State Of Jammu & Kashmir vs Triloki Nath Khosa & Ors on 26 September, 1973
However on the facts of that case, the Supreme Court found that graduate supervisors were always treated as a separate and distinct class from non-graduate supervisors at all relevant points of time and they were never integrated into one class, and, in that context, the Supreme Court held that no unconstitutional discrimination arose by reason of differential treatment being given to them. The question of discrimination and classification cannot be decided by applying a rigid code irrespective of situations and exigencies faced by the administration. The test of reasonable classification should always be applied with reference to the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. It would be within the competency of the State to say that the nature of the functions and duties attached to a particular post require drafting in of personnel possessing a particular educational qualification and they alone shall be eligible for promotion and not others. Depending upon the exigencies of services and the facts and circumstances, including the availability or otherwise of qualified personnel, which have come to transpire at the relevant point of time, there could also be a total exclusion of non-degree holders from the avenue of promotion, as it happened in State of J. and K. v. T. N. Khosa (supra). But, if there existed no justification for excluding the non-degree holders from the avenue of promotion, the degree holders and non-degree holders having been fused into one class, treated on par with each other and there being no inefficiency or non-suitability on the part of the non-degree holders from the service point of view, bringing in a quota and prescribing a ratio as between degree holders and non-degree holders in the absence of convincing grounds therefor, will patently come within the mischief of discrimination inhibited by the constitutional provisions guaranteeing equal opportunity. For prescribing such a ratio as between them, strong reasons should exist and they must have found expression both in the records with the authorities and in the pleadings before this Court. Neither the pleadings put forth on behalf on the respondents nor the facts based as per records, before me, make out a reason justifying the prescription of such a notice as between the degree holders and non-degree holders. By the prescription of the ratio, the integrated seniority list gets disrupted. A non-degree holder, through he may be senior to a degree holder in the integrated seniority list, could not be promoted to the vacancy arising if the fixation of quota or ratio is to be adopted and implemented. No justifiable factor has been made out by the respondents for prescribing the ratio. It is not a case of total exclusion of the non-degree holders on the ground that earlier there was a spurt and a copious availability of degree holders. If non-degree holders are fit to be promoted as Assistant Directors and they could also fill in the avenue of promotion, as to what could be, and what was the reason behind the prescription of the ratio, the respondents are not in a position to bring conviction to the mind of this Court. The prescription of the ratio, giving one post to non-degree holders cannot be a matter of gratis. Either (sic) it should go by principles, having the backing of reasons, or, otherwise it will come within the mischief of discrimination. Why there should be three as against one between the degree holders and non-degree holders is practically left unanswered by the respondents, and obviously, they could not find an answer in the materials that were before them at the time of the passing of the impugned Government Orders. Certainly, they cannot improve matters by the pleadings and rightly, the pleadings on behalf of the respondents have not endeavored to improve. The rationale, if there was one, for this ratio was not at all exposed before this Court.