SC Declares Maharashtra Forest Dept. Rule Mandating Graduation To Be Prerequisite Of Examination For Promotion As Unconstitutional [Read Judgment]

A division bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice R Banumathi on Friday examined the question of whether an education qualification, set as a prerequisite for a candidate to be deemed eligible to take part in an examination intended to serve as a benchmark for the grant of promotion, could be said to be in contravention of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

The apex court was faced by an appeal challenging the constitutionality of Rule 7 of the Forester, Forest Guard, Ranger-Surveyor, Surveyor, Head Clerk, Accountant and Clerk-cum-Typist (Recruitment) Rules, 1987, applicable to the Forest Department of the Government of Maharashtra, in so far as after an amendment in 2013, it provided for the promotion of a Forest Guard to the post of Forester on the fulfilment of any one of two conditions - one, on the basis of seniority and subject to fitness levels, if the candidate has completed not less than three years of service as Forest Guard; and two, as per the merit list prepared on the basis of performance in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination. The rule further stipulated that in order to appear in the said examination, the candidate must have completed five years of regular service as Forest Guard in the Forest Department of the State of Maharashtra and must also possess a graduate degree from a recognised university. The amendment of the Rules in 2013 allocated a quota to the extent of 75 per cent in the proposed promotions to candidates selected on the basis of seniority and the remaining 25 per cent to those selected in the said examination.

It was contended before the court that the provisions of Rule 7 in so much as they require a prospective candidate to be a graduate in order to be eligible to participate in the competitive examination are discriminatory in the context of the fundamental right to equality as imbibed in Articles 14 and 16.

The state, in turn, retorted, “The whole purpose behind the amendment was to introduce young blood in the post of Forester where they have to undertake physically challenging responsibilities as well, and that is why preference is sought to be given to graduates.” The bench observed that as commendable as this objective is for the Rule to be not seen as propagating inequality, it is important that the opportunity of obtaining promotion by appearing in the examination must also be available to other youngsters who, though non-graduates, possess the specified experience and are otherwise also proficient. Holding that a classification based on an educational qualification may be deemed as being reasonable in certain circumstances, the court further opined, “But that is not what has been done in the present case. Based on the educational qualification, a class within a class has been created violating the guarantee of equality by restricting the participation in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination only to graduates.”

Relying on the ratio in TR Kothandaraman and Ors vs Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage BD and others [(1994) 6 SCC 282], the Supreme Court ruled that by virtue of there not being any reservation in promotions in favour of Forest Guards holding a graduate degree, subsequently subject to inter se merit in the competitive examination, and the additional requirement of being a graduate operating solely as an eligibility criterion to participate in the examination, the same is violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. Consequently, Rule 7(2) of the Rules of 1987, mandating a candidate to be a graduate in order to appear in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination, was declared unconstitutional.