Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(32) There was no integration of he t two cadres either expressly or by necessary implication. The Supreme Court held that the two cadres existed independently of the Punjab Educational Service (Provincialised Cadre) Class Iii Rules. It was further held that the two services had started as independent services; the qualifications prescribed for entry into each were different; the method of recruitment and the machinery for the same were also different and the general qualifications possessed by and large by the members of each class being different, they started as two distinct classes and that if they were distinct services, there was no question of inter-se seniority between members of the two services, nor of any comparison between the two in the matter of promotion for founding an argument based upon Article 14 or Article 16(1). It is difficult to see the application of the observations of the Supreme Court to the facts of the case before us. If at all, the observations in so far as they referred to the difference in qualifications go against the appellant. The decision of the Supreme Court in The State of Mysore and another v. p. Narasingha Rao is destructive of the appellant's contention rather than in support of it. In this case the respondent was a tracer in the Engineering Department in the Ex-Hyderabad State on the scale of pay of Rs. 65-90. This cadre comprised of matriculates and non-matriculates but there was no distinction in their scales of pay and all tracers were placed in the same scale. The respondent was a non-matriculate. Upon re-organisation of States in 1956, Hyderabad State became part of the new Mysore State and the respondent was allotted to the new State. After the transfer of the respondent to the new State, the cadre of tracers into which tracers from Bombay State had also been absorbed was re-organized into two grades, one consisting of matriculate tracers whose scale of pay was fixed at Rs. 50-120 and the other of non-matriculates at Rs. 40-80. Since the respondent was a non-matriculate, he was given the option to accept the new scale of pay of Rs. 40--80 or remain in the old Hyderabad scale of Rs. 65-90. He refused to exercise the option and claimed that the cadre of tracers in the new Mysore State should not have been divided into two grades and that no distinction should have been made between matriculates and non-matriculates and that his pay should be fixed in the higher grade of Rs. 120 for matriculates. The contention was rejected by the Supreme Court and it was held that the provisions of Article 14 or Article 16 do not exclude the laying down of selective tests, nor do they preclude the Government from laying down -qualifications for the post in question. In the case beforeous the standard adopted by the respondent- Corporation, on the advice of the Commission, was that a person to be eligible for appointment as Executive Engineer even on promotion should be the holder of a degree. This is consistent with the .observations of the Supreme Court above referred to. We cannot, therefore, accept the contention on behalf of the appellant that inasmuch as the laying down of the conditions of holding a degree barred diploma-holder Assistant Engineers from promotion as Executive Engineers, it is violative of Article 14 or Article 16 of the Constitution. Corporation Of Delhi And Others Qualifications pertain to the post to which appointments or promotions are to be made. It is open to an employer to prescribe or specify qualifications for eligibility to a post. So long as such qualifications apply equally to every candidate for the post, there cannot A be any violation of the right to equal treatment.