Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Amar Chand Sani & Ors vs State Of Raj. & Ors on 4 May, 2017
Bench: Chief Justice, Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Special Appeal Writ No. 1189 / 2011
1. Amar Chand Sani s/o Shri Bheru Lal Sani, aged about 42
years, presently working as Addl. Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi
Samiti, Jaipur.
2. Santosh Kumar Modi s/o Shri Ram Gopal Modi, aged about
42 years, presently working as Junior Marketing Officer working as
a Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Ajmer (Grain).
3. Pyarelal s/o Shri Kajora Ram, aged about 42 years, presently
working as Junior Marketing Officer working as a Secretary, Krishi
Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sujangarh.
4. Ram Niwas Yadav s/o Shri Ram Swaroop, aged about 41
years, presently working as Junior Marketing Officer working as a
Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Alwar.
----Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Agriculture
Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Agriculture Marketing Department, Government
of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Non-Petitioners-Respondents
3. Hari Ram s/o Shri Hanuman Ram Ji Joshi, aged 50 years, r/o
Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Bhinmal Dist.Jalore.
4. Surendra Kumar Sharma s/o Shri Gauri Shankar Sharma,
Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jhalra Patan (Jhalawar).
----Petitioners-Respondents
Connected With
1. D.B.Civil Special Appeal Writ No. 1258 / 2011
1. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Agriculture
Department, Rajasthan Jaipur.
2. The Director, Agriculture Marketing Department, Rajasthan
Jaipur.
----Appellants.
Versus
1. Achal Singh Choudhary son of Shri Roop Chandji, resident of
Barmer, presently posted as Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti,
Sanchore, District Jalore.
(2 of 7)
[SAW-1189/2011]
2. Nirmal Kumar Sharma son of Shri Manohar Sharma,
Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Kishangarh- Renwal, District
Jaipur.
----Respondents
2. D.B.Civil Special Appeal Writ No. 1359 / 2011
1. Amar Chand Sani s/o Shri Bheru Lal Sani, aged about 42
years, presently working as Addl. Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi
Samiti, Jaipur.
2. Santosh Kumar Modi s/o Shri Ram Gopal Modi, aged about
42 years, presently working as Junior Marketing Officer working as
a Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Ajmer.
3. Pyarelal s/o Shri Kajora Ram, aged about 42 years, presently
working as Junior Marketing Officer working as a Secretary, Krishi
Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sujangarh.
4. Ram Vilash Yadav s/o Shri Ram Swaroop, aged about 41
years, presently working as Junior Marketing Officer working as a
Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Alwar.
----Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Agriculture
Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Agriculture Marketing Department, Government
of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
-----Non-Petitioners-Respondents
3. Achal Singh Choudhary s/o Shri Roop Chand Ji, aged 52
years, r/o Barmer presently working as Secretary, Krishi Upaj
Mandi Samiti, Sanchore Dist.Jalore.
4. Nirmal Kumar Sharma s/o Shri Manohar Sharma, aged 49
years, r/o Barmer presently working as Secretary, Krishi Upaj
Mandi Samiti, Kishangarh Dist.Jaipur.
-------Petitioners-Respondents
3. D.B.Civil Special Appeal Writ No. 1360 / 2011
1. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Agriculture
Department, Rajasthan Jaipur.
2. The Director, Agriculture Marketing Department, Rajasthan
Jaipur.
----Appellants.
(3 of 7)
[SAW-1189/2011]
Versus
1. Hari Ram son of Shri Hanuman Ramji Joshi, Secretary, Krishi
Upaj Mandi Samiti, Bhinmal District Jalore.
2. Surendra Kumar Sharma son of Shri Gauri Shankar Sharma,
Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jhalrapatan (Jhalawar).
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Appellant(s) : Mr.Mahesh Thanvi
Mr.Bharat Dutt Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Rajesh Choudhary
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment Reserved on 01/05/2017 Pronounced on 04/05/2017 Per Hon'ble the Chief Justice
1. Challenge in the four captioned appeals is to a common order dated April 1, 2010 granting relief in two Writ Petitions No.4902/2004 and 4913/2004 to the writ petitioners. The State of Rajasthan is aggrieved by the decision and so are the appellant Amar Chand and others who were not impleaded as respondents in the two writ petitions.
2. The grievance of the writ petitioners was to the Recruitment Rule for the post of Assistant Director(Junior)/Secretary Marketing Committee prescribing a minimum educational qualification for being promoted to said post. Granting relief to the writ petitioners the learned Single Judge has taken the view that since the educational qualification prescribed was not prescribed for the (4 of 7) [SAW-1189/2011] feeder cadre post, the writ petitioners were denied right to be promoted which violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
3. Relevant facts would be that the cadre comprises the post of a Marketing Supervisor at the base. The promotional post is that of a Junior Marketing Officer/Secretary Market Committees. The Recruitment Rule for the said post of Junior Marketing Officer/Secretary Market Committees reads as under:-
S. Name of the Method of Rectt. Direct Recruitment Promotion Remarks No post with percentage Qualification & Post from Qualification Direct Promotion Experience which to be & experience made.
Rectt.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 Junior 50% 50% B.A.with Economics Marketing 5 years service 1. After Promoting Marketing as one of the subject Supervisors on the post all the six Marketing Officer/ or B.Com. or B.Sc. Supervisors the post mentioned in Secretary (Agriculture) of a shall be 100% filled Col.6.
Market University in by Direct Rectt.
Committees established by law in 2.25% of the posts
India. Direct Rectt. quota
shall be reserved for
being filled in from
amongst the
Marketing
Supervisors and
Ministerial Staff of
the Deptt. and
Asstt. Secretaries
Marketing
Supervisor &
Ministerial Staff of
the Marketing
Committees Subject
to their possessing
qualification
mentioned in Col.5.
and other Condition
laid down in the
Rules.
4. A perusal of the rule would show that in case of direct recruitment educational qualification prescribed is B.A. with Economics as one of the subject or B.Com. or B.Sc. degree in Agriculture. Under the remarks column it is mentioned that the existing six Marketing Supervisors shall be promoted and (5 of 7) [SAW-1189/2011] thereafter post in question shall be filled 100% by direct recruitment.
5. The writ petitioners did not possess the requisite educational qualification but were promoted as Junior Marketing Officer/Secretary Market Committees in view of the remarks column in the Recruitment Rule.
6. But concededly there is no such writing under the remarks column for the post of Assistant Director (Junior)/Secretary Marketing Committee.
7. In the decision reported as 1989 Supp(1) SCC 116 Roop Chand Adlakha V/s DDA in para 18 the Supreme Court had observed as under:-
"18....If the differences in the qualification have 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 legitimized 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 Article 14. A wooden equality as between all classes of employees irrespective of all distinctions or qualifications, or job requirement is neither constitutionally compelled nor practically meaningful. This Court in South Central Railway v. A.V.R. Siddhantti (SCR at p.214: AIR at p.1760) observed:(SCC p.343, para 20) "20...A wooden equality as between all classes of employees regardless of qualifications, kind of jobs, nature of responsibility and performance of the employees is not intended, nor is it practicable (6 of 7) [SAW-1189/2011] if the administration is to run. Indeed, the maintenance of such a "classless" and undiscerning "equality" where, in reality, glaring inequalities and intelligible differentia exist, will deprive the guarantee of its practical content. Broad classification based on reason, executive pragmatism and experience having a direct relation with the achievement of efficiency in administration, is permissible."
8. In the decision by a Constitution Bench reported as AIR 1974 SC 1 State of J&K V/s Triloki Nath Khosa it was held that for purposes of promotion to the post of Executive Engineer, educational qualifications could be prescribed and thus notwithstanding there being a common class of Assistant Engineers, based on the educational qualifications for the promotional post, a reasonable classification in the feeder post would be permissible. Meaning thereby, for a higher post a minimum educational qualification can be prescribed as a qualification to acquire eligibility to be promoted, notwithstanding the same not being provided in the feeder cadre post.
9. The reason is obvious. As one moves up the pyramid the nature of the work may require a particular educational qualification.
10. It is trite that whether a minimum educational qualification should or should not be prescribed for a post has to be left by the Court to the executive authorities for the executive authority alone has the expertise in administrative matters and unless the decision is totally arbitrary or shocking the Court would not interfere.
(7 of 7) [SAW-1189/2011]
11. In view of the facts noted above and the legal position, noting that for the post of Junior Marketing Officer/Secretary Market Committees a one time relaxation was given to the six Marketing Supervisors and on the strength thereof they earned the promotion, we allow the writ appeals and set aside the impugned decision dated April 1, 2010. S.B.Civil Writ Petitions No.4902/2004 and 4913/2004 are dismissed.
12. No costs.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)CJ. Parmar