Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 811 1998
Appeal (civil) 822 1998
PETITIONER:
K.R. LAKSHMAN & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/12/2000
BENCH:
B.N.Agrawal, G.B.Pattanaik
JUDGMENT:
L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J
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 Coutindo,
1966(3)SCC 600, Roshan Lal Tandon 1968(1) SCR 185, Punjab
State Electiricity Board, 1986(4) SCC 617, Mohammed Shujat
Ali, 1975(5) SCC 76, G.M.S.C.Rly Vs. AVR Siddanti,
1974(4)SCC 335, and N.Abdul Basheer- 1989(Supp.)2 SCC 344.
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 judgment of the Single
Judge and allowed the appeal, preferred by the Board,
relying upon the decisions of this Court in P.Murugeshan vs.
State of Tamil Nadu, 1993(2) SCC 340 and S. N. Deshpande
vs. Maharashtra I.D. Corporation, 1993(Supp.)2 SCC 194.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6
It is this judgment of the Division Bench, which is the
subject matter of these appeals.
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
favoritism 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 it does not work
out any discrimination.
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 still higher up in the ladder and
that being the provision to avoid harassment of stagnation,
the authorities having provided for a ratio between the
qualified direct recruits and unqualified promotees, on
consideration of germane and relevant materials, the same
should not be interfered with by this Court. According to
the learned counsel for the respondents, the ratio of the
judgment of this Court in Murugeshan, squarely applies and,
therefore, the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court
was fully justified in interfering with the conclusion of
the learned Single Judge.
The Recruitment and other service conditions including
promotion in the Karnataka Electricity Board is governed by
a set of regulations called the Karnataka Electricity Board
Recruitment and Promotion Regulations (hereinafter referred
to as the Recruitment Regulations). The Recruitment to the
post of Operator, Meter Reader and Assistant Store Keeper,
which constitute a combined cadre, is made both by direct
recruitment as well as by promotion, on the basis of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6
seniority-cum-merit. The Regulation provides that 50% of
the combined cadre would be filled up by direct recruitment
and 40% of the cadre by promotion on the basis of seniority-
cum-merit and equivalent post and 10% by direct recruitment
from among the in-service personnel. The minimum
qualification for direct recruitment is I.T.I. certificate
in Electrical or Telecommunication or Electronic trade or
certificate in Lineman trade of Karnataka Electricity Board
Training Institute, after passing of the 10th standard,
whereas for promotees, from the Mechanic Grade II, the
minimum educational qualification is up-to 10th standard.
The next higher rank is the Junior Engineer(Electrical) and
the cadre of Junior Engineer is required to be filled up, by
direct recruitment of persons possessing diploma in
Electrical or Computer Engineering to the extent of 40%.
Against this 40% quota, appointment could be made by
transfer of inservice personnel, possessing Engineering
Degree qualification. 10% of the cadre of Junior Engineer
could be filled up by direct recruitment of in service
personnel possessing diploma qualification. 10% of the post
could be filled up by promotion of Operators, Meter Readers,
Overseers, Assistant Store Keepers, having diploma
qualification. 35% of the post of Junior Engineer could be
filled up by promotion from the common cadre of Operator,
Overseers, Meter Readers and Asstt. Store Keepers and 5% by
promotion of Mechanics with five years of service. By the
amendment of the Regulation in February, 1982, a ratio was
provided in respect of the 35% quota, which was to be filled
up by promotion for the common cadre, the same ratio as 1:1
between the technically qualified direct recruits and
technically unqualified promotees. It is this amendment
which had been assailed by the present appellants by filing
writ petitions in Karnataka High Court. The question for
consideration, therefore is whether the amended Regulation,
providing a ratio of 1:1 between the technically qualified
direct recruits and technically unqualified promotees, as
against 35% quota available to them in the cadre of Junior
Engineer, could be held to be violative of Article 14 or
such a classification is permissible in law and the Rule
making Authority had considered all relevant and germane
materials in providing for the aforesaid ratio? 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 differentia 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.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6
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.
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. In Trilokinath, this court has affirmed the
principle of classification but has held that it should be
founded on a reasonable differentia which distinguishes the
persons grouped together from those who are left out of the
group and in that case the classification was between the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6
Degree holder Assistant Engineers and Diploma holder
Assistant Engineers. The Court upheld such classification
as it was intended to achieve administrative experience in
the Engineering Service. In Murugesan, a three judge Bench
of this Court upheld the ratio of 3:1 between graduate
Assistant Engineers and Diploma holder Junior Engineers for
promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, as
such a distinction had been maintained through out between
the two categories. It is no doubt true that in that case,
it is the diploma holders who had approached the Court,
challenging the introduction of ratio of 3:1 between such
diploma holders and graduate Assistant Engineers and the
Court upheld the provisions, whereas in the case in hand, it
is the qualified direct recruits, who have approached the
Court. But in deciding the question whether such a
provision can be held to be violative of Article 14, the
principle in Murugesan would apply with full force to the
case in hand. It may be noticed that the learned Single
Judge relied upon the two earlier decisions of this Court in
Roshan Lal Tandon and Mervyn Coutindo and both the decisions
have been noticed and distinguished in Murugesan and the
other decision on which the learned Single Judge has relied
upon namely Shujat Ali, has also been explained away in the
aforesaid three Judge Judgment in Murugesan. It is no doubt
true that in Trilokinath, Chandrachud, J had observed that
the classification should not be carried too far lest it may
subvert, perhaps submerge the precious guarantee of
equality, but such word of caution will have no application
to the facts of the present case, where 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. The decision of this Court in the case of Punjab
State Electricity Board, Patiala and Anr. vs. Ravinder
Kumar Sharma and Ors., 1986(4) SCC 617, on which the learned
Single Judge had relied upon and Mr. Rama Jois, appearing
for the appellants had strongly relied upon was over-ruled
by the three Judge Bench Judgment in P. Murugesan and Ors.
Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., 1993(2) SCC, 340. The
decision of this Court in N. Abdul Basheer and Ors. Vs.
K.K.Karunakaran and Ors., 1989 Supp.(2) SCC 344, on which
also, the learned Single Judge had relied upon and Mr. Rama
Jois, also strongly relied upon, has been distinguished in
the aforesaid case of Murugesan. The decision of this Court
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6
in Mohammad Shujat Ali and Ors. Vs. Union of India and
Ors., 1975(3) SCC 76, which was followed in the Punjab State
Electricity Board case, has been explained in the aforesaid
three Judge Bench Judgment. The decision of Mervyn
Coutindo, 1966(3)SCC 600, as well as Roshan Lal Tandon vs.
Union of India, 1968(1) SCR 185, has also been noticed in
Murugesan, and not followed, but in the later case of
Shamkant Narayan Deshpande vs. Maharashtra Industrial
Development Corpn. & anr., 1993 Supp.(2) SCC 194, both
these decisions have been distinguished, in view of the law
laid down in Triloki Nath Khosas case, 1974(1) SCC 19. In
the aforesaid premises and in view of the judgment of this
Court in Triloki Nath Khosa, in P.Murugesan and in Shamkant
Narayan Deshpande, the Division Bench of the Karnataka High
Court was fully justified in setting aside the judgment of
the learned Single Judge and in coming to the conclusion
that 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 and we see no infirmity with the
aforesaid conclusion of the Division Bench of Karnataka High
Court. Accordingly, these appeals fail and are dismissed,
but there will be no order as to costs.
21