2010 (2) TMI 1277 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Note 1(i) to Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Service Rules.
2. Constitutionality of Note 6 to Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Service Rules.
3. Classification of integrated officers for promotion based on their source of recruitment.

Summary:

Issue 1: Constitutionality of Note 1(i) to Rule 3
The High Court declared Note 1(i) to Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Service Rules to be intra vires, and this finding was not challenged before the Supreme Court.

Issue 2: Constitutionality of Note 6 to Rule 3
The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's view that Note 6 to Rule 3 was ultra vires and dismissed the writ petitions. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, agreeing that Note 6 was discriminatory and violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Note 6 prescribed a 12-point cycle for promotion to the post of District Educational Officer and Deputy Director, which classified officers based on whether they were direct recruits or promotees, despite being integrated into one class.

Issue 3: Classification of Integrated Officers for Promotion
The Supreme Court examined whether officers integrated into one class/cadre/category could be classified for promotion based on their recruitment source. The Court referred to previous decisions, including Roshan Lal Tandon Vs. Union of India and The State of Jammu and Kashmir Vs. Shri Triloki Nath Khosa, to conclude that once officers are integrated into one class, they cannot be discriminated against based on their recruitment source. The Court found that Note 6's classification based on the "birth mark" of officers was unjustified and discriminatory.

The Court dismissed the appeals, stating that any imbalance among those eligible for promotion does not justify such a classification. The classification must rest on a reasonable and intelligible basis and bear a nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the statute. The Court emphasized the need to avoid artificial inequalities and ensure fair and reasonable classifications.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's decision that Note 6 to Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Service Rules was unconstitutional and discriminatory. The Court reiterated that once officers are integrated into one class, they cannot be classified for promotion based on their recruitment source.