Supreme Court of India
T. VENKATESWARULUversusEXECUTIVE OFFICER, TIRUMALA TIRUPATHI DEVASTHANAMS & ORS.
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 1278
- Decided
- 7 November 2008
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- C K THAKKER
Holding
The plea of discrimination was not sustainable; the two cadres are distinct and the appellant was not entitled to promotion before the 1989 Rules, and the burden of proving discrimination rests on the claimant.
Summary
The appellant, a Draughtsman Grade‑I appointed in 1977, obtained a BE degree in 1983 and sought promotion to Assistant Executive Engineer on the same basis as graduate Supervisors, who were eligible for promotion under Government Orders of 1978 and 1981. The High Court Single Judge directed promotion from the date of his graduation, but the Division Bench reversed, granting promotion only from 26 October 1989 when the 1989 Service Rules created a promotion channel for Draughtsmen Grade‑I. The appellant claimed discrimination violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, arguing parity with Supervisors. The Supreme Court held that the two posts are distinct, the appellant failed to prove discrimination, and the burden of proof lies on the claimant; promotion could only be effected from the date the 1989 Rules became operative. The Court emphasized that courts should not interfere in job evaluation unless a grave error is evident. The appeals were dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the denial of promotion to the Draughtsman Grade‑I from 1983, while Supervisors received promotion, amounts to discrimination violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
- Whether the posts of Draughtsman Grade‑I and Supervisor are equivalent for purposes of parity in promotion.
- Who bears the burden of proving discrimination in such service matters.
- Whether the judiciary can intervene in the executive's determination of post equivalence and pay scales.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 16
Subjects
Service lawPromotionParityDiscriminationArticles 14 and 16Job evaluationPost equivalenceTirumala Tirupathi DevasthanamCivil service rules
Judgment
[2008] 15 S.C.R. 865
_____.,.._
T.VENKATESVVARULU A
II.
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TIRUMALA TIRUPATHI
DEVASTHANAMS & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 6583-6584 of 2008)
NOVEMBER 7, 2008
B
,-4 [C.K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN; JJ.]
~
Service Law - Parity in posts - Determination of -
Promotional avenues provided to the. post of 'Supervisor' - c
. Draughtsman Grade I claiming promotion - Denial of since
he was not entitled under existing Rules - Subsequently
promotion granted on the basis of subsequent Rules w.e.f. the
date the Rules came into force - Claim for promotion from
anterior date i.e. from the date. he attained eligibility for the D
r promotional post-Denial of - Challenged as discriminatory
claiming parity with the post of 'Supervisor' - Held: Plea of
discrimination not sustainable - The posts were different -
Claimant also failed to establish discrimination on the part of
the State - In order to determine discrimination, not only the E
functional parity, but also mode of recruitment, qualification
and responsibilities attached to the two offices have to be
established -:- The ·burden to establish the discrimination is
' ,,,;. _ on the claimant - Claimant was not entitled to all the
Government orders available to graduate supervisors - The
F
decision to promote graduate supervisors, was a policy
decision - Courts should ordinarily not interfere with Equation
of posts and determination of pay scales unless it is
absolutely necessary to undo injustice being caused -
Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam Service Rules, 1978 -
A. Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam Employees Service Rules, G
1989 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14 and 16.
'/ Appellant was appointed as a 'Draughtsman· Grade-
• I, with respondent No.1. The post was lower to- the post
865 H
866 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R.
A of 'Supervisor'. State Government by G.O. 563 dated
17.3.1978 provided that Supervisors who acquire
graduate qualification could be promoted temporarily to
tl:le post of Junior Eng.ineers which was later re-
d.esignated as Asstt. Executive Engineer. Under Tirumala
B Tirupathi Devasthanam Service Rules, 1978, there was no
provision for promotion of Supervisors as Junior
Engineers. In the meantime, appellant acquired )..._ .
Graduation degree on 28.8.1983. He sought benefit of
G.Q. 563~ but the same was denied. In writ petition
c ·challenging the same, High Court directed to consider the
appeHant for promotion sought, if he was eligible
according to Rules. Respondent No. 1 found him not
suitable under 1978 Rules. Writ petition challenging the
Qfder resulted in direction to respondent No. 1 to
consider his case on the basis of rules existing on the
0
date the order was passed. In the meantime Tirumal.a
Tirupati Devasthanams Employees Service Rules, 1989
came into force w.e.f. 24.10.1989. Respondent No.1,
there.fore~ considered the case of appellant under 1989
Rules an~ appointed him on the post w.e.f..26.10.1989 i.e.
E the date the 1989 Rules were enforced. Appellant filed
another writ petition seeking his promotion w.e.f. the date
of h·is qualifying degree examination i.e. 28.8.1983. He
contended that denial of the benefit to th'a appellant since
28.8.1983 was discriminatory and violative of Articles 14
F and 16 of the Constitution as the same benefit was given
to the Supervisors. Single Judge of High Court allowed
the writ petition. Cross Writ Appeals w,.ere filed. Division
Bench of High Court set aside the order of the Single
Judge. Hence the present appeals.
G
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1. Single Judge of High Court fell into an
error in accepting the plea of discrim1ination, for: which
there was no factual basis. Since thu plea of parity of
H
T. VEN KATESWARULU v. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 867
,-
TIRUMALA T!RUPATHI DEVASTHANAMS & ORS.
"'\ Draughtsmen Grade-I with the Supervisors had to be A
examined on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution, the burden was upon the appellant to
establish discrimination by placing on record cogent
I
materials. For this purpose, the crucial factor to be
established is not only the functional parity of the two B
cadres, but also the mode of recruitment, qualification
A and the responsibilities attached to the two offices. All this
\,. information is necessary to analyse the rationa~e behind
the State action in giving different treatment to two
classes of i~ employees and then determine whether or c
not an invidious discrimination has been practised. [Para
15] (875-E-G]
1.2. In the instant case, there is not even a whisper
in the pleadings on the aspect of discrimination. On the
contrary, the Division Bench found that the two posts did D
r not carry the same scale of pay initially. Moreover,
indubitably all the Government Orders, starting 17th
March, 1978, giving certain benefits to graduate
Supervisors did not refer to Draughtsman Grade-I. Even
the decision taken by the respondent on 16th March, E
1981, adopting G.O. Ms. No.563 dated 17th March, 1978,
~id not refer to the Draughtsman Grade-I and applied only
,.
to the Supervisors working in the TTD (civil/electrical/
_j,.._ mechanical) who had acquired graduate qualification in
engineering for appointment by transfer as Junior F
Engineers. No one from the cadre of Draughtsman raised
any demand for extending similar benefit to them. It has
also been noted by the Division Bench that it was the
policy of the Government to appoint only Supervisors in
Public Works (Irrigation Department), who had acquired G
graduate qualification as Junior Engineers. Under these
circumstances, the appellant was not entitled to all the
)-
benefits under the Government Orders available to the
graduate Supervisors. [Para 16] [875-G; 876-8-F]
H
868 SUPREME COURT REPORTS .[2008] t5 S:C.R.
A 1.3. Equation of posts, and determination of pay
scales is the primary function of the executive and not
the judiciary and, therefore, ordinarily courtS do not enter
upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to
expert bodies as several factors have to be. kept in view
B while evolving a pay structure. Being a complex matter,
the court will interfere only if there is cogent material on
record to come to a firm conclusion that a grave error has )
crept in such an exercise and court's interference is
absolutely necessary to undo the injustice being caused.
c [Para 17] (876-G-H]
Secretary, Finance Department and Ors. vs. West Bengal
Registration Service Association and Ors. 1993 Supp (1)
SCC 153 and Devi Prasad and Ors. vs. Government of
Andhra Pradesh.and Ors. 1980 Supp SCC 206, relied on.
D
1.4. In the instant case, prior to 1989, the cadre of
Draughtsman Grade-I was treated as a distinct cl·ass
inasmuch as they even did not figure in the feeder cadre
for recruitment to the post of Assistant Executive
E Engineer. It was only on 24th October, 1989, by virtue of
G.O. Ms. No.1660, a channel of promotion of
Draughtsman Grade-I to the category of Assistant
Executive Engineer, on acquisition of graduate
qualification was created. Though 'the appellant had been
F pursuing his remedy for promotion as Assistant -·
Executive Engineer under the TTD Service Rules, 1978
but he always got limited relief to the extent that direction
was issued by the High Court for consideration of his
case, iri terms of the rules existing at that relevant time ..
G Evidently, when his writ petition was disposed of on 30th
March, 1990 with a· direction to the respondent
Management to consider his case on the basis of the
rules, which were in force at that relevant point of time,
he felt satisfied and did not challenge the said order
further. For all these reasons, there is no infirmity in the
H
T.VENKATESWARULU v. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 869
TIRUMALA TIRUPATHI DEVASTHANAMS & ORS.
decision of the Division Bench warranting interference in A
the exercise of discretionary and equitable jurisdiction
under Article 136 of the Constitution. [Para 19] [877-E-H;
878.;A]
Case Law Reference:
8
1993 Supp (1) SCC 153 Relied on. Para 17
1980 supp sec 206 Relied on. Para 18
CIVJL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
6583-6584 of 2008. C
' .
From the final Judgment and Order dated 8.7.2004 of the
High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in
W.P. Nos. 767 & 846 of 2000.
L. Negeswara Rao, Roy Abraham, Seema Jain' and D
. Himinder Lal for the Appellant. _
K. Rajendra Chowdhary, Guntur Prabhakar and Rakesh K.
Sharma for the Respondents.
E ,
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D.K. JAIN, J. 1. Special leave granted.
• 2. These appeals are directed against a common
judgment and order dated 8th July, 2004 passed by the High
Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Cross F
.· Writ Appeals No.767 and 846 of 2000. By the impugned
judgment, the Division Bench while reversing the decision of
the learned Single Judge has held that the appellant is eligible
for conversion as Assistant Executive Engineer only with ef{ect
from 26th October, 1989 and not from an anterior date when G
he passed the qualifying graduate examination i.e. 28th August;
.1983.
3. To understand the controversy involved, a few material
facts may :be stated, which are as under: H
870 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R.
A The appellant, a diploma holder, who was initially
/
sponsored by the Employment Exchange for the post of
)
"Supervisor", was considered and appointed as a
"Draughtsman Grade-I" in Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams (for
1
short TTD') 0n 3rd August, 1977. The post of Draughtsman
B Grade:..I was considered to be lower to the post of "Supervisor". ·
On 17th March, 1978, by G.O. 563, the State of Andhra
Pradesh provided some promotional opportunities to the >
...
Supervisors. It was ordered that Supervisors who acquire
engineering graduate qualification may be promoted
c temporarily to the post of Junior Engineers. The TTD Rules,
1978 came into force on 2nd August, 1978. Under these Rules,
the only method of recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer
was by direct recruitment and, therefore, under tne 1978 Rules,
there was no provision for promotion of Supervisors as Junior
Engineers. It was only by virtue of G.O. 563, Supervisors, who
D
had acquired BE qualification could be promoted as a Junior
Engineer. By G.O. No.173 dated 8th April, 1981, the post of
Junior Engineer Wt;iS re-designated as Assistant Executive
Engineer and the post of Supervisor was re-designated as
Assistant Engineer.
E
4. The appellant acquired BE Degree on 28th August,
1983. Aggrieved by the denial of the same benefit as was
extended to the Supervisors, the appellant filed a writ petition
in·the High Court. By judgment dated 22nd August, 1986, TTD
F was directed to consider the appellant's case for promotion
as Junior Engineer, re-designated as Assistant Executive
Engineer, if he was otherwise eligible according to the rules.
5. Pursuant to and in furtherance of the said direction by
the High Court, the appellant made a representation to the
G
authorities concerned, which was rejected on 19th April, 1987 ..
for the reason that he was found to be not eligible for promotion
as Assistant Executive Engineer under the TTD Service Rules, i,
1978. The appellant challenged the said order by filing another
writ petition, which was again disposed of on 30th March, ·.
H
T. VENKATESWARULU v. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TIRUMALA 871
\ TIRUPATHI DEVASTHANAMS & ORS. [D.K. JAIN, J.]
1990, with a direction to the TTD Management to consider the A
appellant's case taking into consideration the promotional
channels set out for Category 5 employees in the engineering
department, meaning thereby the appellant was to be
considered for promotion on the basis of the rules existing as
on the date of the order. It may be noted that on 24th October, 8
~ 1989, TTD Employees Service Rules, 1989 (for short 'the 1989
:.. Rules') had come into force. Pursuant to the said direction, the
case of the appellant was considered under 1989 Rules and
he was appointed, on conversion, as an Assistant Executive
Engineer with effect from 26th October, 1989, i.e. the date with c
effect wherefrom the 1989 Rules were enforced vide G.O. Ms.
No.1060.
6. Still being dissatisfied with the treatment meted out to
him, the appellant preferred yet another writ petition in the High
r Court. The grievance of the appellant before the High Court, D
sans unnecessary details, was that: .... (i) he was entitled to
appointment by conversion as Assistant Executive Engineer
from the date next to the last date of his qualifying degree
examination viz. 28th August, 1983, (ii) persons similarly
situated like him had been appointed by transfer as Assistant E
Executive Engineers al}g were accorded the benefit of such
promotion with effect from the date on which the Management
_),. of TTD by- Resolution adopted G.O. Ms. No.563 dated 17th
March, 1978 (order of the Government granting promotional
benefits in the category of Assistant Executive Engineers to F
graduate qualified Supervisors) and, therefore, the action of the
Management in not extending a similar benefit to the appellant
amounts to hostile discrimination, violative of Article 14 and 16
of the Constitution and (iii) on representation by the
Supervisors, the TTD Management had granted benefit in the G
promotional post of Assistant Executive Engineer to them with
,~
effect from the date of their acquiring graduate qualification in
Engineering, which benefit has been denied to him.
7. Refuting the allegations made by the appellant, the TTD
H
----l
,...
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008} 15 s.c.R.
872 .. .
A. Management stated thatthe benefit of conver~ion und~r G.O ....
Ms. No. 563 dated 17th March, 1978, was granted by the State
Government only to the category of graduate Supervisors for .
promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineers and not
to Draughtsman Grade-I, which benefit continued to be
8 avaifable only to the Supervisors till a provision was made in
the 1989 Rules vide G.O. Ms. No.1060 dated 24th October,
1989, creating a channel of promotion for Draughtsme1n Grade-
l also to the category of Assistant Executive Engineers on
acquisition of graduate qualification. It was, thus, pleaded.that
C it was on account of the said amendment that the appellant .
-· became eligible for the said promotion with effect from 26th
October, 1989 and was given promotion accordingly and that
the two cadres of "Supervisors" and "Draughtsman Gr:ade-1"
being distinct, no element of discrimination was involved in. not
extending the same benefit to the two cadres.
0
8. On consideration of the material on record, ,the learned
Single Judge finally concluded as under:
"It is admitted by the TTD that though the Supervisors who
E were given the benefit initially from the date of resolution.
of the Board adopting the orders of the Governm~nt, they
were subsequently given the benefit with effect from the
. date of their acquisition of graduate qualification. In so far
as the petitioner is concerned, it is stated that the
Government has been addressed to clarify whether the
F
case of the petitioner could also be considered. for
appointment as an Assistant Executive Engineer with
effect from 29.08.1983, the date on which he acquired the
graduate qualification. At the same time, it is averred that
the petitioner is not eligible for conversion as Assistant
G Executive Engineer with retrospective effect from
29.08.1983. Genuine reasons are not advanced by the
respondent in support of this contention. In the
circumstances above, this court is of the considered view
that the respondent TTD is obligated to consider the case
H
T. VENKATESWARULU v. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TIRUMALA 873
-TIRUPATHI DEVASTHANAMS & ORS. [D.K. JAIN, J.]
\
of the petitioner for extension of the benefit of conversion A
to the category of Assistant Executive Engineer with effect
from the date next to the date he acquired graduate
qualification on par with similarly situated persons who
were extended the said benefit viz. Supervisors who had
acquired graduate qualification. Draughtsman Grade-I are B
~ entitled to the benefits of conversion consequent on
~ acquisition of graduate qualification, and they sho•Jld be
treated similar to the category of supervisors who have
1 been extended the said benefit. The TIO being amenable
to public law and Constitutional processes is obligated to c
treat these two classes of Supervisors and Draughtsman
Grade-I similarly in the matter of extending the benefit i.e.
the date ·from which the conversion is to be accorded viz.
the date next to the date of acquisition of graduate
T qualification."
D
9. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge directed the TTD
Management to consider the case of the appellar.t for promotion
as Assistant Executive Engineer with effect from 29th August,
1983, the date on which he had acquired the graduate
qualification, within four months. E
10. Being aggrieved by the decision and direction of the
__.l. learned Single Judge, the TTD Management preferred an intra-
court appeal to the Division Bench. As noted hereinabove, the
Division Bench reversed the decision of the learned Single
F
Judge and consequently dismissed the writ petition. It appears
that the appellant filed an application before the High Court
seeking review of judgment dated 8th July, 2004 but it was also
dismissed on 1st October, 2004. The appellant, feeling
aggrieved by the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of
G
the High Court, is before us in these appeals.
I t-
11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties:
12. Mr. L. Nageswara Rao, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the pay H
...
874 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R.
/''
A scales of the "Draughtsman Grade-I" and "Supervisor" being
one and the same, the incumbents in the said post were to be
treated equally and, therefore, the appellant was also entitled ~
to the benefits extended to the Supervisors under Government
Orders, issued from time to time. It was urged that on his
t
B acquiring BE Degree, the appellant was eligible for promotion
to the post of Junior Engineer by conversion in terms of G.O.
563 dated 17th March, 1978 and then for re-designation under
. G.0.173 dated 8th April, 1981, as in the case of Supervisors.
"
....
It was argued that the appellant was praying for parity in rank ~
with the Superv.isors and not equality with them.
c ~
)
13. Per contra, Mr. K. Rajendra Chowdhary, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the TTD Management,
..
~
I-
supporting the view taken by the Division Bench, submitted that
neither prior to the enforcement of 1989 Rules nor thereafter
D the posts of Supervisors and Draughtsman Grade-I were T
equivalent posts and/or there was any functional' or pay scale
parity. It was only by virtue of G.0.1060 dated 24th October,
1989, that the employees in the cadre of Draughtsman Grade-
I, with BE Degree, became eligible for recruitment to the post
E of'Assistant Executive Engineers. It was, thus, submitted that
in the absence of any rules, regulations or Government Orders
in that behalf, the appellant could not be appointed as Junior t
Engineer (now Assistant Executive Engineer) prior to 24th l.._'
October, 1989. Learned counsel asserted that the cadres of
F Draughtsman Grade-I and Supervisor being different, the
appellant could not claim any parity with the Supervisors prior
to 26th October, 1989, when they were placed at par with the
Supervisors only as a feeder cadre for recruitment to the post
of Assistant Executive Engineer. Relying on the decision of this
G Court iri State of Andhra Pradesh & Am: Vs. K.S. Muralidhar
& Ors. 1 , learned counsel argued that the crucial date for all
intents and purposes is to be reckoned on the basis of the actual ~-
date of appointment and not on the date of ac.quiring the
H 1. (1992) 2 sec 241
...
..
T. VENKATESWARULU v. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TIRUMALA 875
•· TIRUPATHI DEVASTHANAMS &. ORS. {D.K.JAIN, J.,J
degree qualification. A
14. Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the rival
submissions, in our view, there b no scope for interference.with· .
. the reasoning and the conclusion reached by the Division
Bench. It is evident from the afore-mdracted order of the learned
B
Single Judge that he accepted the stand of the appellant to the
effect that the Draughtsman Grade-I was at par with the
Supervisor and, therefore; could not be treated differently.
According to the learned Judge, being amenable to public law
and constitutional processes, TTD was obligated to treat the
two classes of Supervisors and Draughtsmen Grade ... 1similarly C
in the matter of extending the benefit of conversion consequent
to the acquisition of graduatiion qualification by the
Draughtsman Grade-I, as in the case of Supervisors. We feel
that in the light of the factual position as emerging from the
material on record, the learned Single Judge fell into an error D
in accepting the plea of discrimination, for which there was no
factual basis.
15. Since the plea of parity of Draughtsmen Grade-I with
the Supervisors had to be examined on the touchstone of E
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, the burden was upon the
appellant to establish discrimination by plaCing on record
cogent materials. For this purpose, the cruCial factor. to be
established is not only the functional parity of the. two cadres,
but also· the mode of recruitment, qualification and the
F
responsibilities attached to the two offices. All this information
is necessary to analyse the rationah3 behind the State action
in giving different treatment to two classes of its employees and
then determine whether or not an invidious discrimination has
been practised.
G
16. In the instant case, there is not even a whisper in the
pleadings on that aspect. On the contrary, it is pointed out by
the Division Bench that initially the scale of pay of Draughtsman
Grade-I was iower to the scale of pay of Supervisor. The scale
. of pay of Supervisor was 430-20-6!50-25-800 whereas the H
/
876 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [2008] 15 S.C.R.
A scale of pay of Draughtsman Grade-I was 400-18-590-20-715. ,___
The revised. pay scale of the Supervisor was 700-.1200 and I
Draughtsman Grade-I was 650-1100. In 1986 when· pay scales I
'
were revised, the scale of pay for the post of Draughtsman
Grade-I and Supervisor (Assistant Engineer) were made equal .
B i.e. 1300-60-1930-70-2630. Thus. the Division Bench found
that the two posts did not carry the same scale of pay initially. ~ ~--
Moreover, indubitably all the aforenoted Government Orders,
starting 17th March, 1978, giving certain benefits to .graduate ·
Supervisors did not refer to Draughtsman Grade-I. Even the
c decision taken by the TTD on 16th March, 1981, adopting G;Q. ·'
Ms. No.563 dated 17th March, 1978, did not refer to the
Draughtsman Grade-I and applied only to the Supervisors
· . working iri the TTD (civil/electrical/mechanical) who had
acquired graduate qualification in engineering for appointment
by transfer as Junior Engineers in TTD. No one from the cadre
0
of Draughtsman raised any demand for extending similar
benefit to them. It has also been noted by the Division Bench
that it was the policy of the Government to appoint only
Supervisors in Public Works (Irrigation Oepartment), who had
acquired graduate qualification as Junior Engineers. Under
E these circumstances, the Division Bench found it difficult and
in our opinion rightly, to accept the submission of the appellant
that being at par with the Supervisors, he was entitled to all the
benefits under the Government Orders available to the graduate
Supervisors.
F
17. It is well settled that equation of posts and ·-
determination of pay scales is the primary function of the
executive and not the judiciary and, therefore, ordinarily courts
do not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally
G left to expert bodies as several fac~on~; have to be kept in view
while evolving a pay structure. Being a complex matter, the·
court will interfere only if there is cogent material on record to
come to a firm conclusion that a grave error has crept in such
an exercise and court's interference is absolutely necessary to
H undo the injustice being caused. (See: Secretary, Finance
T. VENKATESWARULU v. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TIRUMALA 877 .
TIRUPATHI DEVASTHANAMS & ORS. [D.K. JAIN, J.]
Department & Ors. Vs. West Bengal Registration Service A
Association & Ors. 2 }
18. In Devi Prasad & Ors. Vs. Government of Andhra
Pradesh & Ors. 3 , a Government order was questioned on the
ground of unreasonableness in the matter of giving weightage
8
for promotion between two categories of servants inducted from
different sources on the ground that the weightage rule was
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Rejecting the
challenge, this Court had said that ultimately it is a matter of
Government policy to decide what weightage should be given
as between two categories of Government servants rendering C
somewhat similar kind of service. There may be that one group
would suffer from hardship consequent to this rule and the
weightage conferred thereby. But mere hardship without
anything arbitrary in the rule does not ca.11 for judicial
intervention, especially when it flows out of a policy which is not D
basically illegal.
-(
19. From a resume of facts set out hereinabove, it clearly
---{
emerges that prior to 1989 the cadre! of Draughtsman Grade-
l was treated as a distinct class inasmuch as they even did not E
figure in the feeder cadre for recruitment to the post of Assistant
Executive Engineer. It was only on 24th October, 1989, by virtue
of G.O. Ms. No.1660, a channel of promotion of Draughtsman
Grade-I to the category of Assistant Executive Engineer, on
·acquisition of graduate qualification was created. Though it
F
does appear that the appellant had bHen pursuing his remedy
for promotion as Assistant Executive Engineer under the TTD
Service Rules, 1978 but he always got limited relief to the extent
that direction was issued by the High Court for consideration
of his case, in terms of the rules existing at that relevant time.
Evidently, when his writ petition was disposed of on 30th March, G
1990 with a direction to the TTD Management to consider his
case on the basis of the rules, which were in force at that
2. 1993 Supp (1) sec 153.
3. 1980 Supp sec 206. H
878 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R.
A relevant point_of time, he felt satisfied and did not c~allenge the
said order further.
20. For all these reasons, we do not see any· infirmity in
the d,ecision of the Division Bench warranting our interference
in the exercise of discretionary and equitable jurisdiction under ·
8
Article 136 of the Constitution. In our judgment, the appeals
have no substance and, therefore, deserve to be dismissed. ).. ~
21. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeals must fail and
are accordingly dismissed. There will, however, be no order as
C to costs.
K.K.T~ Appeals dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Service law"Sign in to search