9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (12) TMI 914X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nqualified people for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer. The learned Single Judge accepted the contention of the appellants and allowed the writ petitions by judgment dated 12th of January, 1994. In arriving at its conclusion that providing ratio for promotion is discriminatory, the learned Single Judge relied upon the decisions of this Court in Mervyn Coutindo, 1966(3)SCC 600, Roshan Lal Tandon 1968(1) SCR 185, Punjab State Electiricity Board, 1986(4) SCC 617, Mohammed Shujat Ali, 1975(5) SCC 76, G.M.S.C.Rly Vs. AVR Siddanti, 1974(4)SCC 335, and N.Abdul Basheer- 1989(Supp.)2 SCC 344. The Board assailed the judgment of the learned Single Judge by preferring an appeal. The Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, set aside the judgment of the Single Judge and allowed the appeal, preferred by the Board, relying upon the decisions of this Court in P.Murugeshan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 1993(2) SCC 340 and S. N. Deshpande vs. Maharashtra I.D. Corporation, 1993(Supp.)2 SCC 194. It is this judgment of the Division Bench, which is the subject matter of these appeals. Mr. M.Rama Jois, the learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellants, contended that providing a ratio for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e learned counsel for the respondents, the ratio of the judgment of this Court in Murugeshan, squarely applies and, therefore, the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court was fully justified in interfering with the conclusion of the learned Single Judge. The Recruitment and other service conditions including promotion in the Karnataka Electricity Board is governed by a set of regulations called the Karnataka Electricity Board Recruitment and Promotion Regulations (hereinafter referred to as the Recruitment Regulations). The Recruitment to the post of Operator, Meter Reader and Assistant Store Keeper, which constitute a combined cadre, is made both by direct recruitment as well as by promotion, on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. The Regulation provides that 50% of the combined cadre would be filled up by direct recruitment and 40% of the cadre by promotion on the basis of seniority- cum-merit and equivalent post and 10% by direct recruitment from among the in-service personnel. The minimum qualification for direct recruitment is I.T.I. certificate in Electrical or Telecommunication or Electronic trade or certificate in Lineman trade of Karnataka Electricity Board Training In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly prevent the State from making differentiation between the persons and things. The State has always the power to have a classification on a basis of rational distinctions relevant to the particular subject to be dealt with but such permissible classification must satisfy the two conditions namely the classification to be founded on intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped from others who are left out of the group and that the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the legislation. In other words, there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the legislation. So long as the classification is based on rational basis and so long as all persons falling in the same class are treated alike, there can be no question of violating the equality clause. If there is equality and uniformity within each group, the law cannot be condemned as discriminatory, though due to some fortuitous circumstances arising out of a peculiar situation, some included in the class get an advantage over others, so long as they are not singled out for special treatment. When a provision is challenged as v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Junior Engineer only after they have rendered more than 15 years of service. That apart the only promotional avenue available to such technically unqualified promotees is the 35% quota in the cadre of Junior Engineer and they could not aspire of any further promotion, whereas the qualified direct recruits could be promoted still further higher ups. The Board claimed that while fixing the ratio as 1:1, it took into account the qualification, the experience and the smooth functioning of the Board and for striking a balance between the qualification on the one hand and the experience on the other. In Trilokinath, this court has affirmed the principle of classification but has held that it should be founded on a reasonable differentia which distinguishes the persons grouped together from those who are left out of the group and in that case the classification was between the Degree holder Assistant Engineers and Diploma holder Assistant Engineers. The Court upheld such classification as it was intended to achieve administrative experience in the Engineering Service. In Murugesan, a three judge Bench of this Court upheld the ratio of 3:1 between graduate Assistant Engineers and Diploma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d between qualified direct recruits, who are the appellants and technically unqualified promotees, who are the private respondents in the ratio 1:1. Such a classification, in our considered opinion, cannot be held to be discriminatory, if the object sought to be achieved, as indicated by the Board in its counter affidavit is looked into. The decision of this Court in the case of Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and Anr. vs. Ravinder Kumar Sharma and Ors., 1986(4) SCC 617, on which the learned Single Judge had relied upon and Mr. Rama Jois, appearing for the appellants had strongly relied upon was over-ruled by the three Judge Bench Judgment in P. Murugesan and Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., 1993(2) SCC, 340. The decision of this Court in N. Abdul Basheer and Ors. Vs. K.K.Karunakaran and Ors., 1989 Supp.(2) SCC 344, on which also, the learned Single Judge had relied upon and Mr. Rama Jois, also strongly relied upon, has been distinguished in the aforesaid case of Murugesan. The decision of this Court in Mohammad Shujat Ali and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., 1975(3) SCC 76, which was followed in the Punjab State Electricity Board case, has been explained in the afor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
