Holding

The 30th and 43rd Amendments differentiating graduates and non‑graduates for promotion to Assistant Grade‑I and II are unconstitutional as they violate Articles 14 and 16 and cannot operate retrospectively.

Summary

The Food Corporation of India (FCI) amended its Staff Regulations in 1976 and 1977 (30th and 43rd Amendments) to require three years of service for graduates and five years for non‑graduates for promotion to Assistant Grade‑I and II posts. Non‑graduate employees filed writ petitions in several High Courts challenging the classification as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The High Courts struck down the amendments, and the FCI sought to withdraw them, but the withdrawal was not gazetted. The Supreme Court examined whether educational qualification can be a valid basis for classification and whether the amendments could operate retrospectively. Finding no material to show that the nature of the work required higher efficiency from graduates, the Court held the amendments arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional, and that they could not have retrospective effect. Consequently, the amendments were struck down, the corporation’s appeal was dismissed, and relief was granted to the non‑graduate petitioners.

Issues considered

Whether classification based on educational qualification for promotion to Assistant Grade‑I and II posts is permissible under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Whether the 30th and 43rd Amendments to the FCI Staff Regulations can operate retrospectively, taking away accrued benefits.
Whether the amendments should be read down or limited to certain categories of employees.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Art.14, s. Art.16

Subjects

educational qualificationpromotionequality clauseArticle 14Article 16retrospective amendmentservice regulationsdiscriminationFood Corporation of India

Judgment

FOOD CORPORA TlON OF INDIA A
v.
OM PRAKASH SHARMA AND ORS.

AUGUST 14, 1998

[S.C. AGRA WAL, M. SRINIVASAN AND A.P. MISRA, JJ.] B

Service Law :

Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation, 1971 :
c
Promotion-Criteria-Educational qualification-Classification-
Based on-Nature of work performed by graduates and non-graduates
similar-Held: Permissible if there is nexus between educational qualification
and higher efficiency in the promotional post-But, in the instant case the
nature of work being similar, fixing of less service for graduates and more
service for non-graduates for promotion, invalid-Food Corporation of India D
(Sta.ff) (30th Amendment) Regulations, 1976-Food Corporation of India
(Stafj) (43rd Amendment) Regulations, 1977-Food Corporntion of India
Act, 1945-Constitution of India, I950, Arts. 14 and 16.

Service Rules-Amendment of-Retrospective effect-Regulations E
amended retrospectively fixing shorter length of service for graduates and
longer length of service for non-graduates for promotion-Validity-Held :
Impugned Amendments cannot operate retrospectively.

The appellant-Corporation issued two amendments, namely, 30th and
43th Amendments to the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971 F
fixing three years of service for graduates and live years of service for non-
graduates for becoming eligible for promotion to the posts of Assistant
Grade-l(AG I) and Assistant Grade-Il(AG II) with retrospective effect. The
non-graduates filed writ petitions before the Kerala and the Andhra Pradesh
High Courts challenging foe validity of the aforesaid amendments, which G
were allowed. The Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the Corporation
against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court was dismissed by
this Court on the ground of delay. Similar writ were also filed before the
Madras and Punjab & Haryana High Courts. The Corporation initially
conceded before the Madras High Court to promote non-graduate writ
H
1193
1194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 3 S.C.R.

A petitioners and also stated that the 43rd Amendment was withdrawn. But the
said amendment was not withdrawn due to want of gazette notification.

The appellant-Corporation in its order dated 13-7-1990 decided to
implement the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the Southern
Zone including the State of Kerala. However, the Corporation in its order
B dated 26-11-1990 took note of the dismissal of its SLP by this Court,
confirmed its decision to withdraw the 43rd Amendment and granted
retrospective promotions to the post of AG-II to eligible persons.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court allowed the writ petition of the non-
graduates. The Corporation filed the present SLP against that decision. Two
C writ petition relating to the same controversy were also filed direct in this
Court.

This Court while considering the SLP and the two writ petitions
noticed the above facts and the stand taken by the Corporation before the
different High Courts. This Court also noticed that in the affidavit filed
D before it the appellant-Corporation did not show that the nature of work of
the post of AG-I or AG-II was such that it required higher efficiency expected
only from graduates and not from non-graduates.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court

E HELD : 1. It is by now well settled that educational qualification is a
proper basis of classification for promotion. An analysis of the various
rulings of this shows that the validity of classification has to be judged on
the facts and circumstances of each case. No material has been placed by the
Corporation to justify the 30th and 43rd Amendments to the Food Corporation
F of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971 introducing a classification between
graduates and non-graduates. The Corporation chose to accept the judgment
of Andhra Pradesh High Court and implement the same on the basis of which
it decided to withdraw the amendments and representations were made to that
effect in the High Courts of Kerala and Madras. Even in the affidavits filed
in this Court, the corporation has referred to the decision of withdrawal of
G the amendments. In such circumstances it is held that the amendments to
the Regulations making a differentiation between graduates and non-
graduates in the matter of promotion for the posts of AG-I and AG-II offend
the equality clause and are, therefore, unconstitutional.
[1206-G; 1209-E-G)

H State ofJ & K v. Triloki Nath Khosa, [1974) 1 SCC 19 and Mohammad
F.C.I. v. O.P. SHARMA 1195
Shujat Ali v. Union of India, (1975) 3 SCC 76, followed. A
Punjab State Electricity Board v. Ravinder Kumar Sharma, (1986) 4
SCC 617; Roop Chand Adlakha v. Delhi Development Authority, (1989)
Supp. l SCC 116; N. Abdul Basheer v. K.K. Karunakaran, (1989) Supp. 2
SCC 344; P. Murugesan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1993) 2 SCC 340; T.R.
Kothandaraman v. Tamil Nadu Water Supply & Drainage Baord, [1994) 6 B
SCC 282 and Rajastan State Elecricity Baord Accountants Association and
Jaipur v. Rajasthan State Electricity Board, [1997) 3 SCC 103, relied on.

2. The 30th and 43rd Amendments having retrsispective operation
which have the effect of taking away a benefit already available to the C
employees under the existing rule are arbitrary, discriminatory and violative
of Article 14 of the Constitution. Therefore, the impugned amendments in
the present case cannot operate retrospectively.
[1210-G-H; 1211-A)
Chairman, Railway Boardv. C.R .. Rangadhamaiah (1997) 6 SCC 623, D
followed.

T.R. Kapur v. State of Haryana, [1986) Supp. SCC 584; P.D. Aggarwal
v. State of UP., (1987) 3 SCC 622; K. Narayanan v. State of Karnatakµ,
[1994) Supp. 1 SCC 44 and Union ofIndia v. Tushar Ranjan Mohanty, [1994)
5 sec 450, cited. E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3969 of
1998.

From the Judgment and Order dated 29.7.92 of the Punjab and Haryana
High Court in L.P.A. No. 535of1990.
F
WITH

Writ Petition (C) Nos. 20/92 and 174 of 1995.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)
G
Raju Ramchandran, Y. Prabhakar Rao, K.V. Viswanathan, K.V.
Venkataraman, (Ms. Shurestha Bagga) (NP), Ms. Chandan Ramamurthi, L.
Naheswara Rao, Ejaz Mac;bool, Brak K. Mishra, Subir Ranjan and Guntur
Prabhakar for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of Court was delivered by H
1196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 3 S.C.R.

A SRINIVASAN, J. Leave granted in S.L.P.

, The Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as Corporation)
was established under the Food Corporation of India Act, 1945 (for short, the
Act). Section 45 of the Act empowered the Corporation to make regulations
B for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Act with the previous
sanction of the Central Government. One of the matters set out in sub-section
2 is 'the method so appointment, the conditions of service etc. of the officer
and employees of the Corporation other than the Secretary'. For the first time
in 1971 F.C.I. (Staff) Regulations were framed. Prior to that all matters relating
to the service of employees were governed by Office Manual.
c 2. Under the 1971 Regulations, category 3 'comprised inter alia the
posts of Assistant Grade I (for short AG-I), Assistant Grade- II (for short AG-
II), Assistant Grade-III (for short AG-III), Typist and Telephone Operator in
the General Administration Cadre as well as in the Godown Cadre. The
minimum educational qualification for the posts of AG I, AG II and AG III was
D graduation while it was matriculate for the other two posts. The mode of
recruitment for the post of AG I was 100% promotion from the posts of AG
II or Telex Operators failing which direct recrnitment. The eligibility criterion
was three years of service as AG II or Telex Operator. The post of AG II was
to be filed up by 100% promotion of those who had three years service as
E AG III, Typist or Telephone Operator failing which by direct recruitment.

3. On 1.5.1974 a circular was issued by the Corporation that it had been
decided to make a differentiation at the time of first promotion from the
recruiting grades between graduates and matriculates. According to the circular,
the former would become eligible for promotion after three years of service
F while the latter would become eligible after five years of service. The circular
also made it clear that promotions made in that manner will be made on
provisional basis for the time being as a purely temporary measure and they
may be regularised as son as formal amendment to the Regulations was made.
On 22nd April, 1976 the F.C.I. (Staff) (30th Amendment) Regulations, 1976 was
G notified. It was deemed to have come into force on 1.5. 74. That pertained to
General Administration Cadre. Similarly F.C.I. (Staff) (43rd Amendment)
Regulations, 1977 was notified on I 0.2. 77 with respect to Godown Cadre. The
effect of the above amendments was to fix three years of service for graduates
and five years of service for matriculates as eligibility criterion.

H 4. The validity of the amendments was challenged by four persons who
F.C.I. v. O.P. SHARMA [SRINIVASAN, J.] 1197
were matriculates working as AG III in O.P. 1138/79 on the file of the High A
Court of Kerala. A learned Judge f that Court allowed the writ petition on
22.2.83 and quashed the same. The Corporation filed W.A: 430/1983 before a
Division Bench of that Court. That appeal was withdrawn and dismissed. The
4th respondent in the writ petition who represented the graduates had filed
W.A. 433/83 and it was pending.
B
5. Two similar writ petitions were filed before Andhra Pradesh High
Court in W.P. Nos. 363 & 1168 of 1987 by non-graduates. Following the
• judgment of the Kerala High Court referred to above, the Andhra. Pradesh
High Court allowed the writ petitions. W.A. Nos. 905 & 907 of 1987 filed by
the Corporation were dismissed by a Division Bench on 15.7.87. After long C
delay the Corporation filed petitions for special leave in this Court. This Court
refused to condone the delay and dismissed S.L.P. (C) Nos. 9387-88/1988 on
9.4.90. The Corporation's review petition R.P. No. 449/93 was dismissed on
20.4.93.

6. Earlier in 1985, thirty non-graduates filed W.P. 2835/85 on the file of D
the High Court of Madras. That petition was dismissed by a Single Judge on
the ground that identical matter was already pending in Kerala High Court.
The Petitioners filed W.A. 757/88 against the -same. When the appeal was
being heard, learned counsel for the Corporation stated on instructions that
the amendment was withdrawn and consequential reliefs were given to the
petitioners therein. Jn view of that statement, the Division Bench set aside the E
order passed in the writ petition and observed that no reliefs need be given
to the petitioners by the Court. It was represented to the Bench that four of
the writ petitioners were not given relief by the Corporation. The Bench
permitted them to approach the authorities of the Corporation for appropriate
reliefs. When such representations were not considered favourably those · p
petitioners filed Contempt Application 310/91 to punish the officers of t~
Corporation for contempt. The Zonal Manager of the Corporation who was
the I st respondent therein filed a counter affidavit in which he stated in ~ra
2 as follows:

"It is respectfully submitted that the 43rd Amendment though was G
resolved to be withdrawn by the Board, the same was not withdrawn
for want of Gazette Notification to this effect."

Jn para 4 the same averment was repeated. It was further added :

"The Headquarters have instructed the Zonal Office to, implement H
1198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 3 S.C.R.

A the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.P. Nos. 363 &
1168 of 1987." r

The pendency of some subsequent proceedings in Kerala High Court
and an order passed therein were cited as reasons for not complying with the
order of the Madras High Court. The Division Bench did not accept the
B contention of the Corporation and issued specific directions to promote the
petitioners therein on the basis that the 43rd Amendment was withdrawn.
Aggrieved thereby the Corporation filed SLP 16797/92 in this Court. We
dismissed it by order dated 29.7.98.

C 7. ln the meanwhile a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court took up
for hearing W.A. 433/83 referred to by us in para 4 above. An order passed
by the Corporation on 13. 7 .90 was produced before the Bench. It was stated
in that order that a decision had been taken by the Southern Zone to implement
the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in respect of Southern Zone
including Kerala. In that situation the writ petitioners sought permission of
D the Court to withdraw the writ petition itself. Referring to the same, the Bench
observed :

"It is in this background that Shri Dandapani the learned counsel for
the contesting respondents, who are the writ petitioners, sought
E permission to withdraw the writ petition, 0.P. No. 1138of1979 itself
in the light of the decision taken by the Food Corporation of India,
to apply the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court to the entire
Southern Zone. Counsel for the Food Corporation of India submitted
that a decision having been taken to repeal the impugned amendments
and to restore the former provisions which treated the degree holders
F and matriculates on par for further promotion to the Cadre of
Assistants Grade Ill, it becomes unnecessary for this Court to examine
the validity of the impugned amended rules. In this background, we
see no good reason for not according to the request of the petitioners
in the writ petition to withdraw the writ petition itself, the corporation
having taken the stand that the amended rules would be repealed and
G
not given effect to. In view of the decision of the Food Corporation
of India, what would stand revived will be the old rules."

In such circumstances, the original writ petition was dismissed as
withdrawn and the judgment of the single judge was set aside without
H expressing any opinions as to the correctness or otherwise thereof.
F.C.l. v. O.P. SHARMA [SRINIVASAN, J.) 1199
8. That order of the Kerala High Court was made on 26.11.90. On the A
.,, same day, the Zonal Office of the Corporation issued Office Order No. 461/
90/Esm. I in the following terms :

"Consequent to the disposal of SLP 9387-88 of 1988 by the Supreme
Court in their order dated 9 .4.1990 and HQRS decision to withdraw the
43rd Amendment from the Food Corporation of India (Staff) B
Regulations, 1971 vide their telex message No. EP30 (I 0)/87 dated Nil
July 1990 and Telex Massage No. EP 16(4) dated 14.9.90, the following
officials are deemed to have been promoted provisionally to the post
of Assistant Grade II (Depot) with effect from the dates noted against
each."
c
[List of officials omitted] ............................................................................. .

"Consequent to the retrospective promotion to the post of Assistant

Grade II(Depot) the above mentioned officials would be eligible for
D
refixation of their pay on notional basis, but eligible for payment of
arrears only from the actual date of joining in the post of Assistant
Grade II (Depot). The seniority of the above officials in the post of
Assistant Grade II (Depot) would be refixed and revised seniority list
published shortly." E
Similarly another Office Order N. 462/90/Estt.I was issued on the same day
with another list of officials whose promotion was subject to Regional Vigilance
Clearance.

9. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 20of1992 who belongs to the Godown F
Cadre in the South Zone has filed the writ petition challenging the said office
orders. Besides praying for declaration that the said Office Orders are null and
void ab initio, the petitioner prays also for declaring that the 30th and 43rd
amendments still survive in the statute book, for issue of a mandamus
restraining the respondents from rescinding the same and for declaring that· G
the seniority list as it existed on 31.12.89 continued to hold good without
prejudice to the contention of the petitioners that even the said list was not
properly drawn.
'
10. Initially, the Corporation and the Zonal office (South Zone) of the
Corporation were only made parties to the writ petition. Some non-graduates H
1200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998] 3 S.C.R.

A got themselves impleaded as respondents. By order dated 5.12.95, this Court,
with a view to obviate multiplicity of proceedings, directed the writ petitioner·
to imp lead some or all of the non-graduates in the writ petition or some other
non-graduates in a r~presentative capacity, i.e. representing the body of non-
graduates in the service of the Corporation all over the country. The petitioner
filed an I.A. and the same was ordered on 8.1.96.
B
11. Even in 1988, a writ petition viz. C.W.P. 7160/88 was filed in the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana by Some non-graduates challenging the seniority
list prepared on the basis of 30th Amendment of the Regulations. The validity
of the amendment was challenged. A single Judge of the High Court allowed
C the same by judgment dated 8.11.89 following the first judgement of the
Kerala High Court and adopting the reasoning thereof. Some graduates were
respondents therein. They did not challenge the judgment. But the Corporation
filed LPA 635/90 against the judgment. The same was dismissed on 28.7.92
by a Division Bench which also pointed out that the graduate employees were
not aggrieved by the judgment of the single Judge and thus the controversy
D did not survive. The Corporation has filed SLP(C) No. 7698 of 1993 against
that judgment.

12. W.P.(C) No. 174/95 has been filed in this Court under Article 32,
Constitutions of India by some non-graduate employees who were appointed
E as Typist/Telephone operators in 1971to1973 in the Northern Zone challenging
the validity of the amendments. According to them the Corporation having
decided to implement the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the
South Zone cannot discriminate against the employees in the other zones
and apply the amended regulations to them.

F 13. All the above three matters are thus concerned with the same
controversy relating to the validity of the 30th and 43rd amendments of the
regulations. When these matters came up for hearing on 21.4.98, this Court
took note of the fact that the relevant material regarding the considerations
which weighed with the Corporation in making the change in the regulations
G was not placed on record and consequently directed the Corporation to file
an additional affidavit stating the considerations which weighed with it in
making the impugned amendments and adjourned the matter for two weeks
for that purpose. Pursuant to the said direction , the Deputy Manager (General)
of the Corporation at Delhi has filed additional affidavit dated 4.5.98 along
with some annexures. With our permission, a counter affidavit on behalf on
H non-graduates has been filed by S. Venkatesan (77th respondent) in the
F.C.I. v. O.P. SHARMA [SRINIVASAN, J.] 1201
course of the arguments along with some annexures. A
"
14. Though the non-graduate employees have been impleaded in the
writ petition in a representative capacity as directed by this Court, the petitioner
in the said writ petition has not filed the same as a representative of the
graduate employees. It can be said that the petitioner in writ petition No. 20
of 1992 is the Ione crusader to support the amendments of the regulations. B
In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation in the said writ
petition in December, 1992 nothing was set out to justify the amendments. On
the other hand it was stated repeatedly in the said counter affidavit that the
Corporation had decided to implement the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court. In Paragraph 2 thereof, it was, averred, that Writ Appeal no. 430 c
of 1983 on the file of the Kerala High Court was withdrawn persuant to the
decision of the Corporation to implement the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court. It was also stated that the revision of the seniority list persuant
to the implementation of the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court
could not be completed on account of a subsequent order of the Kerala High
Court. It should be mentioned here that the subsequent order of the Kerala
D
High Court which was passed in another writ petition challenging the revised
seniority list was only to the effect that promotions made during the pendency
-::7 of the writ petition would be subject to the result thereof. In short, the
Corporation did not choose to place any material before the Court to justify
the amendments. Strangely, no other graduate employee excepting the E
petitioner in writ petition no. 20 of 1992 has come before us to support the
amendments. As observed by Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana, the Judgment of the Single Judge of that High Court in writ
petition 7160 of 1988 was not challenged by the graduate employees who
were parties thereto. It was only after this Court passed an order on 21.4.1998
directing the Corporation to file an additional affidavit and place the relevant
F
materials which weighed with it in bringing about the impugned amendments,
the Corporation filed an affidavit as stated earlier.

15. In the said affidavit, the following passages are relevant :-

"It is submitted that part-II of Appendix-I of the FCI (Staff) Regulations
G
provided that the mode of recruitment in the post of Assistant Garde-
I as 100% promotion failing which by direct recruitment and that the
\
eligibility criteria was 3 years as Assistant Grade-II or Telex Operator.
The mode of recruitment for the post of Assistant Grade-II was 100%
promotion failing which direct recruitment and that the eligibility criteria H
1202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 3 S.C.R.

A is 3 years as Assistant Grade -III or as Typist or as Telephone
Operators. A copy of the said part-II of the Appendix-I to FCI (Staff)
Regulation, 1971 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure -A/ Al
-e. It is submitted that as such the Typists and Telephone Operators
were equated with Assistant Grade-III for the purpose of promotion
to Assistant Grade-II and the Telex Operators were treated at par with
B Assistant Grade-II for the purposes of promotion to Assistant Grade-
l. It is submitted that as such not only promotional avenues were
opened for the first time to Telex Operator, Typist and Telephone
Operators. (who were till then available only for persons working as
. Assistant Grade-II or Grade-III respectively). It is submitted that in
c other words, the promotional avenues which were exclusively available
to Assistant Grade-II or Grade-III respectively, were now open to
others, namely the Telex Operators, Telephone Operators even without
prescribing any quota for each of the categories made eligible for
such promotions. It is submitted that an anomalous situation had
arisen as a result, in as much as persons who are better qualified
D (minimum qualifications for being appointed as Assistant Grade-III is
graduation) were treated equal to persons who are less qualified
(minimum qualifications for appointment as Telephone Operators or
Typists is Matriculation) for the purpose of promotion. It is submitted
that the purpose of prescribing the minimum qualification as Graduation
E for appointment as Assistant Grade-III got defeated and in effect the
entry point became 'Matriculation' for those who entered the cadre
as Typists or Telephone Operators. It is submitted that it was realised
that it was not correct to equate the persons who have higher academic
qualifications (graduation) needing 4 more years of academic pursuit
with those having lesser academic qualifications i.e. Matriculation. It
F is submitted that as such, it was felt necessary either to create quotas
or prescribe higher experience for those who are acadt:mically Jess
qualified."

G "It is submitted that it was felt that the non-existence of any quota
resulting in treating the Typists or the Telephone Operators, who are
generally Matriculate, at per with Assistant Grade III (whose minimum
qualification Wi\S Graduation), was not only incorrect but also affected
the efficiency of the ministerial staff to a great extent."

H
F.C.!. v. O.P. SHARMA [SRINIVASAN, J.] 1203
"It is submitted that it was felt that the differential criteria should be A
provided for the purpose of promotion for the category of Assistant
Grade-III, Typist, Telephone Operator since Assistant Grade-III are
graduates and the Telephone Operators, Typists are matriculates."

16. There is no attempt made in the affidavit to show that the nature
of the work in the posts of AG-I or AG-II was such that it requires higher B
efficiency which could be expected only from graduates and not from non-
graduates. In other words, there is nothing in the said affidavit to establish
... a nexus between the amendments and the alleged object of higher efficiency
in the promotional posts of AG-I or AG-II. In the counter affidavit filed by
a non-graduate respondent in the writ petition as early as in October, 1996, C
it was categorically stated that the duties to be carried out by t;he persons
holding the posts of AG-t.and AG-II could be perfonned with equal efficiency
by graduates as well as non-graduates. It was stated that the nature of the
work in the two posts did not warrant a classification as graduates or non-
graduates. It was pointed out that all the posts of AG-I, AG-II and AG-III are
clerical, non-selectional and non managerial. Along with the counter affidavit, D
the 'job descriptions' of the three posts was also filed as an annexure. A
perusal thereof shows that the nature of the work is not such as to make
differentiation between graduates and non-graduates. It is seen from the 'job
descriptions' that a person holding the post of AG-III could be assigned with
the same work as required to be performed by AG-I and AG-II but under
close and immediate supervision of the supervisor. The Typists and Telephone E
operators are also expected to perfonn other duties listed for AG-III as
required by their superiors. It is thus clear from the 'job descriptions' that the
duties perfonned by the typists and telephone operators as well as AG-III are
similar in nature excepting that the typists and telephone operators are also
attending to technical work on account of their technical qualification. None F
of the above matters has been touched upon by the Corporation in the
additional affidavit filed as late as in May, 1998. This aspect has been rightly
commented upon by learned counsel of the non-graduates.

17. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the non-graduates with
our permission in the course of hearing in reply to the additional affidavit G
of the Corporation, it is reiterated that the non-graduates are perfonning the
same duties as the graduates. The following passages in the said counter
affidavit are relevant :-

"The job description of Assistant Grade III and Assistant Grade
II annexed by the deponent in his counter affidavit filed in the writ H
1204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) 3 S.C.R.

A petition is marked as Annexure C-9 which is in the paper book of.the.
writ petition from page Nos. 394 to 410. No justification whatsoever
has been offered to the impugned amendments except a vague and
self serving statement that efficiency was "affected" or "vitiated" to
a great exrtent. The burden which the Food Corporation of India was
agreed to discharge was to show how having regard to the nature of
B duties of the post, efficiency was affected. This burden has not even
been attempted to be discharged. The picture presented in para 3 of
the affidavit tends to present a misleading picture as if the 30th
amendment was introduced in order not to equate the typists and
telephone operators with such of those AG.III [Gen] who possess
c qualification of graduation. These matriculate Asst. Gr.III [Gen] [Depot]
were/are performing the duties of AG.III on par with Assistants Gr.
III who possess qualification of Graduation. The duties and
responsibilities of all the AG.III are one and the same and the salary
paid is also the same. It is reiterated that the typists apart from typing·
work are also attending to the work of AG.III as required in the job
D description.

The very fact that the work of AG.III [G] [Depot] are being carried
out smoothly irrespective of officials possessing qualification of
matriculation or graduation until this day clearly demonstrates that
the qualification of matriculation is adequate to carry out the nature
E
of work prescribed for Assistant Grade III [Gen] and Assistant Grade
III [Depot]. The nature of work prescribed in the job description
vouches for this argument. It is also submitted that had the FCI
management not been satisfied with the efficiency of the officials
with qualification of matriculation as stated in the 3rd para of the
F affidavit it would not have gradually enhanced the quota from I 0%
to 20% and then to 30% for category IV employees [with minimum
qualification of matriculation] ·for promotion to the post of AG. III
(annexed as Annexure A-1).

The deponent further submits that prior to the establishment of Food
G
Corporation of India, the employees were working in the Food
Department and the entry level post, i.e., Junior Clerk [which is
equal to Assistant Grade - III] the qualification prescribed was only
matriculation."

H .....................................................................................................................
F.C.I. v. O.P. SHARMA [SRINIVASAN, J.] 1205
"That it is relevant to mention that pursuant to the orders passed by A
the Kerala, Madras and Punjab and Haryana High Courts and the
Delhi High Court in its Judgment dated 11.01.1994 and 04.06.1981
in C.W.P. No. 3599 of I993 and 4681 of 1993, the respondent Food
Corporation of India-North zone issued office order dated 02.8.1995
and 11.08.1995 revising the seniority of Assistant Grade llJ [Min]/
Typists numbering about 1206 rectifying the injustice created by the B
impugned amendments to the employees and similarly placed like
the deponent in the North Zone as per the old regulations and only
the employees of South Zone are suffering because of the inaction
of the authorities in South Zone. It may be relevant to mention that
the revision is subject to the outcome of the petitions pending before C
this Hon'ble Court. A copy of the office order dated 02.08.1995 and
11.08.1995 are annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A-3
[Collectively].

That the respondent Food Corporation of India have annexed
annexures to the Additional Affidavit which are not at all relevant to D
the present dispute and nothing has been shown by them which would
require such amendments to be carried out with retrospective effect.
In fact, matriculates of FCI are holding the jobs of Assistant Managers
and Deputy Manager (General]/District managers which is three and
four steps respectively above the Assistant Grade-III level which is E
the post in dispute in the present proceedings. It is also submitted
that the post of Assistant Manager and Deputy Manager are selection
posts whereas the post of AG.III and AG.II are non-selection posts.
This clerical job of Assistant Grade III and Assistant Grade II can
certainly be performed by matriculates with utmost efficiency when
persons are thrust for such higher job, viz., Assistant Manager/Deputy F
Manager who are only matriculates. Extracts of all India integrated
seniority list of Assistant managers [Gen]./Dept. as on 1984 is
annexed as ANNEXURE A-4 and extract of all India integrated
seniority of Deputy Managers [Genl. ]/District Managers is annexed
as ANNEXURE A-5."
G
18. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the writ petition and learned
counsel for the Corporation have contended that the differentiation between
a graduate and non-graduate in the matter of promotion is valid and in this
case the same has been done by the impugned amendments in order to
achieve higher administrative efficiency. Per contra the submissions made by H
1206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) 3 S.C.R.

A a learned counsel for non-graduates are threefold :
(i) The amendments are arbitrary in the facts and circumstances of this
case and violative of A1iicles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

(ii) The amendments are invalid in so far as they are given retrospective
B effect so as to affect the promotion of non-graduates who became eligible for
consideration for promotion by completing three years service as AG-III,
Typist or Telephone operator before the amendment of the regulations.

(iii) The amendments should be read down to apply only to non-
graduates who are working as Typists or Telephone operators and not to
C those who were working as AG. Ill having been promoted as such from
category IV. The aforesaid second and third contention have been advanced
. only in the alternative to the first contention.

19. Our attention has been drawn to S.L. Sachdev and Anr. v. Union
of India and Ors., [1980) 4 SCC 562. It was held therein that once cadre
D is formed by recruiting persons drawn from different departments of the
Government, there would normally be no justification for discriminating
between them by subjecting one class to more onerous terms in the matter
of promotional chances. It is observed that different tests should not be
prescribed for determining their respective promotional opportunities and
E that too solely with reference to the source from which they were drawn. It
was found on the facts that the duties, functions and responsibilities of all
the UDCs in the Saving Banks Control Organisation and Savings Bank Interval
Check Organization were identical and they were all in the same cadre drawing
the same pay in the same grade and therefore different tests should not be
laid for their promotion.
F
20. Learned counsel for the non-graduates referred to Kumari Shrilekha· ..
Vidyarthi and Other v. State of U. P. and Others, [ 1991] I SCC 212, wherein
it was held that once it is shown that the impugned State action is uniformed
by reason in as much as there is not discernible principle on which it is
G based, the burden would shift to the State to repel the attack by disclosing
the material and reasons which led to the action being taken in order to show
that it was an informed decision which was reasonable.

21. It is by now settled by several decisions of this Court that educational
qualification is a proper basis of classification for promotion. Jn The State of
H Jammu & Kashmir v. Shri Triloki Nath Khosa and Others, [1974] I SCC 19,
F.C.l. v. O.P SHARMA [SRINIVASAN, J.] 1207
,,,.
it was held that classification on the basis of educational qualifications made A
..., with a view to achieving administrative efficiency can not be said to rest on
any fortuitous circumstance. The Constitution Bench which decided the case
took care to add that one has always to bear in mind the facts and
circumstances of the case in order to judge the validity of a classification.

22. In Mohammad Shujat Ali and Others v.Union of India and Others B
( 1975) 3 SCC 76, another Constitution Bench referred to the earlier rulings of
. this Court including Tri/oki Nath Khosa & Others, (1974] 1 SCC 19 and stated
the law thus :

"But from these decisions it cannot be laid down as an invariable
rule that whenever any classification is made on the basis of variant c
educational qualifications, such classification must be held to be
valid, irrespective of the nature and purposes of the classification or
the quality and extent of the differences in the educational
qualifications. It must be remembered that "life has relations not
capable always of division into inflexible compartments". The moulds D
expand and shrink. The test of reasonable classification has to be
applied in such case on its peculiar facts and circumstances."

23. In Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala & Another v. Ravinder
Kumar Sharma & Others, [I 986] 4 SCC 617, the challenge was of fixation of
quota between diploma holders and non-diploma holders among linemen for E
promotion to Line Superintendent. Placing reliance on a passage in the judgment
in Mohd Shujat Ali & Ors. v. U0.1. & Ors., [1975] 3 SCC 76, the Court upheld
the judgment of the High Court and the courts below which struck down the
fixation of quota for promotion. The Bench did not however, make any reference
to Trilki Nath Khosa & Ors., (1974] I SCC 19.
F
24. In Roop Chand Adlakha & Ors. v. Delhi Development Authority &
Ors., [ 1989] Supp. I SCC 116, this Court considered all the earlier cases on
the subject and held that prescription of a longer period of experience for the
diploma holders to be eligible for promotion to a cadre to be madt from
graduates and diploma holders was not violative of equality class. On the
G
facts it was found that a report of an Expert Committee was taken into
consideration for prescribing the requisite qualification. The Court took note
of the fact that there may be cases where the differences in the educational
).
qualification may not be sufficient to give any preferential treatment to one
class of candidates as against another. The Court said that whether the
classification is reasonable or not must necessarily depend upon facts of each H
1208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 3 S.C.R.

A case and the circumstances obtaining at the relevant time.
25. In N. Abdul Basheer & Ors. v. K.A. Karunakaran & Ors., [1989]
Supp 2 SCC 344, the Court held that ordinarily it is for the Government to
decide upon the consideration which in its judgment should underlie a policy
to be formulated by it. But if the considerations are such as prove to be of
B no relevance to the object of the measure framed by the government it is
always open to the court to strike down the differentiation as being violative
of Articles 14 and 16. On the facts of the case it was found that the conditions
of employment and the incidents of service recognised no distinction between
graduate and non-graduate officers and for all material purposes they were
C effectively treated as equivaknt. It was pointed out that the history of the
evolution of the Kerala Excise and Prohibition Subordinate Service had shown
no uniformity either in approach or in object and that a consistent or coherent
policy in favour of graduates was absent. It was also pointed that the cadre
was one and graduates and non-graduates were equal members of the same.
Their pay was found to be the same and the nature of the duties whether
D graduate or non-graduate was identical. Hence, it was held that the prescription
of ratio dividing the quota of promotion between graduates and non-graduates
was invalid as it violated of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

26. ln P. Murugesan & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., [1993] 2
E SCC 340, this Court pointed out that since the decision in Triloki Nath
Khosa & Ors., [1974] I SCC 19 this Court had been holding uniformly that
even where direct recruits and promotees were integrated into a common
class, they could for purposes of promotion to the higher cadre be classified
on the basis of educational qualifications. On the facts, it was found that the
degree holders and diploma holders represented two different categories
F and since 1969 they were treated differently in the matter of pay, designation
and in the matter of promotion though they were discharging identical
functions and duties. It was also found that the ratio 3: I had been in vogue
between graduates and diploma holders since prior _to 1965 and it was
therefore permissible to the rule making authority if it thought it necessary
G in the interest of administration to limit the promotional chances of non-
graduates to one out of four vacancies on the basis of academic qualifications.

27. In T.R. Kothandaraman & Ors. v. Tamil Nadu Water Supply &
Drainage Board & Ors., [1994] 6 SCC 282, this Court reiterated that higher ~
educational qualification is a permissible basis of classification but the
H acceptability thereof will depend on the facts and circumstance of each case.
F.C.I. v. O.P. SHARMA [SRINIVASAN, J.] 1209
In that case it was found that differenti&tion between degree holders and A
diploma holders was ancient and that the former were given different
designation and Gazetted status and higher scale of pay whereas diploma
holders did not have such benefits. In such circumstances the Court Said :

"The aforesaid shows that higher educational qualification has
relevance insofar as the holding of higher promotional post is B
concerned, in view of the nature of the functions and duties attached
to that post. The classification has, therefore, nexus with the object
to be achieved. This apart history also supports the differentiation
sought to be made by the rule in question. We, therefore, uphold the
classification as valid."
c
28. One of us (Justice Agrawal) spoke for the Division Bench which
decided Rajasthan State Electricity Board Accountants Association, Jaipur
v. Rajasthan State Electricity Board & Anr., [1997] 3 SCC 103. The entire
case law was traced in the judgment and it was held that educational
qualifications could be made the basis for classification of employel:s in D
State service in the matter of pay scales, promotion, etc. On the facts and
circumstances of that case, the court upheld a reservation of 25% vacancies
for candidates possessing the prescribed additional qualifications and
prescription of longer length of service for those who did not possess such
qualifications for the purpose of promotion.
E
29. An analysis of the aforesaid rulings shows that the validity of the
classification has to be judged on the facts and circumstances of each case.
We have already pointed out that in the facts of the present case no material
has been placed before us by the Corporation to justify the amendments
introducing a classification between graduates and non-graduates. We have
also referred to the conduct of the Corporation which chose to accept the F
judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court and implement the same on the
basis of which the Board decided to withdraw the amendments and
representations were made to that effect in the High Courts of Kerala and
Madras. As stated earlier, even in the affidavits filed in this Court, the
Corporation has referred to the decision of the Board to withdraw the G
amendments.

30. In such circumstances we hold that the amendments to the
Regulations making a differentiation between graduates and non-graduates in
the matter of promotion for the posts of AG-I and AG-II offend the equality
clause and are therefore unconstitutional. H
1210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) 3 S.C.R.

A 31. In the view we have expressed above it is unaecessary for us to
consider the alternative contentions put forward by the non-graduates with
reference to the retrospective operation of the rule and the non-applir.ability
of the rule to non-graduates holding the posts of AG-III. We would, however,
for the sake of completion set out the list of decisions cited by learned
B counsel in support of the contention that the amendments are invalid insofar
as they seek to have retrospective affect :

I. T.R. Kapur and Others v. State of Hmyana & Ors., [1986] Supp
sec 584.
2. P.O. Aggarwal and Others v. State of U.P. and Others, [1987] 3
C sec 622.
3. K. Narayanan and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others [1994]
Supp. 1 sec 44

4. Union of India and Others v. Tushar Ranjan Mohanty and Others
D [1994] 5 sec 450.

5. Chairman, Railway Board and Others v. C.R. Rangadhamaiah
and Others, [1997] 6 SCC 623.

32. The last of the above cases has been decided by the Constitution
E Bench in which one of us (Justice Agrawal) was member and he spoke for
the Bench. It will be advantageous to quote the following passage in that
judgment:

"In many of these decisions the expressions "vested rights" or
"accrued rights" have been used while striking down the impugned
provisions which had been given retrospective operation so as to
F
have an adverse effect in the matter of promotion, seniority,
substantive appointment, etc., of the employees. The said expressions
have been used in the context of a right flowing under the relevant
rule which was sought to be altered with effect from an anterior date
and thereby taking away the benefits available under the rule in force
G at that time. It has been held that such an amendment having
retrospective operation which has the effect of taking away a benefit
already available to the employee under the existing rule is arbitrary,
discriminatory and violative of the rights guaranteed under Article
14 and 16 of the Constitution."

H 33. If the principle laid down in the above judgment is applied here,
F.C.l. v. O.P. SHARMA [SRINIVASAN. J.J 1211
there is no doubt that the impugned amendments in 'i:e present case can not A
operate retrospectively.

34. In the result, the impugned amendments are struck down as
unconstitutional. The appeal filed by the Corporation and the Writ Petition
(C) No. 20 of 1992 fail and are hereby dismissed. In Writ Petition No. 174 of
1995 prayer A is granted. Prayer B is unnecessary and therefore negatived. B
The parties will bear their respective costs.

V.S.S . Appeals and Petition dismissed.

..