Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
P.J. Ratan Kumar And Another vs Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd. And Others on 1 November, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(6)ALD646, 2000(6)ALT88
Author: B. Sudershan Reddy
Bench: B. Sudershan Reddy
ORDER
1. The petitioners in the instant writ petition are aggrieved by the action of the respondent-Insurance Company in refusing to consider their case for promotion to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer.
2. Both the petitioners belong to Schedule Caste category. The 1 st petitioner as at present in working as Stenographer and the 2nd petitioner is working as Senior Assistant. The next promotion avenue open to these categories is the post-of Assistant Administrative Officer. The eligibility criteria for appointment by selection to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer is as follows:
Sl. No. Categoryof Staff Service criteria for General category employees Relaxation for SC/ST Upto one year Upto two years
01.
Senior Assistant 7 years 6 yrs.
5 yrs.
02. Stenographer 12 years 11 yrs.
10yrs.
03. Sr. Asst/Steno with Licentiate 5 years 5 yrs. (no change) 4 yrs.
04. Sr. Asst/Steno with Associate 3 years 3 yrs. (no change) 3 yrs. (no change)
05. Sr. Asst/Steno at ceiling of the scale 25 years 24 yrs.
23 yrs.
3. The 1st respondent herein issued Circular Notification dated 1-11-1995 calling for applications for filling up one post of Assistant Administrative Officer in Hyderabad Region from the candidates belonging to the category of Schedule Caste. In the notification it is observed that even after granting special relaxation in the service length criteria upto a maximum of one year for SC/ST employees in the six promotional areas, adequate number of SC/ST candidates not available for consideration of promotion. In order to fill these unfilled reserved vacancies, it has been decided to allow further one year relaxation in service eligibility criteria for SC/ST employees in the four promotional areas. Accordingly, applications in the prescribed format were invited from such desirous SC/ST employees from the four respective promotional areas who might acquire eligibility for consideration of promotion to the captioned cadre, if further relaxation of one year in the service length criteria is granted to them.
4. The petitioners have applied for being considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer within the time limit prescribed in the Notification dated 1st November, 1995. Both the petitioners claim that they satisfy the eligibility criteria. It is an admitted fact that the applications of the petitioners have been forwarded by the Regional Office, Hyderabad to the Head Office. Both of them claimed that they have completed 4 years of qualifying service and are therefore eligible for consideration of promotion to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer in terms of the Notification dated 1-11-1995. There is no dispute whatsoever that for the purpose of considering 4 years service the cut-off date is 31st December of that particular year and if one completes at least six months' service in the particular year, it is treated as one completed year, that is to say, if one is promoted on or before 30th June in that particular year, it will be considered as one completed year of service.
5. However, the petitioners were not called for the interview. According to them, only the 3rd respondent herein has been called for the interview. Having come to know about it, the petitioners made a representation on 8-2-1996. The interviews were held on 12-2-1996. It is under those circumstances, the present writ petition is filed.
6. Strangely enough, the promotions of Supervisory, Clerical and Subordinate Staff are governed by a Promotion Policy. There are no regulations as such so far framed by the respondent-Company regulating the Promotion Policy from a lower post to that of a higher post. It is an admitted fact that no SC/ST candidates in the promotion area of Hyderabad region, including the petitioners and the 3rd respondent, satisfy the normal eligibility criteria as prescribed under para 30 of the Promotion Policy. It is under those circumstances the Chairman, General Insurance Company in exercise of the power given to him under para 50 of the Promotion Policy, further relaxed the service eligibility criteria by one year for SC/ST employees in promotional areas where adequate number of SC/ST employees were not available in terms of normal eligibility criteria to fill up the available vacancies. Since heavy reliance is sought to be placed upon paragraph 50 of the promotion policy, it may be appropriate to notice the same:
"50. The Chairman, GIC, may by order and for reasons to be recorded in writing dispense with or relax the provisions of this Promotion Policy to such extent he may consider necessary for dealing with individual cases in a just and equitable manner or for meeting exigencies of work situation or for complying with official guidelines that may be issued from time to time,"
7. It is also an admitted fact that even after granting relaxation of service criteria upto one year, no SC/ST candidates were found eligible for consideration to the next higher post of Assistant Administrative Officer. It is under those circumstances, the Chairman, General Insurance Company, in exercise of the power under paragraph 50 of the Promotion Police directed further relaxation of the Service Eligibility criteria upto two years in those areas where the initial one-year relaxation was not found sufficient to fill up the vacancies. The conditions were communicated by the respondent-GIC. through its letter dated 31st October, 1995.
8. The communication dated 31st October, 1995, upon which heavy reliance is placed by the respondents, says that the relaxation in service criteria for SC/ST employees by one year may be considered in the first instance. The relaxation of service eligibility criteria by two years is to be considered only where, even after one year relaxation, there is unfilled reserved vacancy. The petitioners do not dispute the correctness of the said criteria to that extent. The controversy revolves around the criteria relating to the relaxation of limiting such relaxation to the number of vacancies available. Clause (3) of the said letter dated 31st October, 1995 reads as follows:
"(3) The relaxation is only to be limited to the number of vacancies available. If there are two unfilled SC vacancies and you have five SC employees who have sought relaxation, relaxation is only to be considered for two employees out of the five. The employees to be selected from out of the five, will be those who are least short in service criteria".
9. The petitioners in the instant writ petition challenge such selective relaxation in service criteria by limiting the same to the number of vacancies available. It is contended that such relaxation would run counter to the very concept of selection. It is submitted, there will be no selection at all if the number of candidates called for the interview is limited to the number of posts. It is submitted that the said policy adopted by the respondent-Insurance Company limiting the relaxation to the number of vacancies available is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
10. It is the case of the respondent-Insurance Company that the Chairman, GIC exercised his discretion under paragraph 50 of the Promotion Policy and accordingly relaxed the relevant Rules of the Promotion Policy. The respondents go to the extent of contending that the applications of the petitioners were subject to examination under discrelionary authority of the Chairman, GIC under paragraph 50 of the Promotion Policy. It is contended that only after such examination is over it could be determined as to whether a particular candidate deserves to be granted the benefit of such discretion or not. In nutshell it is contended that as if the Chairman, GIC has unfettered discretion and entitled to decide in case of each particular candidate for the purpose of granting relaxation. It is case of the respondents that the relaxation of the service eligibility criteria is primarily based on length of service only. It is contended that the criteria evolved does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The petitioners do not qualify for grant of further relaxation in terms of the letter of the General Insurance Company dated 31st October, 1995, as there is only one vacancy. It is an admitted fact that the relaxation in service eligibility criteria was limited to number of vacancies available.
11. There is no dispute whatsoever that the length of service of the 3rd respondent in eligibility cadre with reference to cut-off date 31-12-1993 is four years one day. The 1st petitioner in the same eligibility cadre has put in 3 years 11 months 15 days and whereas petitioner No.2 has three years five months twenty nine days. It is also an admitted fact that there is a shortfall in service length in accordance with the requirement of normal eligibility criteria in case of both the petitioners as well as the 3rd respondent. It is also an admitted fact that these two petitioners are also having four years of service as on the relevant cutoff date and they are licentiates. It means that the petitioners as well as the 3rd respondent to have the requisite four years of length of service in the eligibility cadre with reference to cut-off date 31st December, 1993. It is no doubt true the shortfall in service length with requirement of the normal eligibility criteria in case of 3rd respondent is 11 months 29 days and in case of petitioner No.1 it is one year 15 days and in case of petitioner No.2 it is one year six months one day. Admittedly, the shortfall in the length of service with the requirement of normal eligibility criteria is the least compared to the petitioners. But the question that falls for consideration is, as to whether such a further classification after granting relaxation of the service eligibility criteria by two years in respect of SC/ST employees is permissible in law?
12. It is an admitted fact that in the absence of relaxation relaxing the service eligibility criteria up to two years, neither the petitioners nor the 3rd respondent would be eligible for consideration of their cases for promotion to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer. There is no dispute that after relaxation of service eligibility criteria upto two years, the petitioners as well as the 3rd respondent have become eligible for consideration of their respective cases for promotion as Assistant Administrative officers. In my considered opinion, the action of the respondent in restricting their choice to consider the case of only 3rd respondent is discriminatory and offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It certainly offends the equality clause enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution.
13. The further classification limiting the relaxation to the number of unfilled Schedule Caste vacancies available is not only unreasonable but also discriminatory in its nature. There is no object that is sought to be achieved by evolving this criteria. By no stretch of imagination it could be said to be a reasonable classification. The decision to relax the service eligibility criteria upto two years in respect of SC/ST candidates should be applied uniform to all the candidates who fulfil the eligibility criteria after grant of such relaxation. All the candidates who are entitled for such relaxation belonging to the Schedule Caste category, constitute a well-defined class. In the circumstances, it is not open to deny the benefit of relaxation to the petitioners. The classification between the petitioners and the 3rd respondent is not a permissible classification. The said classification is not founded on an intelligible differentia distinguishing between the petitioners and the 3rd respondent nor it can be said that there is any rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. On the other hand, it amounts to eliminating the petitioners herein from the benefit of relaxation granted by the Chairman, GIC.
14. By restricting the choice to consider the case of only the 3rd respondent alone for the post of Assistant Administrative Officer, the whole selection process is reduced to a myth. There is no selection as such involved. There is absolutely no justification in eliminating the petitioners herein from the zone of consideration. It is conceded in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents that both the petitioners herein have four years of service as on the relevant cut-off date and they are licentiates. They are accordingly qualified for consideration of their cases after relaxation in service eligibility criteria upto two years. The petitioners as well as the 3rd respondent stand on equal footing. The respondents are bound to give equal treatment to the petitioners as well as the 3rd respondent. It is well settled that equality means equality among equals. It does not provide for an absolute equality of treatment to all persons in utter disregard in every conceivable circumstances of the differences such as age, sex, education, so on and so forth as may be found amongst people in general. The aim of Article 14 is to ensure that invidious distinction or arbitrary discrimination shall not be made by the State or its instrumentality between the citizen and the citizen who answer the same description and the differences which may obtain between them are of no relevance for the purpose of applying a particular law, regulation, circular or scheme. Is there any basis in the instant case for making further classification between the petitioners and the 3rd respondent after having decided to relax the service eligibility criteria upto two years in case of Schedule Caste candidates? There is none. It is observed by the Supreme Court in Roop Chand Adlakha Delhi Development Authority, (1989) Supp. (1) SCC 116, as follows:
" 'To overdo classification is to undo equality'. The idea of similarity or dissimilarity of situations of persons, to justify classification, cannot rest on merely differentia which may, be themselves be rational or logical, but depends on whether the differences are relevant to the goals sought to be reached by the law which seeks to classify. The justification of the classification must needs, therefore, to be sought beyond the classification. All marks of distinction do not necessarily justify classification irrespective of the relevance or nexus to objects sought to be achieved by the law imposing the classification".
15. It may be appropriate to recall the observations of the Supreme Court in The Slate of Jammu and Kashmir v. Shri Triloki Nalh Khosa, , which are as follows:
"......mini-classifications based on micro-distinctions are false to our egalitarian faith and only substantial and straightforward classifications plainly promoting relevant goals can have constitutional validity. To overdo classification is to undo equality......"
16. It is difficult to find any discernible criteria and the basis upon which the petitioners are completely eliminated from the zone of consideration for promotion though they fell substantially within the same class as that of the 3rd respondent. The petitioners as well as the 3rd respondent constitute one well-defined class. All of them are entitled for the relaxation of service eligibility criteria upto two years. They fall substantially within the same class. All of them are entitled for an equal promotional opportunity. In the circumstances, there is absolutely no difficulty whatsoever to hold that there is no reason and basis for making further classification between the petitioners and the 3rd respondent.
17. Paragraph 50 of the Promotion Policy does not confer any unfettered discretion upon the Chairman of General Insurance Company. The relaxation from the provisions of the promotion Policy can be granted by the Chairman only for dealing with the cases in a just and equitable manner. The power which is invested in the Chairman in trust is required to be exercised in a reasonable and fair manner. The decision so taken to dispense with or relax the provisions of the promotional policy is liable to be reviewed on the touchstone of the Article 14 of the Constitution. The power, in my considered opinion, does not extend to granting relaxation in an individual case. However, it is heartening to note that though such a plea has been taken in the counter-affidavit, the same is not further pressed during the course of hearing of the writ petition.
18. For all the aforesaid reasons, it is held that the decision as reflected in the communication dated 3lst October, 1995 restricting the relaxation of service eligibility criteria only to the limited number of vacancies available is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the selection and appointment of the 3rd respondent as Assistant Administrative Officer vide proceedings dated 6-6-1996 is declared void. The respondents are consequently directed to make fresh selections to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer in the light of the observations made in this order. They are further directed to consider the case of both the petitioners and the 3rd respondent herein to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer. The selection shall strictly be made in accordance with law.
19. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submit that the seniority of the candidate to be selected pursuant to the fresh selections may be directed to be maintained from the date on which the 3rd respondent herein was promoted as Assistant Administrative Officer. It is further submitted that the selected candidate may be given seniority with retrospective effect from the date on which the 3rd respondent herein was selected and promoted as Assistant Administrative Officer. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has no objection for the same. It shall be open to the respondents to take an appropriate decision in this regard in accordance with law.
20. For all the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed. Let a writ of mandamus be accordingly issued. No order as to costs.