VENKATARAJA SARMA v. STATE OF KERALA — 1986 DIGILAW 145 (KER)

Judgment :- 1. The Special Rules relating to an apex appointment in the Collegiate Education Department of the State is under challenge in this writ petition. The complaint is that the rules in particular R.3(a) to the extent they exclude the Principals of Sanskrit Colleges from consideration for appointment to the post of Additional Director, contain the vice of discrimination, that the rule is inconsistent with the equality provisions of the Constitution, and is therefore bad. 2. The skeletal idea indicated in the original petition as it was filed, got a clearer shape and better form by the additives of additional affidavits. An offensive stance was clearly discernible by then. A defensive fabric was put up. It cannot be claimed that there was deft handling of the weft and warp. The yarn was one which got easily worn-out: all but one. 3. The petitioner is a Master Degree holder with a first class in Sanskrit. He has other academic distinctions too. He started his teaching career, as a lecturer in the Sanskrit College in the year 1954. He climbed up the official ladder, by becoming a II Grade Professor in 1966, a I Grade Professor in 1969 and a Principal in 1975. 4. The Special Rules for the Collegiate Education Department had been framed on 28-10-1967. The top most post was that of the Director. Appointment to that post was from among Principals of the Arts and Science Colleges, and the Training Colleges on the basis of selection. (The provision regarding the selection process appears to be a dead letter as far as the Department is concerned. To all intents and purposes, the senior-most Principal used to become the Director.) 5. The representation of the College Teachers about the stagnation at the level of Principals, apparently induced the Government to create the posts of Deputy Directors, a cadre equivalent to that of Principals. This was done by G.O.(MS) No.86/75 dated 3-6-1975. Perhaps the same objective, prompted the creation of a post of Additional Director, on 5-2-1980 by an executive order. The executive order got reflected in the amendment of the rules on 22-8-1980. The Special Rules were amended again in 1985, under Ext.P1. Provisions were made as to the qualification and method of appointment as Additional Director. Promotion to that post was from the Principals of Arts and Science Colleges and the Training Colleges. The executive order got reflected in the amendment of the rules on 22-8-1980. The Special Rules were amended again in 1985, under Ext.P1. Provisions were made as to the qualification and method of appointment as Additional Director. Promotion to that post was from the Principals of Arts and Science Colleges and the Training Colleges. The Director's post was made a promotion post from that of the Additional Director. 6. The State has large number of colleges, the bulk of them accounted for by Arts and Science Colleges. Others belonging to the class are the Physical Education Colleges, Vijnan Mandirs, Music Colleges, Law Colleges, Sanskrit Colleges and Training Colleges. Vijnan Mandirs stand abolished by now. For the post of Director, only Principals from among Arts and Science Colleges and Training Colleges were to be considered. The petitioner complains that as on 1985 when a vacancy arose in the post of Additional Director, he had served the Department for over 30 years. He was not behind others among the Principals as regards the prescribed academic qualifications. He had longest service as Principal, among all the colleges in the State. He could justifiably aspire for the post of Additional Director, according to him. 7. The Principal of the Sanskrit College earns the same scale of pay as the Principals in the Arts and Science Colleges and the Training Colleges. This is clearly admitted in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government. (The Law College Principal has a higher scale Rs.2250-3350, a Principal of the Physical Education is getting Rs. 1500-2685 and the Principal of the Music College Rs. 1950-2950). No differentiation is possible on the basis of the scale of pay for excluding the Principals of the Sanskrit College for consideration to the post of Additional Director. 8. The prescribed qualifications also are the same. There is hardly any difference between a first or second class Honours and Masters degree and a first or second class post-graduate degree in the subject, having regard to the provisions regarding the grant of the Honours Degree and Masters Degree in the Universities in the State. 9. An attempt was made to make out that the Principal of the Sanskrit College has less of administrative experience. The materials, however, do not bear this out. G.O. (MS) No. 12/86/H.Edn. dated 15-1-1986, deals with the powers of the Principals of the Government Sanskrit Colleges. 9. An attempt was made to make out that the Principal of the Sanskrit College has less of administrative experience. The materials, however, do not bear this out. G.O. (MS) No. 12/86/H.Edn. dated 15-1-1986, deals with the powers of the Principals of the Government Sanskrit Colleges. Except in relation to the purchase of science materials and the conduct of study tours, the Principal of the Sanskrit College possesses all other powers wielded by the Principals in Arts and Science Colleges and Training Colleges. The purchase of science materials or the conduct of study tours, does not form such a substantial basis for differentiating between the two groups, while considering appointment to the post of Additional Director. The powers and duties of the Additional Director are of essentially administrative in character. To a person who has spent the best part of his life in pure academic activities, whether he be proficient in Physics, clever in Chemistry, marvellous in Mathematics, or a genius in Genetics, will, while functioning as Principal initially feel the lack of experience in administrative work. Whether relevant or not, there is no qualitative or quantitative difference worthy of note, in that regard, between the Principals of the Sanskrit Colleges and those of others. 10. Knowledge of the English Language was sought to be put forward as a distinguishing feature of other Principals. True at the time of the inception of the Sanskrit College in 1896, proficiency in Sanskrit was correctly treated as the criteria for appointment to the teaching posts in the Sanskrit Colleges. In that background, when the special Rules were framed, it was felt that some knowledge of English (presumably to undertake the correspondence with the Administrative Department) was desirable for the Sanskrit Professors. The enabling provision of an earlier period, has no practical relevance in modern times. In order to become a Master Degree holder, a person has necessarily to pursue his education, including the education in the English language in his school years and continue it for the Pre-degree course, before he could branch off to the intensive study of the Sanskrit language. That would be the position of a person pursuing his studies in Arabic, Hindi or Malayalam or even of those starting on a professional course. The scholarship in the English language, does not therefore appear to be a relevant reason for the differentiation. That would be the position of a person pursuing his studies in Arabic, Hindi or Malayalam or even of those starting on a professional course. The scholarship in the English language, does not therefore appear to be a relevant reason for the differentiation. Such proficiency in the English language as is found necessary for the manning of the post of a Principal of the Sanskrit College would be sufficient for discharging the duties of an Additional Director also, as is evident from the fact that similar others, good in their respective disciplines but not altogether masterly in the handling of the English language, had occupied the post of Director and the Additional Director in the past. 11. Yet another attempt made was to show that the Sanskrit Colleges were small in size judged by the student strength and the staff strength. There is no merit in this point either. The data furnished would indicate that there are very many Arts and Science Colleges with less strength in the number of students and staff. During the year 1982-83, student strength in the Sanskrit Colleges at Trivandrum, Tripunithura and Pattambi were respectively 677, 589 and 2354. During the same period, the strength in the Training Colleges at Trivandrum. Trichur, Calicut and Tellicherry were respectively 240, 152, 142, and 144. The figures easily blast the decrepit defence. 12. One further ground by way of defence remains to be examined. That is based on a differentiation made in the rules. This is in relation to the experience that has been insisted upon, for the post of the Principals of the Sanskrit Colleges on the one hand and those in other colleges. Such a differentiation had been there even from the very commencement of the special Rules. The experience that was stipulated for becoming a Principal was of a duration of seven years in Arts and Science Colleges while in the case of Principals in Sanskrit Colleges four years experience was sufficient. The rules got amended on 30-3-1983. This was apparently in the wake of a representation of the College teachers about persons working in small departments having accelerated promotions and thus becoming Professors many years earlier than others who have started their teaching career in bigger departments. The rules got amended on 30-3-1983. This was apparently in the wake of a representation of the College teachers about persons working in small departments having accelerated promotions and thus becoming Professors many years earlier than others who have started their teaching career in bigger departments. The anomaly and hardship were avoided by prescribing a period of 25 years teaching experience at the Degree/Post Graduate Degree level to enable a person for being prompted as Principal in Arts and Science and Training Colleges. No such condition exists in the case of the Principals of the Sanskrit Colleges. A Professor with four years teaching experience can aspire for promotion as Principal in the Sanskrit Colleges. This differentiation in relation to the quality and length of experience is maintained even in relation to the post of the Professors as regards the two groups. 13. The question then is whether such a differentiation in the quality and duration of teaching experience, would be a rational ground for excluding the category of the Principals of the Sanskrit Colleges from consideration for the post of Additional Director. Experience, we feel, is a factor which has relevance and an intimate nexus to the evaluation of suitability to a superior post. Length of experience would therefore be a relevant and reasonable criterion for a justifiable differentiation. Experience based on length of service would reasonably sustain a classification. (See Randhir v. Union of India AIR 1982 S. C. 879). Even the Constitutional scheme relating to appointment to high offices bear this out. Thus for example, one of the qualifications for a judge of the High Court is whether "the person concerned has been an Advocate of the High Court for at least 10 years". (vide Art.217 of the Constitution). In the case of of a District Judge, the standing at the Bar necessary for appointment is only 7 years (vide Art.233 of the Constitution). Even a casual reference to the special rules framed by the Central and State Governments would indicate that length of experience had been denoted as a reasonable and rational qualification, and greater experience is stipulated in respect of higher posts. Even a casual reference to the special rules framed by the Central and State Governments would indicate that length of experience had been denoted as a reasonable and rational qualification, and greater experience is stipulated in respect of higher posts. Viewed that way, the exclusion of the Principals of the Sanskrit Colleges on the ground that their length of experience is not comparable with the Principals in other categories of colleges, would be a sustainable defence, though only for that single reason, it is impossible for the Court to strike down the rule. We hold that the impugned Rule is not void as offending Art.14. Under the scheme of our Constitution, courts' function is only to enquire whether a provision is constitutionally condemnable and not whether it is ideally desirable. Ours is the duty only to prune and not to plant. That latter rule is given to the Executive. 14. There is much force in the contention of the petitioner that a person with same academic equipments, and having mastery only over the Sanskrit language, could become a Principal of an Arts and Science College, and later become an Additional Director, whereas an identically situate person, with same academic distinction and with same length of his experience, is denied an appointment for the only accident of his having joined a Sanskrit College. As noted earlier, the counter-affidavits perhaps reveal the absence of a concerted thought on this facet of the hardship experienced by a section of the scholastic community in the college campus of Kerala. The Special Rules are not particularly noted for their clarity. Patches after patches have detracted from their clarity. It is perhaps for this reason that a concerted or earnest endeavour has not been made to identify the problems of the Principals of the Sanskrit Colleges, and find out a reasonable and rational solution. A provision insisting upon an experience of 25 years even in the case of Principals of Sanskrit Colleges as a condition for being considered for the post of Additional Director, would be reasonably acceptable. Similar changes could be made in relation to the prescription of experience for the other posts of Professors and II Grade Professors in the Sanskrit Colleges. No attempt appears to have been made in that direction so far. Similar changes could be made in relation to the prescription of experience for the other posts of Professors and II Grade Professors in the Sanskrit Colleges. No attempt appears to have been made in that direction so far. The Government will certainly do well to consider their problems and evolve a reasonable and rational provision and procedure for satisfying their legitimate ambition to claim eligibility for the post of Additional Director in the Collegiate Education Department. It may be a travesty of justice if in India, which is the home land of that great language, those selfless scholars who had pursued the path of study, are left with a feeling of wanton neglect. A policy of enlivening the study and propagation of that language, is clearly visible on the National Plans. It is yet to have its impact in this area. Probably the attention of the Union Government and the University Grants Commission would help a sooner solution. 15. By the time this judgment is handed down, the petitioner would have retired from service. For a person to become a Principal with longest experience, from among the Principals of Colleges, is a rare chance. The petitioner got that distinction. From that stage, it was only one further leap to the post of the Additional Director. The petitioner made a valient attempt to reach that post, unsuccessfully as it ultimately turned out. In a sense, he was espousing the cause of a class. He may perhaps have to be content with one of the greatest messages of the language in which he is proficient- "Do thy duty; fruit is not thy concern"; and may perhaps continue the efforts, in the proper field and with greater vigour-now that he is a freer man. We dismiss the petition but without any order as to costs.