujat Ali [supra].
These observations have, however, to be read in the context
of the facts of that case where graduate as well as non-
graduate Supervisors were both equally eligible for
promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. This is evident
from the question which was posed by the Court in the
following words :
"I am senior to the graduate
Supervisor who is intended to be
promoted. I am more suitable than
he is. It is no doubt true that I
am a non-graduate, but my not being
a graduate has not been branded as
a disqualification. I am regarded
fit for promotion and, like the
graduate Supervisor, I am equally
eligible for being promoted. My
technical equipment supplemented by
experience is considered adequate
for discharging the functions of
Assistant Engineer. Then why am I
being denied the opportunity for
promotion and the graduate
Supervisor is preferred ?"
[emphasis supplied]
[p.480]
While saying that "there can be no satisfactory answer
to this question" the Court has proceeded to hold:
"It is of the essence of equal
opportunity for such persons with
humble and depressing backgrounds
that they should have opportunity,
through experience or self-study,
to level up with their more
fortunate colleagues who, by reason
of favourable circumstances, could
obtain the benefits of higher
education, and if they prove
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 13
themselves fit and more suitable
than others, why should they be
denied an opportunity to be
promoted in a vacancy on the ground
that vacancy belongs to Supervisors
possessing higher educational
qualifications."[p.480]
The decision in Mohammad Shujat Ali [supra] thus gives
recognition to the principle that difference in educational
qualifications can be made up by longer experience. This
principle was given effect to in the various provisions
which came up for consideration before this Court in the
cases referred to earlier wherein longer experience was
prescribed for employees possessing lesser qualification for
the purpose of promotion to higher post and such provisions
were upheld as valid.
In Roop Chand Adlakha [supra] this Court has taken note
of the observation in Mohammad Shujat Ali [supra] on which
the reliance has been placed by Shri Sachher and has
observed :
"Shujat Ali’s case itself
recognised the permissibility and
validity of such classification if
the nature of the functions and
duties attached to the promotional-
post are such as to justify the
clarification in the interest of
efficiecny in public service; but,
where both graduates and non-
graduates were regarded as equally
fit and eligible for promotion, the
denial of promotion to a person
otherwise eligible and due for
promotion on the basis of a quota
was not justified,
................In Shujat Ali’s
case the infirmity of the
differential treatment stemmed from
the fundamental basis that, at that
point, both Graduates and Diploma-
holders were equally but the Rule
operated to deny promotion to a
Diploma-holder on the basis of a
quota. The observations in that
case pertained to a stage which
arose after the equality of
eligibility for promotion between
the two classes of persons had been
recognised."
[pp.265-266]
Again in P. Murugesan vs. State of Tamil Nadu [supra]
this Court has taken note of the observations in Mohammad
Shujat Ali [supra] and has observed that the said
observations cannot be read in isolation nor can they be
read as running counter to the ratio of Triloki Nath Khosa
[supra].
In Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala & Anr. Vs.
Ravinder Kumar Sharma [supra] [decided by a Two-Judge Bench]
diploma-holder linemen as well as non-diploma-holder linemen
were both eligible for promotion to the post of Line
Superintendent and a quota of 33% was fixed for diploma-
holder linemen and 33% was fixed for non-diploma-holder
linemen. In respect of diploma-holder linemen it was
prescribed that they should have worked as linemen for
three years continuously and immediately before promotion
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 13
while non-diploma-holder linemen who had passed 1.1/2 years
course in the Electrical Trades of
Electrician/Lineman/Wireman from recognised Industrial
Training Institutes were required to have worked for four
years as lineman continuously and immediately before
promotion. The Validity of the fixation of quota in the
matter of promotion of diplomaholder and non-diploma-holder
linemen to the post of Line Superintendent was held to be
violative of the equality clause contained in Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution on ground that Linemen, either
diploma-holders of non-diploma-holders, were performing the
same kind of work and duties and they belong to the same
cadre having a common/joint seniority list for promotion to
the post of Line Superintendent and reliance was placed on
the observations in Mohammad Shujat Ali [supra] on which
reliance has been placed by Shri Sachher. No reference was
made to Triloki Nath Khosa [supra]. In P. Murugesan vs.
State of Tamil Nadu [supra]. [decided by a Three-Judge
Bench] while referring to the said decision in Ravinder
kumar Sharma [supra]. It has been observed:
"It is evident that non-
consideration of T.N.Khosa and
other decisions relevant under the
subject has led to the laying down
of a proposition which seems to run
counter to T.N.Khosa. With great
respect to the learned judges who
decided that case, we are unable to
accept the broad proposition
flowing form the case."
[p.353]
In N. Abdul Basheer vs. K.K.Karunakaran [supra]
graduate as well as non-graduate Excise Preventive officers
were eligible for promotion to the post of Second Grade
Excise Inspectors. Earlier such promotions to the post of
Second Grade Excise Inspectors. Earlier such promotions
were to be to be made in the ration of 3:1 between
graduates and non-graduates which ration was subsequently
reversed to 1:3. The fixation of the said ration in the
matter of promotion of graduates and non-graduate Excise
Preventive officers was held by this Court to be violative
of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Taking note of the history of evolution of the Kerala Excise
and Prohibition Subordinate Service it was observed that a
consistent or coherent policy in favour of graduates was
absent and that originally more emphasis was laid on the
induction of graduates and the ration of graduate and non-
graduates were inducted in the Service, The Court rejected
the contention that the ration of 3:1 but subsequently the
ration was changed inversly to 1:3 and more non-graduates
were inducted in the Service. The Court rejected the
contention that the ratio of 3:1 between graduates and non-
graduation is recognition of merit and that more merit in
the post of Excise Inspectors would be conducive to better
administrative efficiency on the view that the conditions of
employment and the incident of service recognise no
distinction between graduate and non-graduate officers and
that for all material purposes they are effectively treated
as equivalent. The said decision has, therefore to be
considered in the light of its facts, It falls within the
principle laid down in Mohammad Shujat Ali [supra] since
graduates and non-graduates were both equally eligible for
promotion to the higher post.
The decision in Mohammad Shujat Ali [supra] and the
subsequent decisions in Ravinder Kumar sharama [supra] and
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 13
Abdul Basheer [supra] do not, therefore, detract form the
law laid down in Triloki Nath Khosa [supra], Roop Chand
Adlakha [supra], P. Murugesan vs. State of Tamil Nadu
[supra], Shamkant Narayan Deshpande [supra], Nageshwar
Prasad [supra] and T.R. Kothandaraman [supra], where in
provisions prescribing higher experience on the basis of
difference in educational qualifications for eligibility for
promotion and prescribing a quota based on qualifications in
the matter of promotion to higher post have been uphled.
Entry 19 of the Schedule to the 1974 Regulations in so
far as it prescribes longer service of seven years for
Accountants who do not possess the additional qualifications
of an Intermediate of Cost & Works from the Institute of
Cost & Works Accountants of India ora Graduate holding a
diploma in Cost & Works from a University established by law
in India is in consonance with the decision in Roop Chand
Adlakha [supra], and the said entry in so far it prescribes
a quota of 25% of vacancies in the higher posts of Asst.
Accounts Officers/Asst. Audit Officer/Asst. Revenue
Officers for the purpose of promotion is in consonance with
the decisions in Shamkant narayan Deshpande [supra],
P.Murugesan, Nageshwar Prasad [supra] and T.R. Kothandaraman
[supra].
It has, however, been submitted that the said
classification of the Accountants on the basis of
qualification of the Accountants on the basis of
qualifications has no nexus with the object sought to be
achieved by the Regulations which is to secure efficiency in
the Service. It has been pointed out that as per the
qualification prescribed for appointment on the higher post
of Accounts Officer under Entry 16 of the Schedule to the
1974 Regulations it is not necessary that a person should
possess a Diploma in Cost & Works or should be a Cost &
Works Accountant of the Institute of cost & Works
Accountants of India and that a person having Master’s
degree in Arts or Science or Commerce from a University
established by law in India with at least 55% marks in the
degree as well as Master Degree examination is eligible for
appointment as Accountants Officers by the Direct
recruitment. On behalf of the Board it has however, been
pointed out that in the Board there are sub-divisional
Accountant/Internal Auditor/Accountant and that though all
the three categories of Accountants are in a common cadre
but the Board is having water Light compartment meaning
thereby an accountant working in Revenue Section continue to
work in Revenue Section and an Accountant posted in Audit
Section will continue there and that when they are assigned
similar type of duties which they can discharge but a person
who is holding ICWA or DCWA qualifications can be assigned
any of the duties , whether it relates to Audit Section or
budget preparation or account compilation and that the
Services of an Assistant Accounts Officer possessing higher
qualifications can be better utilised in various projects
taken up by the Board from time to time. It has also been
pointed out that till July 31,1972, 25% Accountants in the
Board were appointed from amongst persons having ICWA or
DCWA qualification and that since October 30, 1974 in the
matter of direct recruitment on the post of Accountant
weightage is given to persons possessing the qualification
of DCWA. It has also been submitted that on April 22,1966
the Board decided that to give filip to all Working
personnel in the Board to study and equip themselves and
persons qualifying the Intermediate examination of the
Institute of Cost & Works Accountants of India may be
offered the post of Assistant Accounts Officer and those
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 13
qualifying the final examination that of Accounts Officer in
the Board’s services and that the personnel of all levels
may be freely allowed and encouraged to study for and appear
in these examinations. With regard to the fixation of 25%
quota for Accountants possessing the additional
qualifications referred to above it has ben submitted that
one of the Unions Known as Prantiya Vidyut Majdoor
Federation had Submitted a charter of demand as far back as
on February 1,1971 where in one of the demands was that 25%
posts of the Assistant Accounts officer be filled from the
departmental graduates with Cost And Works Diploma.
As regards qualifications prescribed for appointment on
the post of Accounts Officer/Audit Officer /Revenue Officer
in Entry 16 of the Schedule to the 1974 Regulations we find
that in the matter of direct recruitment against 50% of the
post persons who were eligible for promotion are Chartered
Accountants (Member of the Institute of Chartered
Accountants of India); or Cost & Works Accountants of the
Institute of Cost & Works Accountants of India; or holders
of Cost & Works Diploma of any recognised University in
India with with five years experience in responsible
position in Accounts Department of Public or Private
Undertaking preferable Electricity Undertakings; or
Constitution. The contention urged by Shri Sachher is
accordingly rejected.
It was contended by Shri Sachher that the facility for
obtaining the ICWA/DCWA qualifications can be availed only
be these Accountants who are posted at Jaipur or Jodhpur and
the Same cannot be availed by Accountant posted in outlying
places. There is no merit in this contention because, as
pointed out on behalf of the Board, the Institute of Cost &
Works Accountants of India imparts postal and oral courses
and that in Rajasthan, Oral courses are available at Jaipur,
Kota, Udaipur and Jodhpur and that on the same guidelines
and almost the same syllabus the various Universities in
Rajasthan are conducting the DCWA course at jaipur, Ajmer,
Jodhpur, Bikaner, Laxmangarh and Ganganagar.
The apeal, therefore, fails and it is accordingly
dismissed. But in the Circumstances there is no order as to
costs.