2009 (4) TMI 911 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether graduate Assistants should be treated equally irrespective of whether they are promotees or direct recruits for considering them for promotion as Deputy Tehsildar? Whether the difference in the educational qualifications is sufficient to give preferential treatment to one class of candidates against another?

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of preferential treatment to directly recruited Assistants over promotee Assistants for promotion to Deputy Tehsildar.
2. Interpretation of the amendment to Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules.
3. Alleged violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
4. Rational basis for classification based on educational qualifications.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Preferential Treatment to Directly Recruited Assistants:

The appellants, promotee Assistants, challenged the preferential treatment given to directly recruited Assistants for promotion to Deputy Tehsildar. The amendment dated 7.2.1995 to the Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules allowed directly recruited Assistants to be placed above senior promotee Assistants after completing five years of service. The appellants argued that this amendment adversely affected their vested rights for promotion.

2. Interpretation of the Amendment to Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules:

The amendment introduced two provisos that placed directly recruited Assistants above promotee Assistants for promotion to Deputy Tehsildar. The appellants contended that once integrated into one cadre, further classification for promotion based on the mode of recruitment was impermissible. They argued that many promotee Assistants were graduates or postgraduates, thereby deserving equal treatment for promotions.

3. Alleged Violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution:

The appellants claimed that the amendment violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution by discriminating against promotee Assistants. The respondents justified the preferential treatment by stating that directly recruited Assistants had higher educational qualifications (graduation) compared to promotees (S.S.L.C.) and received special training.

4. Rational Basis for Classification Based on Educational Qualifications:

The court observed that the promotees often had the same or longer experience and similar training as directly recruited Assistants. It was noted that many promotees were also graduates or postgraduates, thus there was no rational basis for discrimination against them. The court agreed with the appellants that graduate promotee Assistants should be treated equally with directly recruited Assistants for promotions.

Judgment:

The court held that the impugned amendment should be read down to apply only to non-graduate promotee Assistants. Graduate promotee Assistants should be treated at par with directly recruited Assistants for promotion to Deputy Tehsildar. The court referenced past judgments, including the Constitution Bench decisions in *State of Jammu & Kashmir vs. Triloki Nath Khosa* and *Mohammad Shujat Ali vs. Union of India*, to support the principle that educational qualifications can be a basis for classification, but such classification must be reasonable and related to the nature of duties.

Conclusion:

The appeals were partly allowed, and the impugned judgment was partly set aside. The court held that the rule placing directly recruited Assistants above promotees for promotion as Deputy Tehsildar would only apply to non-graduate promotees, not to those who are graduates. This interpretation aimed to save the rule from becoming unconstitutional under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. No order as to costs was made.

← Previous Next →