Research › Browse › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

1975 DIGILAW 283 (KER)

T. M. POTHEN v. STATE OF KERALA

1975-10-29

P.GOVINDA NAIR, T.KOCHU THOMMEN

body1975
Judgment :- 1. The short question which arises in this case is whether Ext. P2 order dated 16 - 3 -1959 of the Government which says that diploma holders in Civil or Mechanical Engineering of the Travancore University are not eligible for promotion to the post of Executive Engineers from that of Assistant Engineers, but persons holding the Upper Subordinate Diploma of the College of Engineering, Guindy, would be eligible for such promotion is so unreasonable a classification as to be violative of Art.16 of the Constitution. The petitioner challenged Exts P1 and P2 orders of the Government dated 30 - 3 -1962 and 16 - 3 - 1959, respectively, in so far as they provided for such a differential treatment. The petitioner, at the time of filing the petition, was an Assistant Engineer in the civil branch of the Kerala State Electricity Board. He holds the Diploma of the Travancore University in Civil Engineering. The petitioner says that persons holding Diplomas in Civil or Mechanical Engineering of the Travancore (now Kerala) University or Upper Subordinate Diploma of the College of Engineering, Guindy, have to grind their way from the bottom of the hierarchy of posts to the post of Assistant Engineers, unlike graduates who are directly appointed as Junior Engineers. He therefore contends that being like persons they ought to be treated alike for the purpose of promotion from the post of Assistant Engineer to that of Executive Engineer. What the Government has done by Ext. P2 is to treat like persons dissimilarly when promotions are considered to the post of Executive Engineers. According to him the diplomas of both the Travancore University and the College of Engineering, Guindy, are of equal standards. Holders of these Diplomas have slowly and patiently found their way from the bottom of the hierarchy to the position of Assistant Engineers. To introduce discrimination in favour of the Guindy Engineers at the time of promotion to the post of Executive Engineers is, according to the petitioner, a glaring discrimination which is violative of Art.16 of the Constitution. The writ petition was dismissed by judgment dated 20-12-1972. The learned judge, after referring to the relevant portions of Ext. To introduce discrimination in favour of the Guindy Engineers at the time of promotion to the post of Executive Engineers is, according to the petitioner, a glaring discrimination which is violative of Art.16 of the Constitution. The writ petition was dismissed by judgment dated 20-12-1972. The learned judge, after referring to the relevant portions of Ext. P2 order, observed that insistence on a superior qualification for a higher post which involved greater responsibilities and duties, while at the same time treating the superior and inferior qualifications alike for purposes of a lower post involving less responsibilities, would not by itself be discriminatory in character. The learned judge relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in The State of Mysore and another v. P. Narasinga Rao (AIR. 1968 S.C. 349) and said as follows: "In the counter-affidavit filed in this case it has been pointed out that the Upper subordinate Course of Madras cannot be equated with the diploma course of the Travancore University. The former is of five years' duration inclusive of one year's practical training, whereas, the latter is only of four years duration inclusive of one year's practical training. It cannot therefore be said that the selection of the Madras Upper Subordinate Course alone as ft necessary qualification for the purpose of promotion to the Higher Cadre of Executive Engineer from that of Assistant Engineers, while leaving out the Travancore Diploma holders in the Subordinate cadre as ineligible for promotion, was discriminatory. Nor can it be said that the prescription of the Higher qualification had no rational connection with the object Sought to be achieved namely, greater insistence on the excellence of qualification at the higher level." The learned judge held that Ext. P1 and P2 were not discriminatory or illegal, as alleged by the petitioner; and dismissed the writ petition. It is against this order of the learned judge that the petitioner has now come up in appeal before us. 2. We shall read the relevant portions of Ext. P2: "(b) Such number of vacancies among Executive Engineers as the State Government may from time to time determine but not exceeding 5 per cent of the total sanctioned cadre strength of Executive Engineers shall be reserved to be filled by selection from among Assistant Engineers. (1) Who possess the qualifications mentioned in sub item (A) of Section-A or sub. P2: "(b) Such number of vacancies among Executive Engineers as the State Government may from time to time determine but not exceeding 5 per cent of the total sanctioned cadre strength of Executive Engineers shall be reserved to be filled by selection from among Assistant Engineers. (1) Who possess the qualifications mentioned in sub item (A) of Section-A or sub. item (a) of Section-BI in item (II) in the Annexure and. x x x (ii) Diploma in Engineering: - SECTION A (a) Associate Membership Diploma of the Institution of Engineers, India, in Civil or Mechanical Engineering or any other Diploma recognised as equivalent thereto. (b) Pass in Section A and B of the Associate Membership Examination of the Institution of Engineers, India, in Civil or Mechanical Engineering. SECTION (a) Upper Subordinate Diploma of the College of Engineering, Guindy. (b) Diploma in Civil or Mechanical Engineering of the Travancore (now Kerala) University or Diploma recognised by Government as equivalent thereto. x x x x" Ext. P2 shows that while persons holding the Upper Subordinate Diploma of the College of Engineering, Guindy, are eligible for promotion to the post of Executive Engineers from that of Assistant Engineers, the same privilege is denied to persons holding Diplomas in Civil or Mechanical Engineering of the Travancore (now Kerala) University. This discrimination, as the learned judge points out, is warranted by the greater responsibilities and duties involved in the post of Executive Engineers. The Diplomas of these two institutions are of different durations. In the opinion of the Government', the Guindy Engineering Diplomas are of higher standard, and such higher level is necessary, in the interest of greater efficiency of administration, for being considered as the requisite qualification for appointment to the post of Executive Engineers. In Stare of Jammu and Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa (AIR. 1974 SC. 1) the Court addressed itself to the question whether persons drawn from different sources and integrated into one class could be classified for purpose of promotion on the basis of their educational qualification. It would be sufficient if we read the head-notes of this case which, we think, truly reflect the judgment: "Though persons appointed directly and by promotion were integrated into a common class of Assistant Engineers, they Could, for purposes of promotion to the cadre of Executive Engineers, be classified on the basis of educational qualifications. It would be sufficient if we read the head-notes of this case which, we think, truly reflect the judgment: "Though persons appointed directly and by promotion were integrated into a common class of Assistant Engineers, they Could, for purposes of promotion to the cadre of Executive Engineers, be classified on the basis of educational qualifications. The rule providing that graduates shall be eligible for such promotion to the exclusion of Diploma-holders does not violate Art.14 and 16 of the Constitution and must be upheld. (Para 55) The classification of Assistant Engineers into Degree-holders and Diploma holders could not by held to rest on any unreal or unreasonable basis. The classification was made with a View to achieving administrative efficiency in the Engineering services. If this be the object, the classification is clearly correlated to it for higher educational qualifications are at least presumptive evidence of a higher mental equipment. (para 39) Classification is primarily for the legislature or for the statutory authority charged with the duty of framing the terms and conditions of service; and if, looked at from the standpoint of the authority making it, the classification is found to rest on a reasonable basis, it has to be upheld." (para 26) 3. In the light of the observations of the Supreme Court, we are of opinion that the classification made by the Government for the purpose of promotion to the post of Executive Engineers from among non-graduates holding the post of Assistant Engineers is in the interest of administrative efficiency. Such classifications, as the learned judge points out, cannot be characterised as discriminatory. With respect we agree with the views expressed by the learned judge, and dismiss the appeal. We do not, however, wish to make any order as to costs. Dismissed.