9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of different eligibility conditions for Diploma-Holders and Graduates for promotion in DDA. 2. Validity of High Court's judgment declaring differential treatment as unconstitutional. 3. Applicability of relevant Supreme Court precedents. Summary: Issue 1: Constitutionality of Different Eligibility Conditions The principal controversy was whether the Rules prescribing different conditions of eligibility for Diploma-Holders and Graduates for promotion from the cadre of Junior-Engineers to that of Assistant-Engineers and from the cadre of Assistant-Engineers to that of Executive-Engineers in the Public Works Department of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and would, therefore, require to be declared void. The High Court, in the writ petitions filed by the Diploma-Holders, has held that such differential treatment of Diploma-Holders and Graduates by the prescription of different standards of service-experience for purposes of eligibility for promotion to the higher cadres is unconstitutional. Issue 2: Validity of High Court's JudgmentThe High Court heard these two petitions together and by its common judgment dated 2.9.1987 upheld the challenge and declared the different standards of service-experience prescribed for Degree-Holders and Diploma-Holders in respect of both the cadres as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The High Court distinguished the decision of this Court in State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa & Ors., [1974] 1 SCR 771. The High Court drew a distinction between the situation where diploma-holders were wholly excluded from eligibility for promotion to the higher cadre and the situation where, while they were considered eligible for promotion, however, were subjected to more onerous and less advantageous conditions for such promotion. Issue 3: Applicability of Relevant Supreme Court PrecedentsThe High Court placed reliance on the pronouncement of this Court in Mohammad Shujat Ali v. UOI and Others,[1975] 1 SCR 449, H. C. Sharma and Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors., [1983] 3 SCR 372 and Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala, and Anr. v. Ravinder Kumar Sharma & Ors.,[1986] 4 SCC 617 and T.R: Kapur and Others v. State of Haryana and Others, AIR 1987 SC 415. In State of Mysore v. Narasinga Rao,[1968] 1 SCR 40 1 higher educational qualifications were considered relevant for fixation of higher pay-scales. In Union of India v. Mrs. S.B. Kohli,[1973] 3 SCR 117 the requirement of a post graduate specialisation in the particular discipline was considered not irrelevant and a classification based on such specialisation was upheld. Triloki Nath Khosa's case is more directly in point. There, Graduate-Engineers and Diploma-Holders were in a common-cadre of Asst. Engineers. But for purposes of further promotion to the higher cadre of Executive-Engineers only the Graduate were held eligible. Diploma-Holders were barred for promotion. Repelling the challenge to this provision made by the Diploma Holders, this Court said: "The classification of Assistant Engineers into Degree-holders and Diploma-holders could not be 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 presumption evidence of a higher mental equipment." Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment dated 2.9.1987, and dismissed the Civil Writ Petitions No. 2132 of 1984 and 2082 of 1984 in the High Court. The Court held that the prescriptions of different standards and conditions for eligibility based on educational qualifications and service-experience were justified and not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Appeals allowed.
|
