Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

In the year 1978 the Government of.Tamil Nadu altered the designations of the categories relevant before us by G.O.M.S. No. 954 dated 2.6.1978.Para-2 of the G.O. stated that the diploma-holder-supervisors shall be designated as' junior engineers while the degree-holders-supervisors (who had come to be known as junior engineers meanwhile) would be designated as assistant engineers. Consequently the erstwhile post of assistant engineer was redesignated as assistant executive engineer. By G.O.M.S. No. 907 dated 20.5.1981, this change in designation was given effect to and incorporated in the Statutory Rules issued in 1969 (Madras Corporation Engineering Service Rules). The recruitment and conditions of service of assistant engineers and juniors (formerly known together as Supervisors) were governed by the by-laws made by the Corporation. In the matter of pay scales too, a distinction was being maintained between graduates and diploma-holders even when they were in the same category of Supervisors. The pay scale admissible to the category of supervisors was 325-650 but the graduates were given a higher start-their initial pay was fixed at 400. No such treatment was given to the diploma-holders. According to the appellants there was yet another distinction from 1972 onwards; the pay- scales prescribed for the graduate engineers and diploma- holder-engineers were different as per the particulars mentioned in para 33 of the S.L.P. They point out that in the counter filed to the Special Leave Petition, the respondents have not denied the said averment; they merely stated in para 20 of their counter that the "allegations in paragraphs 33 to 36 are of no avail to the petitioner." Whether in pursuance of the Resolution of 1965 or otherwise, certain promotions were made to the category of assistant executive engineers, in the year 1978, applying the ratio of 3:1 as between graduate-engineers and diploma-holder- engineers. We may refer to these two categories hereinafter as assistant engineers and junior engineers, since that was the designation given to them by G.O.M.S. No. 954 dated 2.6.1978. The said promotions were questioned by diploma- holders in a batch of writ petitions 2810 of 1978 etc.) in the Madras High Court. It was dismissed by a learned Single Judge. On appeal, however, a Division Bench of that court held judgment dated 21.12.1989 in Writ Appeal No. 990 of 1984 etc.) that inasmuch as the Statutory Rules framed in 1969 did not provide for any such ratio, it is not open to the Corporation to prescribe such a ratio by a mere resolution or by an executive order. Accordingly, the Division Bench quashed the said promotions. A Special leave petition preferred against he said judgment in this Court was dismissed on 25.1.1990. It is then that he Government of Tamil Nadu stepped in and amended the 1969 Rules providing for the said ratio of 3:1 by way of G.O.M.S. No. 138 (Municipal Administration and Water Supply) dated 9th February, 1990. So far as relevant herein, the said G.O. prescribed the "ratio of 3:1 between the degree holders and diploma holders" in the matter of promotion to the assistant executive engineers. It was further provided that a junior engineer (diploma-holder) who acquired an engineering degree or its equivalent during his service as junior engineer will be eligible for appointment as assistant executive engineer if he puts in three years of service in the Corporation Engineering Subordinate Service after obtaining the engineering degree or its equivalent. The result of this amendment was that a two-fold distinction came to be made between graduates and diplomaholders in the matter of promotion to the post of assistant executive engineers. In addition to the hitherto existing distinction in the matter of length of qualifying period of service (10 years for diploma-holders/junior engineers as against 5 years for degree-holders/assistant engineers), the new restriction imposed by the said amendment was that the diploma holders/junior engineers were restricted to only one out of four posts of assistant executive engineers; the remaining three were reserved for graduates/assistant engineers. (Of course, according to the appellant such a ratio was in vogue as a matter of fact since 1965. the respondents deny this assertion. Be that as it may, the ratio or quota, as it may be called was statutorily imposed by the said amendment.

Mr. M.K. Ramamurthy, learned counsel for the appellants' submitted that classification on the basis of academic qualifications is a well accepted basis. for the purpose of promotion and that the Division Bench of the Madras High Court was in error in holding otherwise. He submitted that assistant engineers and junior engineers constituted different categories though performing similar functions and discharging similar responsibilities. Their pay-scales were different-at any rate from 1972. Even earlier, the pay fixation formula was different in the case of graduates. Even the Statutory Rules of 1969 made a distinction between the two categories inasmuch as while only five years' qualifying service was prescribed for graduates, ten years' qualifying service was prescribed for diploma-holders.

In such a situation imposing an additional restriction upon the promotional chances of diploma holders by the impugned amendment is neither incompetent nor can it be characterised as discriminatory. He submitted that right from 1972 onward, a clear distinction was being observed between the graduates and diploma-holders and that the impugned amendment is but another step in the same process. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents holders submitted that whether graduates or diploma-holders, they were all in the category of supervisors till the year 1981. There was only one category of supervisors to which graduates were appointed by direct recruitment and diploma- holders by promotion from the lower category of overseers. They performed identical functions and discharged identical responsibilities. They were inter-transferable. On some occasions, graduates (assistant engineers) were posted to assist a diploma holder (junior engineer) in discharging certain duties. Even after 1978 when the graduates- supervisors were designated as assistant engineers and diplomaholders-supervisors were designated as junior engineers, the same situation continued. In such a situation prescription of a quota as between them for promotion to the higher category is discriminatory and is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Learned counsel submitted that in any event once the diploma-holders were required to put in ten years' service (as against five years' service in the case of graduates) in the category of supervisors for becoming eligible for promotion as assistant executive engineers, the eligible graduates and the eligible diploma-holders became equals in all respects. No distinction is permissible thereafter in the matter of and for the purpose of promotion. Creating such a distinction, imposing a disability upon the diploma- holders, is not only unjust and inequitable, it is also a clear case of hostile discrimination. Lastly and alternatively counsel submitted that the vacancies which arose prior to the coming into the force of the impugned amendment, at any rate, should be filled up in accordance with the unamended Rules. It is pointed out that the impugned amendment is only prospective in operation. Section 87 of the Act is relied upon in this behalf. It is true that theory of classification should not be carried too far lest it may subvert, perhaps submerge, the precious guarantee of equality, as pointed out by Chandrachud, J. in State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa, [1974] 1 SCR 771. Minute and microcosmic classification should not be permitted nor should the Court countenance "mini classifications based on micro distinctions", as pointed out by Krishna Iyer, J. in the same case. Looked at from this broad angle, it may appear there is some force in what the respondents contend viz., that once the graduate- engineers and diploma-holder-engineers constitute one class, perform same duties and discharge same responsibilities, placing a restriction on the diploma holders alone (limiting their chances of promotion to one out of four promotions, as has been done by the impugned Amendment) is not justified but this may be a too simplistic way of looking at the issue. We cannot fail to take note of the fact that right from 1974 i.e., since the decision of the Constitutions Bench in Triloki Nath Khosa this Court has been holding uniformly that even where direct recruits and promotees are integrated into a common class, they could for purposes of promotion to the higher cadre be classified on the basis of educational qualifications.

The facts of this case, narrated hereinbefore, clearly disclose that long prior to the impugned amendment, a clear distinction was being maintained between these two categories. The 1969 Rules, as originally issued, prescribed a five years' qualifying service for graduate engineers while prescribing ten years' qualifying service for diploma holders, though earlier it was twenty years for both uniformly. No one ever questioned it. The graduates were designated as Assistant Engineers while Supervisors were designated as junior engineers in the year 1978. This distinctive designations were recognised by and incorporated into the Statutory Rules (1969 Rules) in the year 1981. No grievance was made on that count. Even when both of them were in the same pay scale, the graduates were being given a higher start at Rs. 400 straightaway, while no such benefit was given to a promote. Further, from 1972 onwards, it appears, their very payscales were different. It is thus clear that though they belonged to one class they represented two different categories, while it is true, they performed similar duties and discharged similar responsibilities. It is asserted by the Respondent's counsel that there is also a common seniority list but this fact is denied by the appellant. According to them, there were two separate seniority lists till 1979 and that when in 1979 a single seniority list was prepared, it was objected to by the graduates, Be that as it 'may, the question still remains whether it is not permissible to the rule-making authority, if it thinks it necessary in the interests of administration to limit the promotional chances of non-graduate to one out or four vacancies, on the basis of academic qualifications. In the light of the Constitution Bench decision in Triloki Nath Khosa, we cannot say that it is not permissible.