Holding

The amendment to Rule 16(d) is valid and does not contravene Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution.

Summary

The non‑law graduate staff of the Kerala High Court sought redress for grievances, prompting the Chief Justice to amend Rule 16(d) of the Kerala High Court Service Rules, 1970. The amendment limited promotion of non‑law graduates to a maximum of eight posts, subject to age or service length, a capacity test, and a 1:1 ratio with law‑graduate candidates. Law‑graduate respondents challenged the amendment as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and the Kerala High Court struck it down. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the amendment was a valid exercise of the Chief Justice’s rule‑making power under Article 229(2) and that classification based on higher educational qualification is permissible, distinguishing the earlier Sujat Ali decision and relying on Kothandaraman. Consequently, the amendment was upheld and the High Court’s order set aside.

Issues considered

Whether the amendment to Rule 16(d) of the Kerala High Court Service Rules, 1970 violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether the amendment violates Article 16 of the Constitution.
Whether a classification based on educational qualification (law degree) for promotion is constitutionally permissible.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Art.14, s. Art.16, s. Art.229(2)

Subjects

Article 14Article 16Article 229service rulespromotioneducational qualificationhigh court staffconstitutional lawequalitypublic service

Judgment

\

-{

M. KAMALAMMA AND ORS. A
v.
HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT OF
KERALA AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 24, 1995
B
[KULDIP SINGH AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.)

Constitutipn of India, 1950-Art. 229(2)--Power of Chief Justice of the
High Court to make rules for its officers and servants-Amendment in Rule
16(d) of the Kera/a High Court Service Rules, 197o-Rule not violative ofArt. C
14 and 16 of the Constitution.

. The staff (non-law graduates) of the Kerala High Court made rep-
resentations to the Chief Justice of the High Court ventilating certain
grievances. The Chief Justice heard the representatives of the staff on D
24.03.1984 and on 14.06.84 issued a notification amending Rule 16(d) of
the High Court Service Rules, 1970. The amended rule envisaged that only
such non-law graduates would be considered for promotion who ha~
completed 20 years of service or attained 50 years of age and who had
capacity for bench work, which capacity had to be certified by a committee
consisting of the Registrar, the Joint Registrar and the Deputy Registrar E
(Judi.). The amendment had shut out further promotion of the non-law
graduates as court officers. The respondents (law graduates) assailed the
validity of Rule 16(d) of the High Service Rules, 1970 before the Kerala
High Court as. being violative of Art. 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
/ F
The High Court struck down the Rule as being violative of Articles
14 and 16. The petitioners (non-law graduates) for whose benefit the
aforesaid amendment had been made contended before this Court that a
law degree as a qualification for appointment as court officer came to be
prescribed only in 1960 and in some High Courts of the country a law
degree was not a prescribed qualification for appointment as court of-
ficers, termed as Bench Clerks there. The respondents contended that the
incumbents must be law graduates for promotion to the post of court
officers.

Allowing the appeal, this Court H
303
)--
(

304. SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 2 S.C.R.

A HELD : The amended rule had taken care to see that only such
non-law graduates would be considered for promotion who had capacity
for bench work, which was required to be certified by a committee consist-
ing of the Registrar, the Joint Registrar and the Deputy Registrar (Judi.).
This showed that the rule making authority had taken full precaution to
B see that only a person of tested capacity was promoted to the post of court
officer. Out of 40 posts of court officers not more than 8 were made
available to the non-law graduates and· that too to those who had com-
pleted 20 years of total service. This promotional avenue was opened for
those who were at the fag end of their service, as, in the alternative, age of
fifty years was required, to become eligible for the post. The amendment
C had shut out further promotion of non-law graduates promoted as court
officers. The amended rule is valid. (306-G-H, 307-A]

Mohd. SujatAli v. U.0.1., AIR (1974) SC 1031, distinguished.

T.R. Kothadaraman v. Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage, JT
D (1994) SC 657, relied on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2951 of
1985.

From the Judgment and Order dated 2.4.85 of the Kerala High Court
E in·O.P. No. 5242of1984-M.
P.P. Rao, K.M.K. Nair and E.M.S. Anam for the Appellants.

Seetaramiah, P.K. Manohar, Ms. Shanta Vasudevan and R. Sasiprab-
F ha, (N.P.) for the Respondents. ~

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

HANSARIA, J. Article 229(2) of the Constitution has provided that
the conditions of service of officers and servants of a High Court shall be
such as· may be prescribed by the rules made by the Chief Justice of the
G Court or by some other Judge or officer of the Court authorised by the
Chief Justice to make rules for the purpose. The staff of the High Court
of Kerala made certain representations to the Chief Justice of that Court
ventilating various grievances. The representatives of the staff were heard
by the Chief Justice on 24th March, 1984 and after applying due mind to
H various aspects involved in the matter, which were recorded in the Minutes
M.KAMALAMMA v. CJ.H.C.OFKERALA(HANSARIA,J.) 305

which run to almost 12 pages, it was felt that a need for amendment of the A
Kerala High Court Service Rules, 1970 existed. A Notification was issued
accordingly on 14.6.1984, by which the existing provision in sub-rule (d) of
Rule 16 was substituted to read as below :-

"16( d) Not more than eight posts of Court Officers (category 6A
in Division II) may be filled by promotion of non- law graduates B
working in the feeder categories (categories 1, lA, 1B and 3 to 10
in Division II) subject to the following conditions :

(i) they must have completed 50 years of age or 20 years' of total
service, the service being calculated after taking into account
'\~
the service from the date of appointment as Assistant Grade
c
II, Typist Grade II and Shorthand Writer Grade II, as the
case may be.

(ii) they must be willing to be appointed as Court officers.
D
(iii) their capacity for bench·work must be certified by a commit-
tee consisting of the Registrar, the Joint Registrar and the
_A,
Deputy Registrar (Judi.)

(iv) all the non-law graduates in the feeder categories will
together from a separate class. As between the qualified E
law-graduates and the non-law graduates forming the
separates class there shall be a ratio of 1:1 for promotion to
the post subject to what is stated in clause (v) below:

/
(v) a law graduate who is senior to a non-law graduate coming
within the separate class at the time of filling up of the vacancy F
will not be superseded by the application of the ratio. The
'--< seniority as between the law-graduate and the non-law
graduate will be determined with reference to the total length
of service in the manner indicated in clause (i) above.
G
(vi) promotion from among the non-law graduates shall be on the
basis of their total length of service. It shall be calculated in
the same manner as total service is calculated under clause
(i) above.

(vii) non-law graduates promoted as Court Officers shall not be H
306 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 2 S.C.R.

A eligible for any further promotion based only on their promo-
tion follwing the above provisions."

2. The aforesaid shows that by the amendemnt not more than eight
posts of Court officers (their number was 40 at the relevant time) could be
filled by promotion of non-law graduates working in the feeder categories.
B The law-graduates working in the High Court assailed the validity of the
amendment and a Division Bench of the High Court struck down the same
being violative of Article 14 read with 16 of the Constitution. The non-law
graduates for whose benefit the aforesaid amendment had been made have
preferred this appeal.
c
3. The Division Bench relied principally on the decision of this Court
in Mohammad Sujat Ali v. Union of India, AIR (1974) SC 1031, in striking
down the aforesaid Rule. A bench of this Court had occasion to consider
the ratio of Sujat Ali;s case along with other important decisions on the
D question as to when educational qualification can form basis of classifica-
tion in matters relating to promotion in the case of T.R. Kothandaraman v.
Tamil Nadu Water Supply & Drainage, JT (1994) SC 657. It has been
concluded in this decision the higher educational qualification is a permis-
sible basis of classification, not only for barring promotion, but also for
restricting scope of promotion. Reliance on Sujat Ali's case by the Bench
E of the High Court to hold that the aforesaid amendment having provided
ratio 1:1 between two classes was violative of Articles 14 and 16 is,
"therefore, not sustainable. In Kothandaraman's case even ratio of 3:1 was
upheld for some service because of historical background etc.

F 4. Shri Seetharamiah, appearing for the respondents, who were the
writ-petitioners before the High Court, has streneously urged that incum-
bents must be law-graduates for promotion to the post of Court Officer.
There can be no dispute with this proposition; but a perusal of the
amended Rule shows that the same has taken care to see that the only such
non-law graduates would be considered for promotion who had capacity
G for bench work, which is required to be certified by a Committee consisting
of Registrar, the Joint Registrar and the Deputy Registrar (Judi.) This
shows that the rule making authority had taken full precaution to see that
only a person of tested capacity is promoted to the post of Court Officer.
It has also been noted by us that out of the 40 posts of Court Officers not
H more than 8 were made available to the non-law graduates; and that too
·{

MKAMAI.AMMA v. CJ.H.C.OFKERAIA(HANSARIA,J.~ 307

to those who had completed 20 years of total service. This pro~otiQnal A
avenue was opened for those who were at the fag end of their service, as, . . ""
in. the alternative, age of fifty years was required to become eligible. The
amendment has shut out further, promotion of the non-law graduates
promoted as Court Officers. ·

5. It is contended by Shri. Rao that the present case is squarely B
covered by the ratio of this Court's recent decision in Kothandaraman's
case inasmuch as there is historical background also for what has been
provided in the amended Rule - the same being that law degree came to
be prescribed for qualification for appoinment for Court Officer only in
1960, before which this qualification was not essential. It has been brought C
to our notice that in some other High Court of the country, law degree is
QOt a prescribed qualification for appointment as Court Officers, who are
termed as Bench Clerks in those High Courts.

6. Keeping in view the aforesaid decision and the salient points of
the amended rule noted above, we are of the opinion that the impuged D
judgment cannot be_ sustained. We, therefore, set aside the sanie and
~phold the validity of the aforesaid Rule.

7. The appeals are allowed accordingly. No order as to costs. /

A.G. Appeals allowed.