2004 (11) TMI 623 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the ratio of 1:1 for promotion between diploma holders and certificate holders in the Government Press Subordinate Service Rules, 1976.

Detailed Analysis:
The main issue in this case was the constitutionality of the fixed ratio of 1:1 between diploma holders and certificate holders for promotion to the post of Head Computer in the Government Presses. The petitioners argued that since they were working in the same feeder category and performing similar duties, they should be treated equally with diploma holders. However, the amended Special Rules, introduced in 1980, provided for the promotion ratio of 1:1 between diploma holders and certificate holders. The contention was whether this ratio was correct or not based on constitutional validity.

Case Law Analysis:
The judgment referred to various previous cases to determine the constitutionality of the promotion ratio. In Daniel v. State of Kerala and an unreported decision, the ratio of 1:1 between diploma holders and certificate holders was deemed unconstitutional. However, in Ravindran v. State of Kerala, a Division Bench held that the 1:1 ratio was not discriminatory. The Court also cited Balakrishnan v. State of Kerala, where a Division Bench upheld a similar ratio in Engineering Service Rules based on educational qualifications. The Supreme Court's decision in Rajasthan State Electricity Board Accountants Association was also referenced, emphasizing that educational qualifications can be the basis for classification of employees.

Final Judgment:
The High Court ultimately overruled the previous decisions that found the 1:1 ratio unconstitutional. Referring to the latest decision in Chandravathi v. C.K. Saji, the Court affirmed that the State has the authority to fix separate quotas for promotion based on educational qualifications. The Court held that the promotion ratio between diploma holders and certificate holders was not discriminatory and did not violate the Constitution. Consequently, the Court directed the concerned authority to implement promotions according to the amended Special Rules within three months from the date of the judgment. O.P. Nos. 17419 of 1995 and 12952 of 1995 were dismissed, while O.P. No. 16867 of 1995 was allowed for promotion in accordance with the amended Special Rules.