9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2004 (11) TMI 623X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e certificate holders. All petitioners were working in the same feeder category of Computing Supervisor. According to the special rules issued vide G.O.(P)No. 327/76/P D dated 22.9.1976, qualification of diploma in Printing Technology was prescribed as one of the essential qualifications for supervisory posts like General Foreman, Head Computer etc. Thereafter, there were several representations in order to minimise the hardships of the non-diploma holders who were in service. Government, subsequently, amended the Special Rules with effect from 30.1.1978 as per G.O. (P) No. l00/80/H.Edn. dated 1.7.1980 by substituting the following Note: "Promotion of persons qualified under item 2(a) and 2(b) above shall be made in the ratio 1:1 sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore, the very same provisions alleged in this case was said to be unconstitutional. In Ravindran v. State of Kerala (1992 (1) KLT 524) a Division Bench of this Court held that the Note made by the amendment in 1980 providing a ratio of 1:1 for promotion between diploma holders and certificate holders is not discriminatory or violative of Atts. 14 and, 16 of the Constitution of India. The Court considered the decision in Daniel's case (supra). But, it was not followed. M. Jagannadha Rao, Chief Justice (as he then was) considered Daniel's case and observed as follows: "Learned Counsel for the writ petitioner has relied upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Daniel v. State of Kerala (1985 KLT 1057). That was also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ows: "We are therefore of the opinion that 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 Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution and must be upheld." In the unreported decision in Writ Appeal No. 149 of 1990, the Court only followed Daniel's case. 3. In Balakrishnan v. State of Kerala (1990 (1) KLT 66) a Division Bench of this Court considered various cases of the Supreme Court and held in a case relating to E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e basis of educational qualifications so as to deny eligibility for promotion to a higher post to an employee possessing lesser qualification or requiring longer experience for those possessing lesser qualifications has been upheld as valid by this Court." 4. In K.R. Lakshman and Ors. v. Karnataka Electricity Board and Ors. ((2001) 1 SCC 442), it was held that classification of employees for the purpose of promotion depending upon classification and experience is valid and bifurcation of the promotees' quota in the post of Junior Engineer in the ratio of 1:1 was held valid. The Supreme Court also held that the concept of equality before law means that among equals the law should be equal and should be equally administered and tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
