Tepunol Yore And 3 Ors. vs The State Of Nagaland And 5 Ors.
- Court
- Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/27
GAHC010070292023
2026:GAU-AS:13600-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1790/2023
TEPUNOL YORE AND 3 ORS.
DISTRICT PROJECT OFFICER, DIST.- CHUMUKEDIMA, NAGALAND.
2: I. ACATO CHISHI
DISTRICT PROJECT OFFICER
DIST.- NIULAND
NAGALAND.
3: ALEMLA AIER
DISTRICT PROJECT OFFICER
DIST. PEREN
NAGALAND.
4: P. LIPICHEM SANGTAM
ASSISTANT PROJECT OFFICER
DIST. KIPHIRE
NAGALAND
VERSUS
THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 5 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF
NAGALAND, KOHIMA, NAGALAND.
2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY / SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF LAND RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND
KOHIMA
NAGALAND.
3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY / SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
Page No.# 2/27
GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND
KOHIMA
NAGALAND.
4:THE DIRECTOR
DIRECTOR OF LAND RESOURCES
GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND
KOHIMA
NAGALAND.
5:R. IMTISUNGKUM
DEPUTY DIRECTOR
DIRECTORATE OF LAND RESOURCES
GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND
KOHIMA
NAGALAND.
6:BIREN CHETTRI
DISTRICT PROJECT OFFICER
DISTRICT- MON
NAGALAND
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A ZHIMOMI, MR B PRASAD,MR P J BORAH,MR D K
MISHRA
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, NAGALAND, MR S BORGOHAIN (R- 6),MR. K N
CHOUDHURY ,N GAUTAM (r-2,4),MS N MAHANTA (r-2,4),MR. D J DAS (r-2,4)
BEFORE
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.K. Mishra, Senior Advocate (through
video-conferencing), assisted by Mr. B.
Prasad,
Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. K.N. Balgopal, Advocate General,
Nagaland, assisted by Ms. Nitya Nambiar,
Ms. L.A. Shishak, Mr. Y.B. Aggarwal and Ms.
K. Enatoli Sema, Advocates.
Page No.# 3/27
: Ms. T. Khro, Additional Advocate General, Nagaland
and Ms. M. Kechii, Additional Advocate General,
Nagaland.
: Mr. S. Borgohain, Advocate for respondent No.6.
Date on which Judgment is
Reserved : 28.08.2026
Date of pronouncement of
Judgment : 15.09.2026
Whether the pronouncement
is of the operative part of the
Judgment : NA.
Whether the full Judgment has
been pronounced : yes
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
(A.D.Choudhury, J)
1. By preferring the present writ petition, the petitioners, who are
members of the Extension Wing of the Nagaland Land Resources
Development Department, have challenged the constitutional
validity of the provisions of Schedule-II of the Nagaland Land
Resources Development (Services) Rules, 2008
(hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 2008), in relation to the
qualifications prescribed for the posts of Deputy Director, Joint
Director and Director.
The further challenge made is to the communications dated
09.03.2022 and 25.03.2022, whereby respondents No. 5 and 6
were sought to be promoted to the next higher grade under the
said Rules, 2008.
Page No.# 4/27
2. Before dealing with the respective arguments of the parties, let
us have a cursory glance at Schedule II of the Rules 2008.
It indicates that the Service has two Wings: the Technical Wing
and the Extension Wing.
Two wings have separate entry points, distinct qualification
requirements, and an independent promotional channel at lower
and middle levels, though they meet at the level of District
Project Officer/Project Officer.
The Rules 2008, however, prescribe a qualification-based system
of differentiation, particularly for higher posts above the level of
District Project Officer/Project Officer, starting at the Deputy
Director level. Such posts are reserved exclusively as promotional
posts for the District Project Officer/Project Officer in the feeder
cadre.
3. Therefore, the present challenge is posed by the Extension Wing
Officers who can't be considered for the next higher grade,
starting from Deputy Director, due to the lack of the required
educational qualifications prescribed under the Rule.
4. Mr. D. K. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners,
argues that the classification between the Technical Wing and the
Extension Wing ends at the grade of District Project
Officer/Project Officer, and at this grade, there is no distinction
between the said Wings and, therefore, having removed the
classification, the exclusion of the Extension Wing from
Page No.# 5/27
consideration based on qualification for further promotion is ex
facie arbitrary illegal and unconscionable in fact and in law.
5. It is urged that, having removed the classification in the feeder
grade, i.e., District Project Officer/Project Officer, the exclusion of
such employees in the Extension Wing for further promotion
suffers from a complete lack of rationale whatsoever.
6. It is argued that there is a complete omission of employees from
the Extension Wing from the promotional posts of Deputy
Director and above. Thus, Schedule-II of the Rules, 2008, insofar
as it relates to the qualification for promotion to the post of
Deputy Director and above, fails the test of constitutionality and
that The denial of consideration for promotion violates the
petitioners' rights under Part III of the Constitution of India,
particularly Articles 14 and 16.
7. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel contends that once both the
Technical Wing and Extension Wing converged at the level of
District Project Officer/Project Officer, they formed a
homogeneous class and any further exclusion based on
educational qualification amounts to hostile discrimination
violating the petitioners’ rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India.
8. It is further urged that past transfers between the two wings and
parity in their pay scales demonstrate functional
interchangeability, thereby rendering the classification artificial.
Page No.# 6/27
9. Referring to the earlier writ proceedings, i.e., WP(C) No. 02/2019
and WP(C) No. 40/2020, the learned Senior Counsel argued that
the aforesaid writ petitions were filed assailing the arbitrary
action of the State respondents. However, based on a tripartite
agreement entered into between the two associations
representing the two wings and the State, the said writ petitions
were withdrawn as a promise was made for amendment of the
Rules, 2008, creating promotional avenues for the extension
wing as well. However, when the respondents reneged from their
unequivocal promise, the present writ petition was filed.
10. In this context, it is argued that the respondents, in their
agreement and before this court in the earlier proceeding, have
candidly acknowledged the illegality of the Rules, 2008, and
therefore, the State is under a bounden duty to take appropriate
measures.
11. While summarising his arguments, Mr. Mishra, learned Senior
Counsel, contends:
I. The 2008 Rules are manifestly arbitrary as the posts
held by both the wings are not separate and distinct and have
never been kept apart; No posts of Assistant Inspector or APO
have been separately created or earmarked for the Technical or
the Extension Wing exclusively; Duties attached to the posts of
both the wings are identical with the same functions; and the
Posts held by both the wings carry the same scale of pay
reflected in Schedule I of the Rules.
Page No.# 7/27
II. The classification is not based on higher/lower
educational qualifications or between Degree and Diploma
holders but is based on the subject of graduation and post-
graduation; such classification is manifestly arbitrary and
discriminatory.
III. The posts of both wings are interchangeable, which
can be ascertained from the past history of interchangeable
transfers and parity in scales of pay; no post of Assistant
Inspector/Assistant Project Officer has been separately created or
earmarked for the Technical or Extension Wings exclusively,
inasmuch as the duties attached to the posts of both wings are
identical. On this point, the learned senior counsel relies on the
recommendation of the Cadre Review Committee and the
similarity in the scales of pay between the wings.
12. To buttress his arguments, the learned Senior Counsel places
reliance on S.M. Pandit and Ors. -Vs- The State of Gujarat
and Ors. reported in 1972 4 SCC 778, Vijay Kumar and Ors.
-vs- The State of Rajasthan and Ors reported in
MANU/RH/0600/215, Janhit Abhiyan Vs. Union of India
reported in (2023) 5 SCC 1, State of Gujarat Vs. Shri
Ambika Mills reported in (1974) 4 SCC 656 ., Makhan Lal
Malhotra and Ors. vs Union of India, reported in AIR 1961
SC 392, and Budhan Choudhry and Ors. vs. The State of
Bihar, reported in MANU/SC/0047/1954.
13. Per contra, Mr. K. N. Balgopal, learned Advocate General,
Nagaland, contends that the service is consciously structured into
Page No.# 8/27
two distinct streams with different qualifications and functions,
and the post of Deputy Director onwards requires technical
expertise.
14. It is argued that classification based on educational qualification
is well recognized in service law and has been settled by the
Supreme Court, in Chandan Banerjee Vs Krinshan Prasad
Ghosh, reported in 2021 SCC Online 1 SC 773.
The learned Advocate General also relies on State of Jammu
and Kashmir v. Shri Triloki Nath Khosa and others,
(1974) 1 SCC 19, Mohammad Shujat Ali Vs. Union of
India reported in (1975) 3 SC 76.
15. It is further argued that the executive, not a Writ Court, is the
best authority to determine the appropriate educational
qualifications for specific posts. A writ Court may not usurp
executive powers and direct the executive to exercise its rule-
making power in a definite manner.
16. The State further submits that occasional transfers or a similar
scale of pay do not obliterate the cadre-distinction and that no
right to promotion can be claimed dehors the rules.
17. As regards the agreements and concessions by the State in the
earlier writ proceeding, it is argued that there cannot be any
estoppel against a statute and therefore, no writ can be issued to
enforce the agreement in contravention of law, more particularly,
when such an agreement on behalf of the State was not
Page No.# 9/27
executed by any authorized and/or competent authority.
18. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused
the material available on record.
19. Before analysing to the merits of the rival contentions, it would
be apposite to briefly note the scheme of the Rules, 2008.
20. The Rules, 2008, constitute a complete code governing
recruitment and conditions of service in the department.
Under Rule 7 of the Rules, 2008, and the Schedule-I thereto, the
service is organized into two distinct streams, namely, the
Technical Wing and the Extension Wing.
Schedule I separately classifies the posts under each wing,
including the number of posts, class, and pay scale.
Serial Nos. 9 and 10 of the Schedule-I show that the entry points
into the service are Assistant Inspector (Technical) and Assistant
Inspector (Extension), respectively.
21. Rule 6 of the Rules, 2008, deals with the mode of recruitment,
and qualifications, etc., and the details are specified in Schedule
II.
Schedule-II prescribes the method of recruitment, the feeder
cadres, and the educational qualifications for appointment and
promotion to each post.
22. A closer scrutiny and conjoint reading of these two schedules
indicate that the two wings have separate entry points, distinct
Page No.# 10/27
qualification requirements, and an independent promotional
channel at the lower and middle levels, both of which meet at
the level of District Project Officer/Project Officer.
23. Under the Rules, 2008, the entry into the service in the
Extension Wing is at the rank of Assistant Inspector.
The next promotional post is Assistant Project Officer.
The Assistant Project Officer is a feeder post for the District
Project Officer/Project Officer. For these promotional posts, 40%
are reserved for the Extension Wing and 60% for the Technical
Wing.
24. From the post of Deputy Director onwards, the posts are fully
reserved for departmental promotion, with the post of District
Project Officer/Project Officer as the feeder post.
For such promotional posts above the District Project
Officer/Project Officer level, the prescribed educational
qualification is B.Sc.(Agri)/B.Sc.(Horti)/B.Sc.(Forestry)/ B.E.(Agri).
Thus, Rules, 2008, continue to emphasize qualification-based
differentiation, particularly for higher supervisory posts starting
at the Deputy Director level, thereby retaining the structural
distinction between the Technical and Extension Wings even
within a unified departmental framework.
25. Therefore, Extension Wing Officers, though they can reach the
position of District Project Officer/Project Officer, lack the
Page No.# 11/27
required educational qualifications for such promotional posts,
including those of Deputy Director and above. It is apposite to
record here that such qualifications are also prescribed for the
Technical Wing officers at the entry level.
26. Thus, the Rules, 2008, continue to emphasize qualification-based
differentiation, particularly for higher supervisory posts starting
at the Deputy Director level, thereby retaining the structural
distinction between the Technical and Extension Wings even
within a unified departmental framework.
27. The distinction between the two Wings is explicitly embedded in
the Rules of 2008.
The first indication appears in Schedule I (Classification of Posts),
where separate posts are earmarked for each stream. For
instance, the Schedule identifies Assistant Project Officer
(Technical) and Assistant Project Officer (Extension) as distinct
posts, and likewise, distinguishes between Assistant Inspector
(Technical) and Assistant Inspector (Extension), the next higher
post.
This is not a mere nomenclature difference but reflects two
parallel channels within the same department.
28. The distinction becomes clearer in Schedule II, which addresses
recruitment and promotional qualifications.
29. The provisions show that:
Page No.# 12/27
I. For posts in the Technical Wing, the prescribed
qualifications are science-based and domain-specific, such as
B.Sc. (Agri), B.Sc.(Forestry), B.Sc.(Horti) or equivalent technical
degrees.
II. In contrast, for posts in the Extension Wing,
qualifications include Social Sciences and Extension-oriented
disciplines, such as M.A. (Sociology) and M.Sc.
(Agronomy/Extension), Environmental Science, Botany, or Allied
Fields.
30. The Rule further reinforces such structural separation by
maintaining distinct promotional ladders at the lower and middle
levels.
Promotion to Assistant Project Officer (Technical) is drawn from
Assistant Inspector (Technical) with specified technical
qualifications.
Promotion to Assistant Project Officer (Extension) is drawn from
Assistant Inspector (Extension) with corresponding extension-
oriented qualifications.
31. The aforesaid scheme of the Rules 2008 shows that the two
wings have separate entry points, distinct qualification
requirements, and separate promotional channels at the lower
and middle levels.
It is true that the two wings meet at the level of District Project
Officer/Project Officer, which is the feeder post for promotion to
Page No.# 13/27
Deputy Director.
However, the fact that the two wings meet at the level of District
Project Officer/Project Officer cannot by itself lead to the
conclusion that all distinction between the two wings stands
obliterated for all purposes of further promotion.
32. In the scheme of things and the challenge made, we are
therefore required to examine whether the two wings form a
common feeder category at the level of District Project
Officer/Project Officer, and therefore, the rule-making authority
could not prescribe an additional educational qualification for
promotion to the higher post of Deputy Director and above.
33. In this context, it would be apposite to notice that the
constitutional validity of a classification in a service matter is to
be tested on the touchstone of the well-settled twin
requirements, namely, that the classification must be founded on
an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons grouped
together from those left out and that such differentia must have
a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
The aforesaid principle, however, does not mean that persons
belonging to the same cadre or forming a common feeder
category can never be further classified for the purpose of
promotion.
34. Educational qualification is a recognized basis of classification in
service jurisprudence, provided such qualification bears a
Page No.# 14/27
reasonable relation to the nature of the higher post and the
efficiency required to discharge the duties attached thereto. The
Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Trilokinath Khosa
(supra) has recognized that classification on the basis of
educational qualification for the purpose of promotion is not per
se violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
The mere fact that persons may belong to the same cadre or
may be performing similar functions at one level of service does
not render every further classification based upon educational
qualification unconstitutional.
At the same time, the prescription of an educational qualification
cannot be sustained merely because it is described as an
educational qualification. The qualification prescribed must have
a reasonable connection with the duties and responsibilities
attached to the higher post.
35. Therefore, the constitutional inquiry is whether the differentia
adopted by the rule-making authority bears a rational nexus with
the object sought to be achieved. Said principle was also
explained in Muhammad Sujat Ali (supra), wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court considered the question of educational
qualification in the context of promotion and emphasized that the
validity of such classification has to be examined with reference
to the nature of duties and the requirement of efficiency in the
higher post.
Thus, there cannot be an invariable rule that every classification
Page No.# 15/27
based upon educational qualification is either valid or invalid.
The question has to be examined having regard to the facts and
statutory scheme governing the service.
36. The same principle has been reiterated in Chandan Banerjee
(Supra), relied upon by the learned Advocate General.
It was held that the prescription of educational qualifications and
the determination of eligibility for appointment or promotion are
primarily matters within the domain of the rulemaking authority.
The court exercising judicial review does not sit in appeal over
such policy choices. Interference would be warranted where the
qualification prescribed is shown to be arbitrary, discriminatory,
or wholly unrelated to the nature of duties attached to the post.
37. It is in the aforesaid background that the challenge to the Rules,
2008 is required to be examined.
38. The petitioner's principal contention is that, since the technical
wing and the extension wing converge at the level of District
Project Officer/Project Officer, they constitute a homogeneous
class, and no further distinction can be made between them on
the basis of their educational qualifications.
39. We are unable to accept the said contention. The convergence of
the two wings at the level of District Project Officer/Project
Officer only identifies the feeder post for the next higher
promotional post. It does not prescribe that every person
occupying the post of District Project Officer/Project Officer,
Page No.# 16/27
irrespective of educational qualification, shall necessarily be
eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Director and
thereafter.
40. In fact, the Rule 2008, itself makes the position clear. Schedule II
provides that the post of Deputy Director is to be filled by
promotion from amongst the members of Nagaland Land
Resource Services Class 1 Jr, namely District Project
Officer/Project Officer, who have rendered not less than three
years' continuous service in that grade and possess the
prescribed educational qualification. The prescribed
qualifications are B.Sc. (Agriculture), B.Sc. (Horticulture), B.Sc.
(Forestry) and B.E. (Agriculture). The same technical qualification
is prescribed for the higher promotional posts of Joint Director
and Director.
41. Thus, the Rule does not make the source of requirement as the
basis of exclusion from promotion to the post of Deputy Director.
The Rule prescribes an educational qualification as a condition of
eligibility for consideration for promotion to the higher post.
42. The distinction, therefore, is not merely between the technical
wing and the extension wing, but between those who possess
the prescribed educational qualification and those who do not.
It is also significant that the same technical qualifications are
prescribed at the entry level for the technical wing. The
qualification requirement at the stage of promotion to the Deputy
Director and above is, therefore, not an isolated requirement
Page No.# 17/27
introduced for the purpose of excluding the extension wing. It
forms part of the qualification-based structure of the Rules 2008.
43. We need not repeat the settled proposition that educational
qualification is not a superficial attribute in service jurisprudence.
The rule-making authority may legitimately consider that a
particular academic background equips an officer with the
specialized knowledge and competence required to discharge
higher responsibilities.
44. Where a higher post involves a greater degree of technical
supervision, planning, evaluation, and decision-making, the
prescription of a corresponding technical qualification cannot, in
the absence of material showing otherwise, be termed arbitrary
merely because some other category of employees may also be
capable of discharging some of the functions attached to such
posts.
45. We are conscious of the submission of the learned senior counsel
for the petitioners that the duties attached to the posts in both
wings are identical, that the posts are interchangeable, that the
posts carry the same scale of pay, and that there have been
instances of transfer from one wing to the other. The petitioners
have also relied upon the Cadre Review Committee report in
support of the aforesaid submission.
46. Even assuming that there is some overlap in duties performed
by the officers of the two wings, or that, in the past, officers
have been posted from one wing to another, the same would not
Page No.# 18/27
by itself answer the constitutional question. The relevant
uestion still remains whether the educational qualifica
ion prescribed for promotion to the higher post has a rational
exus with the requirements of that post.
47. Similarly, the fact that feeder posts carry the same scale of pay
cannot be a determinative factor in eligibility for the promotion to
a higher post. Pay scale and promotion eligibility operate in
different fields. A common pay scale at a particular level cannot
override the rule-making authority to prescribe a qualification for
promotion to a higher post.
48. We also do not consider it necessary to enter into the disputed
factual question as to whether the duties performed by the two
wings are identical in every respect. The validity of the impugned
provisions can be examined from the scheme of the rules
themselves. The court is concerned with the legality and
constitutional validity of the qualification prescribed for the
higher post and not with substituting its own assessment as to
whether some other qualification would also have been sufficient.
49. As discussed herein above, in the present case, the differentia is
discernible. The rules prescribe a particular technical educational
qualification for promotion to the higher post of Deputy Director
and above. Therefore, the classification is founded on an
intelligible criteria.
50. In our opinion, the nexus is also discernible from the rules
themselves.
Page No.# 19/27
51. The technical qualifications prescribed for higher posts are
qualifications in agriculture, horticulture, forestry, and agricultural
engineering. These are not qualifications unrelated to the subject
matter of service. The rulemaking authority has consciously
prescribed these qualifications both in the technical and the level
of higher promotion.
52. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate that prescription of
such qualifications for promotions to the post of Deputy Director
and above is entirely unrelated to the nature of the higher post
or that the qualification is so irrational that no reasonable
authority could have prescribed the same. In the absence of such
material, this Court would not be justified in substituting its own
opinion for that of the rulemaking authority.
53. It is true that the right of an employee to promotion is to be
considered in accordance with the applicable rules. However,
there is no vested right to claim promotion to a higher post
dehors the eligibility criteria prescribed under the statutory
framework. The prescription of an eligibility condition, if
otherwise constitutionally valid, cannot be treated as a denial of
the right to consideration for promotion.
54. The submission that the extension wing is completely deprived of
promotion beyond the post of District Project Officer/Project
Officer, therefore, cannot be considered in isolation from the
qualification prescribed under the rules.
The consequence that an officer who does not possess the
Page No.# 20/27
prescribed qualification becomes ineligible for further promotion
shall not render the qualification prescribed unconstitutional.
55. The petitioners have also relied upon certain past transfers of
the officers between the technical wing and the extension wing
and similarity in the scale of pay to contend that the two streams
are in practice interchangeable and therefore constitute one
homogeneous class.
56. We are unable to accept the submission in the manner urged.
57. In service jurisprudence, administrative interchangeability in the
matter of posting cannot be equated with legal equivalence for
every purpose of recruitment and promotion. The feeder
structure and eligibility for promotion must be determined in
accordance with the statutory rules. Transfers by their very
nature are an incidence of service and may be restored for
exigency of service, temporary shortage of personnel, or
administrative balancing. Such transfers and similarity in pay
scale do not, by themselves, alter the qualification base or
service structure prescribed by the rules.
58. Even if an officer is posted to perform a function associated with
another wing, such posting does not by itself confer upon the
officer a statutory egibility beyond the Rules. There is also no
provision in the rules 2008 indicating that such transfers result in
permanent absorption of an officer into the other wing,
integration of seniority, or waiver of educational qualification
prescribed for promotion to the higher post.
Page No.# 21/27
59. In the absence of such a provision, isolated instances of transfer
cannot be treated as having the effect of altering the statutory
framework.
60. Even assuming that some functions of the two wings overlap in
practice, that itself does not establish that the statutory
framework treats the two categories as identical for the purpose
of promotion to the post of Deputy Director and above.
61. Much emphasis has been laid by the petitioners on the tripartite
agreement dated 02.09.2022 and the recommendations of Cadre
Review Committee to contend that the state had accepted parity
between the two wings and therefore are stopped from denying
promotional avenues to the extension wing.
62. We are unable to accept this contention. The service conditions
of the petitioners are governed by the Rules, 2008. Such
statutory rules cannot be overridden, amended, or diluted by an
executive agreement or understanding or based on certain
recommendation of the Cadre Review Committee.
63. The rules have been framed in exercise of power under the
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and therefore
carry the force of law. Neither an agreement entered into
between the representatives of the employees and state
authorities nor the recommendation of Cadre Review Committee,
by itself operate in derogation of statutory rules. If eligibility for
promotion to a particular post is prescribed by rules, it cannot be
altered by consent or understanding or recommendation unless
Page No.# 22/27
the rules themselves are amended in accordance with law.
64. The doctrine of promissory estoppel or legitimate expectation
cannot be invoked to compel the state to act based on such an
agreement when it is contrary to the statutory framework.
Legitimate expectation, at its highest, may entitle an employee to
fair consideration of a representation made by the
administration; it cannot compel the state to create a
promotional avenue or dispense with an eligibility condition
prescribed by statutory rules without amending the same.
65. We may now deal with the authorities relied upon by the learned
senior counsel for the petitioners.
66. In Budhan Choudhury Vs. State of Bihar reported in
Manu/SC/0047/1954 , relied upon by the learned senior
counsel, the hon’ble Apex Court laid down the well-settled twin
test of reasonable classification under Article 14 of the
Constitution of India, namely, that the classification must be
founded on an intelligible differentia and that such differentia
must have a rational nexus with the object sought to be
achieved. There can be no quarrel with the said proposition.
As noted above, we find that both requirements are satisfied in
the present case.
67. The reliance upon Makhan Lal Malhotra (supra) also does not
advance the case of the petitioners. The said decision cannot be
read as laying down a proposition that an educational
Page No.# 23/27
qualification can never constitute a permissible basis of
classification in service matters. On the contrary, the validity of
such classification has always to be examined with reference to
the nature of the post and the object sought to be achieved.
68. Much emphasis has been placed upon S. M. Pandit (supra).
The said decision, however, cannot be applied mechanically to
the present case. The factual and legal basis of the classification
considered therein was materially different.
In the present case, it is not a question that persons similarly
situated are discriminated against on the basis of their source of
recruitment. Rather, the question before us is whether the
rulemaking authority can prescribe a particular educational
qualification for promotion to the higher post.
The subsequent Constitutional Bench decisions, particularly
Triloki Nath Khosa (supra) and Muhammad Sujath Ali
(Supra), make it clear that educational qualification can
constitute a permissible basis of classification for promotion
subject to the requirement of a nexus with the higher post.
69. The reliance upon Vijay Kumar (supra) is also of no
assistance. The proposition that equals cannot be treated
unequally without a rational basis is firmly settled. But before the
said principle can be invoked, the petitioners must establish that
the two categories are similarly situated for the very purpose for
which the classification has been made. The fact that two wings
meet at the level of District Project Officer/Project Officer does
Page No.# 24/27
not establish that they are identical in all respects for the
purpose of determining eligibility for promotion to a higher post
carrying a prescribed technical qualification.
70. The reliance upon Ambika Mills Limited (Supra) also does not
take the case of the petitioners any further. The said decision
reiterates that the validity of a classification has to be examined
with reference to the purpose for which the classification has
been made.
In the present case, the purpose is to prescribe eligibility for
promotion to a higher post in the service. The qualification
prescribed has a rational relation to that purpose.
71. The petitioners have also relied upon Janhit Abhiyan (supra),
particularly the minority opinion. However, the observations
relied upon are part of the minority opinion and, in any event, do
not lay down any principle which should invalidate the
prescription of educational qualifications for promotion in the
facts of the present case.
72. As discussed herein above, the issue before us is governed more
directly by the Constitution Bench’s decisions in Triloki Nath
(supra) and Mohammad Shujat Ali (supra), which address
educational qualifications in service matters.
73. The argument of the petitioners that classification is based upon
the subjects studied in graduation or post-graduation and not
upon higher or lower educational qualification also cannot be
Page No.# 25/27
accepted.
74. A qualification may be differentiated not merely on the basis of
level of education, but also on the basis of nature and subject of
the academic qualification, provided such distinction has a
rational relation to the duties and responsibilities of the post.
75. The fact that an extension wing officer may possess substantial
administrative experience or may have satisfactorily discharged
the duties of a District Project Officer/Project Officer cannot by
itself confer eligibility contrary to the rules. The wisdom of
prescribing a particular technical qualification is a matter for the
rule-making authority.
76. This court, while exercising judicial review, cannot substitute its
own opinion regarding the qualification that ought to have been
prescribed.
77. On a cumulative consideration of the scheme of the rules 2008
and the principles noticed hereinabove, we now summarise our
decision as under:
I. We are unable to hold that the prescription of an
educational qualification for promotion to the post of Deputy
Director and above is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India.
II. The classification is founded on an intelligible
basis, namely, the possession of the educational qualification
prescribed for the higher post, and the said qualification bears
Page No.# 26/27
a rational nexus with the requirement of specialized
knowledge and competence at that level.
III. The mere fact that the two wings meet at the level
of District Project Officer/Project Officer or that there may be
some overlap in their functions or instances of transfer
between them does not render such qualification
constitutionally impermissible.
IV. We are also unable to accept that the impugned
provision amounts to discrimination, merely for the reason
that its application results in rendering an officer in the
Extension Wing ineligible for future promotion. The right of an
employee is to be considered for promotion in accordance
with the governing rules and not to claim promotion outside
the eligibility conditions prescribed therein.
V. A writ Court, in the exercise of the power of
judicial review, cannot substitute its opinion as to what
qualification ought to have been prescribed by the rule-
making authority.
VI. The petitioner having failed to show any material
disclosing qualification to be manifestly arbitrary, irrational or
wholly unrelated to the nature of the higher posts, we will not
be justified to interfere with the impugned rules.
Therefore, the challenge to the impugned provisions of
Schedule II of the Rules 2008 fails.
The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed. Interim order,
Page No.# 27/27
if any, stands vacated.
78. Parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant