Educational Qualification A Valid Ground For Classification Between Persons Of Same Class In Matters Of Promotion : Supreme Court

Relying on the Apex Court decisions in State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Trilokinath Khosa (1974) 1 SCC 19, State of Mysore v. P Narasing Rao AIR 1968 SC 349 ; Ganga Ram v. Union of India (1970) 1 SCC 377, Union of India v. Dr (Mrs) SB Kohli (1973) 3 SCC 592 and Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India AIR 1967 SC 1889; Roop Chand Adlakha v. Delhi Development Authority and others 1989 Supp (1) SCC 116; M Rathinaswami v. State of Tamil Nadu (2009) 2 SCC (LS) 101; State of Uttarakhand v. SK Singh (2019) 10 SCC 49, the bench observed that the following principles emerged:

(i) Classification between persons must not produce artificial inequalities. The classification must be founded on a reasonable basis and must bear nexus to the object and purpose sought to be achieved to pass the muster of Articles 14 and 16;

(ii) Judicial review in matters of classification is limited to a determination of whether the classification is reasonable and bears a nexus to the object sought to be achieved. Courts cannot indulge in a mathematical evaluation of the basis of classification or replace the wisdom of the legislature or its delegate with their own;

(iii) Generally speaking, educational qualification is a valid ground for classification between persons of the same class in matters of promotion and is not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution;

(iv) Persons drawn from different sources and integrated into a common class can be differentiated on grounds of educational qualification for the purpose of promotion, where this bears a nexus with the efficiency required in the promotional post;

(v) Educational qualification may be used for introducing quotas for promotion for a certain class of persons; or may even be used to restrict promotion entirely to one class, to the exclusion of others;

(vi) Educational qualification may be used as a criterion for classification for promotion to increase administrative efficiency at the higher posts; and

(vii) However, a classification made on grounds of educational qualification should bear nexus to the purpose of the classification or the extent of differences in qualifications

Facts Of The Case

Calcutta Municipal Corporation Services (Common Cadres) Regulations ("Regulations") were notified by Kolkata Municipal Corporation ("KMC") on December 23, 1994, which were applicable to all the employees under all departments and offices and provided for management and control of common cadres, seniority and recruitment among other conditions of service. Rule 9 of the Regulations provided for the method of recruitment for the post of Assistant Engineers ("AE") and Subordinate Assistant Engineers ("SAE"). To provide three modes of appointment to the post of AE, the Regulations were modified on August 7, 1997, and the KMC thereafter modified the Recruitment Regulations for the post of AE and notified them by a circular dated February 20, 2002.

The circular dated February 20, 2002, was challenged in a writ before the High Court which was disposed with granting liberty to the petitioners to make a representation before the KMC. In an effort to remove stagnation in promotion to the next higher post of AE from the post of SAE, a circular was issued dated June 17, 2008 which was called as "first career advancement scheme" as it awarded basic scale of pay (Rs. 8,000 - 275/- 1000) of an AE to SAEs who have completed twenty years of satisfactory service in the KMC.

The KMC on July 3, 2012 issued a circular ("impugned circular")which was considered to be the second career advancement scheme that stipulated the creation of supernumerary AE posts for SAEs holding a diploma and having completed twenty-five years of services and SAEs holding a degree and having completed thirteen years of services (out of which 5 years were as degree holder). In pursuance of the July 3 circular, an office order dated July 5, 2021 was published which had names of the SAE's who had been promoted to the post of AE against the supernumerary posts.

Aggrieved, the SAEs possessing a diploma in engineering approached the High Court. The Single Judge of the High Court on October 6, 2015 observed that when persons having different educational qualifications are subject to a common recruitment process and are selected thereafter, a subsequent classification in that cadre would be in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Single Judge also observed that the classification for promotion was not made to reward those SAEs who had improved their educational qualification during service, but instead was a benefit granted to all degree holders.

On the contrary, in letter patent appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court by order dated January 25, 2019 upheld the validity of the impugned circular and gradation list and observed that classification made on the basis of educational qualifications for supernumerary appointments to the higher post of Assistant Engineer was valid.

Aggrieved by the order dated January 25, 2019 the Division Bench, SAE's possessing diploma in engineering approached the Top Court.

Submissions Of Counsel

Appearing for the SAE's possessing diploma, Senior Counsel Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya submitted that the effect of the impugned circular would be that a junior SAE holding a degree would be promoted faster than a senior SAE holding a diploma and having more experience. It was also his contention that the High Court had failed to appreciate the ratio laid down in State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Shri Trilokinath Khosa (1974) 1 SCC 19 in which the Top Court had upheld separate channels of promotion for degree holders and diploma holders as they had been recruited through different channels on the basis of their qualifications.

Appearing for KMC, Advocate Sujoy Mondal contended that the Recruitment Regulations provided that educational qualification was one of the criteria for recruitment as well as promotion in the Engineering Service of KMC. It was also his contention that the impugned circular's purpose was to open promotion avenues for stagnating SAE's and that neither any substantive promotional post of AE or any financial benefit was granted to SAE's through the impugned circular.

Representing the degree-holding SAE's, Advocate Amit Sharma contended that the present case was similar to Roop Chand Adlakha v. Delhi Development Authority and Others, 1989 Supp (1) SCC 116 where category of Junior Engineers comprise of graduates and diploma holders and a rule providing for different length of qualifying service for promotion was challenged and the Top Court while upholding the rule had observed that differences in educational qualification could be compensated by difference in length of experience required in feeder post.

Court's Observations

Observing that the reading of State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Shri Trilokinath Khosa (1974) 1 SCC 19 as urged by the SAE's holding diploma was fundamentally flawed, the Top Court observed that,

"The appellants have sought to lay emphasis on the fact that the decision in Trilokinath Khosa (supra) was dependent on the existence of two different sources of recruitment, while in the present case there is a single source of recruitment. To read the decision in this light is to miss the wood for the trees. In Trilokinath Khosa (supra), the Court had adverted to the well-established principle that once direct recruits and promotees are integrated into a common pool, they cannot be treated differently based on the 'source of recruitment'. This however does not imply that they cannot be classified on other reasonable grounds. Thus, whether there are two different streams of recruitment, or a single source of recruitment merged into a common pool, the classification that was upheld in Trilokinath Khosa (supra) was based on the educational qualification which was linked to the purpose of enhancing administrative efficiency in the organization. We are unable to agree with the submission of the appellants that the decision in Trilokinath Khosa (supra) is not applicable in the present case."

The bench while upholding the High Court's view further observed that,

"The impugned circular indicates that these supernumerary posts were created for removal of stagnation amongst SAEs. Although that may be the stated goal of the impugned circular, KMC has urged before this Court that the distinction in education qualification for promotion has been made for the purpose of enhancing administrative efficiency. It cannot be denied that SAEs once promoted to the post of an AE in these supernumerary posts would be performing the task and functions of an AE. Thus, it is not merely a change in the designation of an SAE to an AE, but involves an increase in workload, supervisory functions, and performance of the regular functions of an AE. Since that is the case, we do not find any reason why the rationale underlying the need for higher degree-holders in the AE cadre through regular promotion would not be applicable in the case of supernumerary posts."

Case Title: Chandan Banerjee & Ors v. Krishna Prosad Ghosh & Ors.

Coram: Justices DY Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and Hima Kohli

Citation : LL 2021 SC 487