Karnataka High Court
Kamalamma vs State Of Karnataka on 9 December, 1800
Equivalent citations: ILR1988KAR72, 1988(1)KARLJ237
JUDGMENT Shivashankar Bhat, J.
1. These appeals are by the State of Karnataka and a few individuals who were promoted as Readers or Professors by virtue of their having passed the relevant service examinations (they are referred as Promotee-respondents, as referred by the learned single Judge).
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are thus :
The petitioners, except the petitioner in WP.No. 11371/81 (re.W.A.2204/85) are all Lecturers in different subjects in the Collegiate Education Department of the State Government. According to the Recruitment Rules of the Collegiate Education Department the next promotional post for Lecturers is that of a Reader in the concerned subject. The post of Reader is also a teaching post but of a higher and gazetted cadre. The Karnataka Civil Services (Service and Kannada Language Examination) Rules, 1974 ('the Rules' for short) were promulgated by the Governor under proviso to Article 409 of the Constitution on 10-1-1974. Rule 4 of the said Rules provided that no person shall be eligible for promotion after the expiry of two years from the date of commencement of the Rules for being promoted to the next higher cadre unless he or she had passed service examinations as defined in the Rules prescribed for such higher post. By a subsequent amendment, the period of exemption was extended by an year. As a result, the passing of service examinations prescribed under the said Rules became obligatory for promotion on or after the expiry of the period of exemption. Entry 47 in Schedule II to the Rules pertains to the Department of Collegiate Education. The relevant portion of the entry read as follows :-
47. The Karnataka Education Department Service (Collegiate II Dn. Clerks Accounts (lower) Managers "47. The karnataka Education Department Service Collegiate Education Department).
II Dn. Clerks Accounts (lower) Managers Accounts Clerks I Division clerks Accounts (higher) Accounts Superintendent
1. S.A.S. Examination
2. Accounts (Higher) Director
1. Accounts (Higher)
2. General Law Part-I"
3. The Rules were amended by the Karnataka Civil Services (Service & Kannada Language Examination(5th Amendment) Rules, 1977. Rule 3(2)(b) of the Rules reads :-
"3. Amendment of Schedule II - in the table below schedule II to the said Rules -
(2) in the entries at Sl.No. 47 relating to the Karnataka Education Department Services (Collegiate Education Department) Service (Collegiate Education Department).
(b) after the words Director the words 'Senior Professors, Professors and Readers' shall be inserted".
4. In view of the above amendment, the passing of Accounts Higher and General Law Part- 1 Examinations became a condition of eligibility for promotion of Lecturers to the post of Readers and of Readers to the post of Professors and of Professors to the post of Senior Professors. In view of the above Rules, the petitioners were considered ineligible for promotion as Readers as they had not passed the two service Examinations. Their juniors were promoted on the ground that they had passed the Departmental Examinations. This amendment and the failure to promote the petitioners were challenged in the several Writ Petitions. The Notification dated 9-3-1963 whereby 69 persons were promoted is also sought to be quashed in W.P.Nos. 5966 to 5980/83. The said promotees were also impleaded as respondents to these Writ Petitions.
5. There is no dispute that the petitioners in all the Writ Petitions (except WP.No. 11371/81) are seniors in the cadre of Lecturers in the subjects concerned as against the concerned promotees. The petitioner in WP.No. 1 1371/81 is a Professor in Chemistry. He was promoted as Professor on 8-7-1968. When the question of his promotion to the post of Senior Professor arose, the amendment had already come into force. Therefore, he was considered ineligible for the post of Senior Professor and two of his juniors were promoted as Senior Professors.
6. The petitioners questioned the constitution validity, of the amendment introduced into the Rules in 1977 on the ground that it was violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution.
7. The plea of the petitioners in support of this contention as sumarised by the learned single Judge is as follows:
(A) The posts of Lecturers, Professors and Senior Professors are essentially teaching posts. Their main duty is to impart instuctions in the subject concerned to the students studying in Colleges in various Degree Courses. The passing of Accounts Higher and General Law Part-l has no nexus to the object sought to be achived by the Rules. Lecturers or Readers in a subject possessing the Master's Degree qualification in the subject concerned are all similarly situated. There is no rational basis to classify them into two categories viz., those who have passed Accounts Higher and General Law Part-l examinations and others who have not passed these examinations and to make the former eligible for promotion and the latter ineligible. Therefore, the impugned Rule is violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution.
(B) In the Medical Colleges coming under the Administrative Control of the Department of Health and Family Welfare Services, including the Collegiate branch of the department, there are posts of Lecturers, Readers, Professors and Senior Professors. For the promotion to the posts of Professors and Readers etc., in that Department, the service examinations viz., Accounts Higher and General Law Part-l have not been prescribed. For this reason also the impugned Rule is discriminatory, and therefore violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution.
(C) There are large number of Government Aided Colleges in the State which come under the control of the Collegiate Education Department itself. There are also posts of Readers, Professors etc., in these Colleges. The entire salary of the teaching staff of those colleges is paid out of State funds in accordance with the Grant-in-Aid Code pertaining to the Collegiate Education Department. The appointments of Lecturers, Readers and Professors in the Aided Colleges are required to be approved by the Collegiate Education Department. The academic qualification prescribed for the post of Lecturers, Readers and Professors in those Colleges are identical with those prescribed for Lecturers, Readers and Professors in the Collegiate Education Department under the Government. No departmental examinations have been prescribed by the Government as a condition for approval of promotions to the posts of Readers and Professors in the private Government Aided colleges. This is also an additional ground to show that the petitioners have been discriminated against.
8. The Statement of objections has been filed on behalf of the State Government. The relevant portion of the statement of objections, reads :-
"The allegations made in para 3 to the extent that the duties and functions of the petitioners is confined to imparting instructions as Lecturers is correct. Further allegation that they are not called upon to perform the duties involving administration or accounting work either as Lecturers or as Readers is not correct. In fact, many Lecturers have been posted as Principals of the Colleges wherever Readers or Professors are not available. The post of Principal being Head of the Institution requires both administrative and accounting work. The office of the Principal is assisted by Accounts Section. The Principal being the head of the institution has to exercise jurisdiction both on the Administration and Accounting Section which are under him and ultimately the head of the institution is responsible for the accounting and overall administration of the institution.
Re: Para-9 : The allegation that passing of Accounts Higher and General Law have no relation to the duties and functions of a Lecturer and will not lead to excellence in the discharge of their duties in connection with the affairs of the State is not correct. In fact, even the Lecturers are posted as Principals and the duties of the Principals and the duties of the Principals require the knowledge in both Administration and Accounts as Principals are head of the institutions. Mostly the posts of Principals are filled up from the cadres of Readers and Professors. Having regard to the nature and duties of the post of Principals, the Head of the Institution, Rules prescribed passing of prescribed service examinations to enable them to function effectively as heads of the Institutions. A Principal is to attend many administrative functions including disciplinary function as per C.C.A. Rules and in respect of accounts matters like sanction of increments to non-gazetted officers, attestation of cash book, day books, etc. Thus, knowledge of Accounts and Law are absolutely required to maintain efficiency in the administration. Thus, the allegations that prescription of these examinations is arbitrary and un-reasonable in untenable in law. It is for the Government to prescribe what examination a Civil servant has to pass in order to hold certain posts. The contention that prescription of these examination is unconstitutional and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India is devoid of merits".
9. The statement of objections has been adopted by other contesting respondents. The plea of the State Government and of the contesting respondents in the Writ Petitions was thus : Under proviso to Article 409 of the Constitution it was competent for the Government to prescribe any condition of eligibility for promotion which in the opinion of the Government is necessary for the efficient discharge of the functions of the posts concerned. It is in exercise of such legislative power, the Governor has prescribed Accounts Higher and General Law Part--1 as condition of eligibility for promotion to the posts of Readers, Professors and Senior Professors. The legislative wisdom so exercised by the Governor is not open for interference by the Court. Further, it is not correct to state that the service examinations prescribed have no nexus to the duties and responsibilities of the posts of Readers, Professors and Senior Professors, for the reason according to the Rules of Recruitment the senior most member of the teaching staff is required to be appointed as Principal of the College concerned and duties and responsibilities attached to the posts of Principal being administrative in character, for the efficient discharge of the functions of the Principal the qualification of Accounts Higher and General Law are essential. As far as the non-prescription of the departmental examinations for Professors and Readers in the Medical College of Health Department, petitioners cannot claim that they are similarly situated. The two departments are separately constituted and therefore there can be no comparison between the teachers in the collegiate education department and the teachers in the Medical College. Similarly, the private colleges are also dissimilarly situated as they are not Government Colleges. Therefore, the question of discrimiation does not arise.
10. In the light of the respective contentions, the point for consideration posed by the learned single Judge was:
"Whether Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Service and Kannada Language Examinations) (fifth Amendment) Rule 1977 (the impugned rule for short) by the effect of which Accounts Higher and General Law Part-l departmental examinations came to be prescribed as a condition of eligibility for promotion to the post of Readers, Professors and Senior Professors in the Department, is void on the ground that it is violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution"?
11. On a consideration of the matter and the principle of interpretation governing Articles 14 and 16, the learned single Judge upheld the petitioners' challenge to the impugned Rules and declared it as void and issued a Writ of Mandamus to the State Government to review the promotions to the cadre of Readers on and after 19th April 1977, without insisting on their passing the impugned service examinations and to promote the respective petitioners if found eligible, with consequential benefits. A similar relief was given to the petitioner in WP No. 11371/81 for promotion to the post of Senior Professor.
12. The State of Karnataka and several promotee-Respondents in Writ Petitions have filed these appeals against the said order made in the Writ Petitions.
13. It was held in the order made in the Writ Petitions that : (i) But for the passing of the service examinations by the promotee-respondents, there was no difference between the Writ Petitioners and those respondents, except that, all the Writ Petitioners were seniors and more experienced in their respective fields as Lecturers ; (ii) the passing of the subjects prescribed for the service examinations do not in any way increase the knowledge or proficiency of the Lecturers or Readers in the subject in which they are Lecturers or to become as Readers. Hence, the classification of Lecturers, into two classes - one, who have passed the service examinations and another who have not passed the said examinations, was based on no rational principle; the object sought to be achieved by the Recruitment Rules as well as the service examination Rules is to secure persons with better knowledge and efficiency to discharge duties and responsibilities of the posts concerned. The examinations prescribed have no relevance to the duties and responsibilities of the post concerned here ; (iii) To discharge the functions of a Principal, knowledge of these subjects prescribed for service examinations may be necessary; therefore, such of those persons who have not passed the service examinations need not be posted as Principals, for which petitioners were agreeable; and (iv) There is no dissimilarity between the petitioners and promotee - respondents and hence they cannot be treated differently in the matter of promotions.
14. The learned Advocate General at the outset pointed out that, the subjects of examinations referred in the Order of learned single Judge had been suitably altered, and the syllabus had been amended in the year 1975. However, we consider it unnecessary to go into the details of the subjects and the syllabus prescribed.
15. The basic question is the competency of the State to prescribe certain examinations for the purpose of promotion in the Civil Service. This competency is not under challenge. The challenge is that, for the purpose of discharging the functions of a Reader, Professor or Senior Professor, the subjects prescribed are wholly irrelevant. For example, it was argued that, why should a Professor know about the contents of Identification of Prisoners Act or the Principles of Accounting, if he is to be a Professor in any of the Languages? How is he concerned with the Motor Vehicles Act and its contents, such as, the framing of a scheme for nationalisation of routes, or plying of stage carriages etc.? What is required of a Professor of a language, is a thorough knowledge of the said language and the art of teaching. Similarly, it was argued that to be a Professor of Chemistry, knowledge of the subjects such as Auditing, Motor Vehicles etc., are entirely irrelevant. If such Professors in a private college need nort know these subjects, why should a Professor, Reader, Lecturer or Senior Lecturer in a Government College should have knowledge in these subjects?
16. The argument thus addressed, looks attractive and forcible. The learned single Judge has accepted this line of reasoning. We have considered the question in depth and are constrained to take a different view.
17. The learned Advocate General submitted that, ail these Readers, Professors and Senior Professors who are employed in Governmental institutions and belong to the Education Department of the State are civil servants and are Gazetted Officers. As civil servants, they have a certain status, which requires of them certain duties to be performed as and when called upon to do so. It is not open to a civil servant to refuse to accept the challenges posed by the nature of his service and the State Government is entitled to call upon any one of them to shoulder appropriate responsibilities. He enumerated some of the functions a Gazetted Officer has to discharge, which are :-
(i) He is a pay drawing officer and acts as his own pay drawing officer ; (ii) A Gazetted Officer is entitled to attest the documents ; (iii) He may have to act as Enquiry Officer, in departmental enquiries ; and (iv) He may be called upon to act as Presiding Officer at the time of any polling at an election etc. The learned Advocate General explained to us that the subjects prescribed for the examinations are too fundamental of which every responsible civil servant should have knowledge. In a given situation, he must know, where to look for the law governing the particular situation. He brought to our notice some of the question papers, which show the standard of knowledge required in these subjects, is too general. Further, the Hall tickets issued categorically state that "candidates are allowed to bring to the examination hall, unabridged and unannotated editions of books prescribed for the examinations except in the case of language examinations and to refer to them while answering, but they will not be allowed to give or take books from other candidates in the hall. No candidate shall bring into the examination hall any notes or guides or any other books". This highlights the point that, those who aspire to be Gazetted Officers and climb the ladder in civil service, should know the basic principles of some of the legislations governing the subjects which, normally a responsible Officer of the State would come across in his official career. A deep knowledge in these subjects is not contemplated, as is clear from the fact that many of the subjects are cramped into one question paper of 2 or 3 hours, carrying 100 marks.
18. Sri. R.N. Narasimhamurthy, the learned Senior Advocate, who argued for some of the appellants (promotee-respondents in the Writ Petitions) submitted that, the approach adopted by the learned single Judge was not warranted. He argued that, the question involved herein is, whether the impugned Rule is arbitrary or not; question of discrimination-amongst the same set of persons does not arise. The test of classification and the examination of any nexus between the basis of classification and the object sought to be achieved, does not arise at all. Further, it was argued that, the object behind the promotion of a Lecturer to the post of a Reader cannot be dependent only upon proficiency in the subject of teaching. In addition, a broad knowledge in some of the subjects prescribed for the service examinations, is necessary not only in the interest of civil service, but also, to the maintenance of efficiency in the discharge of his duties. He pointed out that, when the State expects a broad knowledge of some of the basic laws governing the society, in its Officers of higher status, the expectation cannot be rubbed aside as irrational. We find much force in the approach formulated by the learned Advocate General and Mr. Narasimhamurthy.
19. The Lecturers, Readers, Professors etc., of the Education Department are holders of civil office, is not in dispute; in other words, they hold 'public office', governed by the relevant provisions of the Constitution, the statute and the Rules. "The real character of the official relationship has been a matter of status - is a proposition found to be established long ago. as early as in the year 1918, in Tagore Law Lectures by Sri Nagendranath Ghose (vide : Comparative Administrative Law by Nagendranath Ghose 1919 Edition, Page 449), the concept of a 'public office' as stated by an American author Mr. Goodnow is extracted :-
"All that seems to be necessary is that the duties of the office be discharged in the interest of Government and that the right to discharge them be based on some provision of law and not upon a contract".
20. The learned author (Sri Nagendra Ghose) thereafter states :-
"To put the matter more concisely, the offical relationship is not one of contact but of status. The rights, privileges and duties attaching to an off ice are even to this day determined mainly by law and not by agreement"
21. Since law has developed in recent years in many respects the basic concept, that the relationship between the State and its officers, is one of status, has entrenched itself in service Jurisprudence. This is clear from ROSHANLAL TANDON ETC v. UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER, :-
"It is true that the origin of Government service is contractual. There is an offer and acceptance in every case. But once appointed to his post or office the Government servant acquires a status and his rights and obligations are no longer determined by consent of both parties, but by statute or statutory rules which may be framed and altered unilaterally by the Government. In other words, the legal position of a Government servant is more one of status than of contact. The hall-mark of status is the attachment to a legal relationship of rights and duties imposed by the public law and not by mere agreement of the parties. The emolument of the Government servant and his terms of service are governed by status or statutory rules which may be unilaterally altered by the Government withour the consent of the employee, It is true that Article 411 imposes constitutional restrictions upon the power of removal granted to the President and the Governor under Article 410. But it is obvious that the relationship between the Government and its servant is not like an ordinary contract of service between a master and servant. The legal relationship is something entirely different, something in the nature of status. It is much more than a purely contractual relationship voluntarily entered into between the parties. The duties of status are fixed by the law and in the enforcement of these duties society has an interest".
22. It is for the State to anticipate as to what functions and responsibilities, particular Officer will have to discharge and provide for the same. It is certainly, not permissible for a civil servant to refuse to shoulder a particular responsibility that may be asked of him by the State to shoulder, if reasonably the same can be sought out from him. A Professor of History in a college may be asked to hold a disciplinary enquiry against a subordinate employee in the college; he may be asked to head a malpractices committee against a student ; he may be entrusted with the responsibility to look after the vehicles of the college etc. A student may go to a Professor seeking guidance not only in the subject he teaches, but of general nature, such as the traffic regulations, user of motor vehicles, user of any document in evidence, get attestation of documents for other purposes etc. It is of utmost importance for a civil servant to know as to which are the general exceptions to the enumerated offences in Indian Penal Code. It is also necessary for him to know the basic scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Police Act etc. He should not only know the powers and duties of police, but also, the basic structure of our Criminal Courts. Knowledge of accountancy will be necessary not only in the matter of maintaining the accounts, but also, when he has to enquire into actions, in connection with the finances and allied matters. Protection of Civil Rights Act, which is an aspect of Article 17 of the Constitution, has been recognised as one of the legislations brought out to eradicate untouchability, When the State expects its Officers of higher status (like Gazetted officers) to have a basic knowledge of some of these subjects, which are of fundamental nature in the day-to-day functioning of the society, it cannot be held, as an irrelevant expectation. Having regard to the manifold problems of the State and its diverse functions. State may prescribe that its Officers should have some knowledge pertaining to those subjects.
23. Before the learned single Judge, the petitioners made a statement that they are not interested in becoming Principals of the colleges. Similar statement was made before us. We do not think it is possible for a civil servant to dictate the scope of his functions. He cannot refuse to face the challenges involved in the discharge of his responsibilities, which he may be called upon to shoulder at a given time by the State. Duty to accept such a challenging task, flows out of his status as a civil servant. He may act as an enquiry officer. He may have to assist his colleagues in a Departmental Enquiry; he may have to hold disciplinary action against a student. He cannot plead ignorance of some of the important laws governing the maintenance of law and order or accountancy. Hence we reject the statement made on behalf of the writ petitioner, as unacceptable.
24. Much argument was addressed by both sides, as to whether anyone of the Professors, or Readers can be sent to shoulder the administrative responsibilities, as a Director or Assistant Director, etc., in the Educational Department. In the view, we have taken, it is unnecessary for us to go into this question.
25. The Writ Petitions were allowed, on the ground that the impugned Rules create two artificial classifications amongst the class of Lecturers - one who have passed the service examinations and the others who have not. This was held to be violative of Article 14. Actually, question of classification does not arise. The impugned Rules prescribe the requirement of passing the said examinations as a condition precedent for promotion. In other words, passing of these examinations is made an eligibility rule, for promotion. Question is, whether such a Rule can be made prescribing passing of examinations in certain subjects, as a condition precedent for promotion ?
26. State is entitled to prescribe eligibility Rule, is a proposition that cannot disputed. But, if the eligibility prescribed is wholly unrelated: to the post for which promotion is to be made, then the Rule will be arbitrary or unreasonable. If the prescription of an eligibility under a Rule is such as impossible of attainment under normal circumstances, rendering chances of promotion entirely illusory, Rule will invite nullification under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. But the examination of such a prescription of eligibility from the point of view of advisability to have such a Rule, will be outside the purview of Courts jurisdiction.
27. The principle to be applied may be brought out from a few decisions: In SYED SAFARDAR HUSSAIN & OTHERS v. STATE OF MYSORE & OTHERS, 1966(2) Mys. L.J. 545 Justice Somnath Iyer (as he then was) speaking for the Bench observed, at page 549 :-
"If a qualification is prescribed by the Governor and that qualification is a relevant qualification not unrelated to the duties attached to the post to which promotion is to be made, it is not for us to substitute our own wisdom for that of the Governor and say that the qualification was superflous or unnecessary".
Again at page 552, it is stated :-
"We are of the opinion that the power to regulate recruitment to public services and posts, includes the power to prescribe qualifications. Such prescription is plainly part of the process of recruitment, whose aim is the choice of person whose proficiency ensures competence and efficiency in the performance of official duty. Such recruitment may be made by promotion simpliciter or by direct recruitment and whether it is by one method or the other, the Governor has the competence to prescribe a standard in the form of a stated qualification. it is in each case for the governor to regulate recruitment by specification of the classes of persons for recruitment and prescription of qualification"
(underlining is ours)
28. In STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR v. TRILOKI NATH KHOSA & OTHERS, question was whether higher educational qualification may be prescribed for promotion. At paras 39 and 40, it was observed :-
"Judged from this point of view, it seems to us impossible to accept the respondents' submission that the classification of Assistant Engineers into Degree-holders and Diploma-holdersrests on any unreal or unreasonable basis. The classification, according to the appelant, was made with a view to achieving administrative efficiency in the Engineering services. If this be the object, the classification is clearly correlated to it, for higher educational qualifications are at least presumptive evidence of a higher mental equipment. This is not suggest that administrative efficiency can be achieved only through the medium of those possessing comparitevly higher educational qualifications but that is beside the point. What is relevant is that the object to be achieved here is not a mere pretence for an indiscriminate imposition of inequality and the classification cannot be characterised as arbitary or absurd. That is the farthest that judicial scrutiny can extend".
Again at para-40, it is stated :-
".....Efficiency which comes in the trial of a higher mental equipment can reasonably be attempted to be achieved by restricting promotional opportunity to those possessing higher educational qualifications and we are concerned with the reasonableness of the classification not with the precise accuracy of the decision to classify nor with the question whether the classification is scientific. Such tests have long since been discarded. In fact American decisions have gone as far as saying that classification would offend against the 14th Amendment of the American Constitution only if it is 'purely arbitary, oppressive or capricious'. Joseph Radice v. People of the State of New York (1923) 68 Law Ed.690, 695 : American Sugar Ref. Co. v. Louisiana (1900) 45 Law Ed. 102, 103 and the inequality produced in order to encounter the challenge of the Constituition must be 'actually and palpably unreasonable and arbitrary' Arkansan Natural Gas Co. v. Railroad Commission (1923) 67 Law Ed. 705, 710. We need not go that as far as the differences between the two classes - graduates and diploma-holders furnish a reasonable basis for separate treatment and bear a just relation to the purpose of the impugned provision".
29. To the same effect is the observations in BANARSI DAS & OTHERS v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & OTHERS, :-
"In our opinion, it is open to the appointing authority to lay down the reauisite qualifications for recruitment to Government service and it is open to the authority to lay down such pre-requisite conditions of appointment as would be conductive to the maintenance of proper discipline amongst Government servants. If persons already under Government employment on part-time basis had shown themselves not to be amenable to proper discipline in Government offices, it was open to Government not to appoint such persons to the permanent cadre of Lekhpals because such persons could not be said to be as efficient as those who had excellent records of service and had shown greater sense of responsibility to their employers".
30. In THE STATE OF MYSORE & ANOTHER v. P. NARASINGA RAO, the question was the validity of difference in pay scales for matriculates and non-matriculates, holding the same post. The Supreme Court upheld the difference. At page 351, it is held :-
"......Article 16(1) does not bar a reasonable classification of employees or reasonable tests for their selection. It is true that the selective test adopted by the Government for making two different classes will be violative of Articles 14 and 16 if there is no relevant connection between the test prescribed and the interest of publec service. In other words, there must be a reasonable relation of the prescribed test to the suitability of the candidate for the post or for employment to public service as such".
The words of Macaulay, quoted at page 352, may be usefully extracted below :-
"Men who have been engaged, up to one and two and twenty, in studies which have no immediate connection with the business or any profession, and the effect of which is merely to open, to invigorate, and to enrich the mind, will generally be found, in the business of every profession, superior to men who have at eighteen or nineteen devoted themselves to the special studies of their calling, indeed, early superiority in literature and science generally indicates the existence of some aualities which are securities against vice-industry, self denial, a taste for pleasures not sensual, a laudable desire of honourable distinction, a still more laudable desire to obtain the approbation of friends and relations. We, therefore, think that the intellectual test about to be established will be found in practice to be also the best moral test that can be devised".
31. A Reader or a Professor has to deal with a large number of students and members of the staff in a Government College. He may have to act as a Principal; he may have to act as an Enquiry Officer; he may have to take prompt action to prevent a situation from becoming a law and order problem. Having regard to this high status, knowledge of basic legislations regulating some of the matters such as accountancy, traffic law, offences, law and order, cannot be termed as irrelevant or unrelated to his office, in the public interest.
32. In the light of the principles stated above, it is not possible for us to hold that they are wholly irrelevant or unrelated to the objects sought to be achieved. State is entitled to prescribe such an eligibility for conferment of the status of higher office. The prescription of the eligibility rule does not result in arbitrary denial of promotions to the Lecturers. On promotion, a Lecturer will become a Gazetted Officer of the State. As a civil servant he may have to shoulder other responsibilities and discharge functions not entirely confined to the academic side of his official life.
33. It was argued that several Lecturers were promoted as Readers on completion of a prescribed number of years of service as Lecturers and that no passing of service examination was insisted. Thus, it was argued that petitioners were discriminated. The learned Advocate General brought to our notice, that those promotions were as supernumery Readers, and the petitioners are not comparable to those promotees, having regard to their length of service. Further, this is a new case, argued for the first time in the Writ Appeals. Since Supernumery posts are a class apart and promotion as Supernumery Reader depends upon the length of service as a Lecturer, petitioners cannot make a grievance of it under Article 14. Accordingly we reject the said plea of the Writ Petitioners.
34. It was also argued that requirement of passing the impugned examinations was not prescribed to the similar posts in Health Department and Technical Departments. However, this contention is found to be factually incorrect, in view of the amendments to the relevant Rules.
35. No other question arises. In the view we have taken that the prescription of the examinations under the impugned Rules, is valid, we are constrained to allow these appeals.
36. In the result, for the reasons stated above, these appeals are allowed. The Writ Petitions stand dismissed. Rule discharged.