Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2010 (2) TMI 1277

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hra Pradesh State Educational Service who contend that the Tribunal and the High Court fell in error in declaring Note 6 to Rule 3 of the Rules in question to be unconstitutional. 2. The short question that falls for consideration and that was argued at considerable length before us by learned counsel for the parties is whether persons drawn from different sources and integrated into one class/cadre/category can be classified into separate categories for purposes of promotion on the basis of the source from which they were drawn. The question is, in our opinion, squarely covered by the decisions of this Court to which we shall presently refer but before we do so, we may briefly set out the factual backdrop in which controversy arises. 3. In exercise of the powers vested in it under Sections 78 and 99 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 and in suppression of the earlier rules, the Government of Andhra Pradesh framed what are known as Andhra Pradesh Educational Service Rules . Rule 2 of the said Rules provides for the composition of the service which broadly speaking comprises four distinct classes of employees enumerated under the said Rules. Each one of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... le shall be followed from the feeder categories: 1. A.D., G.A.O, and A.P.O. 2. Direct recruit Dy.E.O./Gazetted Head Master Grade-I, Lecturer IASE/CTE/SCERT, Senior Lecturer DIET and Special Officer (OS) 3. Promotee Dy.E.O./Gazetted Head Master Gr.I and P.E.O. 4. Promotee Lecture IASE/CTE/SCERT, Senior Lecturer DIET and A.D. (NFE) 5. Direct Recruit Dy.E.O./Gazetted Head Master Gr.I, Lecturer IASE/CTE/SCERT, Senior Lecturer DIET and Special Officer (O.S.) 6. Promotee Lecture IASE/CTE/SCERT, Senior Lecturer DIET and A.D. (NFE) 7. A.D., G.A.O, and A.P.O. 8. Direct recruit Dy.E.O./Gazetted Head Master Grade-I, Lecturer IASE/CTE/SCERT, Senior Lecturer DIET and Special Officer (OS) 9. Promotee Dy.E.O./Gazetted Head Master Gr.I and P.E.O. 10. Promotee Lecturer IASE/CTE/SCERT, Senior Lecturer DIET and A.D. (NFE) 11. Direct Recruit Dy.E.O./Gazetted Head Master Gr.I, Lecturer IASE/CTE/SCERT, Senior Lecturer DIET and Special Officer (O.S.) 12. Promotee Lecturer IASE/CTE/SCERT, Senior Lecturer DIET and A.D. (NFE) 6. A careful reading of Rule 3 (supra) would show that for posts i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion, even after their integration into one cadre the same was discriminatory hence ultra vires of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 7. Appearing for the appellants Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, learned senior counsel argued that in The State of Jammu and Kashmir Vs. Shri Triloki Nath Khosa and Ors. 1974 (1) SCC 19, this Court has recognised that a classification based on higher educational qualifications was permissible even when those for whom the classification was made were integrated into one class. He urged that the decision of this Court in Roshan Lal Tandon Vs. Union of India 1968 (1) SCR 185, reliance whereupon was placed by the Tribunal as also by the High Court in support of the view taken by them stood diluted to that extent implying thereby that the law declared in Roshan Lal Tandon's case (supra) could admit of exceptions, one of which based on higher qualifications was recognised in Triloki Nath's case (supra). Dr. Dhavan strenuously argued that this Court could recognise the need for correcting imbalance, if any, in the filling up of posts by persons drawn from different categories as yet another exception to the Rule stated in Roshan Lal Tandon's cas .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of further promotion to the higher Grade `C'. 10. The above decision was noticed by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Triloki Nath's case (supra). In that case diploma holder engineers had challenged the validity of certain service rules, inter alia, on the ground that inasmuch as the said Rules made a distinction between Degree Holder members of the Engineering service and Diploma Holders for purposes of promotion to the post of Executive Engineers the same was unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Rules in that case provided for promotion of only such of the Assistant Engineers as possessed a bachelor's degree in engineering or qualification of A.M.I.E. and as had put in seven years of service in the J K Engineering Service. The High Court had allowed the petitions of Diploma Holders and struck down the Rule as unconstitutional, holding that the Diploma Holders and the Degree Holders having been integrated into one category, no distinction or classification based on educational qualification could thereafter be made between them. In an appeal to this Court that view was reversed. This Court held that a class .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rs formed one common class with skilled artisans who were promoted to Grade `D' as train examiners, no favoured treatment could be given to the former merely because they were directly recruited as train examiners and no discrimination could be made as against the latter merely because they were promotees. This is the true meaning of the observation extracted above and no more than this can be read into the sentence next following: To put it differently, once the direct recruits and promotees are absorbed into one cadre, they form one class and they cannot be discriminated for the purpose of further promotion to the higher Grade `C'. In terms, this was just a different way of putting what had preceded. 12. In the light of the above pronouncements, the Tribunal and the High Court were, in our view, justified in holding that Note 6 to Rule 3 was unconstitutional inasmuch as the same classified officers eligible for appointment against class II category 1 posts depending upon whether they were direct recruits or promotees. Such a classification based on the birth mark that stood obliterated after integration of officers coming from different source into a common ca .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates