Holding

Rule 2(i)(a) of the Assistant Engineers (Akashwani and Doordarshan Group ‘B’ Posts) Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 1985 is valid and does not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Summary

The Union of India challenged the validity of Rule 2(i)(a) of the Assistant Engineers (Akashwani and Doordarshan Group ‘B’ Posts) Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 1985, which provides a 25% promotion quota through a Departmental Promotion Committee. The respondents argued that the rule discriminated against degree‑holders by treating them on par with diploma‑holders, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Central Administrative Tribunal had struck down the rule as unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court held that all Engineering Assistants, whether degree or diploma holders, form a single undivided cadre with equal pay, duties and responsibilities. The Court observed that the rule merely balances merit and long service and does not create any unreasonable classification. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal’s order, upheld the rule, and dismissed the writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether Rule 2(i)(a) of the 1985 Amendment Rules is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 16

Subjects

Service LawPromotion QuotaEqualityArticles 14 and 16AkashwaniDoordarshanDepartmental Promotion CommitteeDiscrimination

Judgment

A UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ETC.
v.
R. IYYASWAMY AND ORS.

SEPTEMBER 9, I997

B [S.C. AGRAWAL ANDG.T. NANAVATI, JJ.]

Service Law :

Assistant Engineers (Akashwani and Doordarshan Group 'B' Posts)
C Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 1985-Rule 2(i) (a) and (b)-Promotion to
the post of Assistant Engineer-25% promotion quota by Departmental
Selection Committee-Validity of-Held, no distinction between degree and
diploma holders at the subordinate level-Constitute Single undivided cadre-
Treated equally in the matter of pay, duties and responsibilities-Unequals
...
D are not made equals-Amendment Rules held valid

Constitution of India 1950 : Articles 14 and 16-Assistant Engineers
(Akashwani and Doordarshan Group 'B' Posts) Recruitment (Amendment)
Rules, 1985,-Rule 2(i) (a)-25% promotion quota-Held, not discriminat~ry
or arbitrary.
E In All India Radio and Doordarshan the channel of promotion in the
Engineering Section was from the post of Engineering Assistant to the post
of Senior Engineering Assistant and then to the post of Assistant Engineer
(Gazetted). Under the Rules 60% posts of Engineering Assistants were
reserved for departmental Engineering Assistants who were degree holders
p and 40% posts were filled up by direct recruitment by UPSC. In the year
1.985, Assistant Engineer (Akashwani and Doordarshan Group 'B' Posts)
Recruitment Rules were amended. Rule 2(i)(b) of the amendment Rules
provided for filling of 75% of the posts in the promotion quota by selection
on the basis of departmental competitive examination. By Rule 2(i)(a) the
remaining 25% quota was filled up through selection by departmental
G promotion Committee. Both degree holders and diploma holders were
considered for promotion on the basis of their seniority. The Amendment Rules
were challenged by the respondent as no distinction between degree holders
and diploma holders was made in the Rules. The Tribunal partly allowing the
appeal held that rule 2(i) (a) relating to 25% promotion quota was bad,
discriminatory and violative of Constitution. Hence the present appeals by the
H
. 16
- U.0.1 v. R. IYY AS,WAMY

Union oflndia and two of the employees.
17
A
The contention of the appellants was that decision of the Tribunal was
wrong because it was based upon an incorrect premise that degree and diploma
holdei-S enter the cadre of Engineering Assistants through different channeis
at which stage the minimum qualifications for them are different It was also
contended that decision of the Tribunal was inconsistent with the decision of B
this Court in N. Abdul Basheer v. K.K. Karunakoran, (1989] Supp. 2 SCC
. 344.

Allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD : U. Rule 2(i) (a) of the Assistant Engineers (Akashwani and C
Doorda..Shan Group 'B' posts) Recruitment (Amendment) Rules 1985 is valid.
By adopting the new policy contained in Rules 2(i)(a) and (b) of the Amendment"
Rules, the Government appears to have made an attempt to balance the
advantages arising out of merit and experience based on long service. The
policy underlying Rule 2(i)(a) and (b) therefore, cannot be regarded either as
discriminatory or arbitrary. It is also not correct to say that by providing for D'
promotion by selection by Departmental Promotion Committee against the
25%' promotion quota the Court has made unequals equal.
. [22-G-H; 23-A; 24-A]

N. Abdul Basheer '" K.K. Karunbkaran, [1989) Supp. 2 SCC 344,
relied on. E
1.2. The Tribunal was wrong in proceeding on the basis that the degree
holders and diploma holders enter the cadre of Engineering Assistant through
different channels and that on the stage of entry, the requisite qualifications
are also different. Minimum qualification for direc.t recruitment as F
Engineering Assistant is diploma in Engineering or B.Sc. degree with Physics
as the main subject. All those who .are recruited as Engineering Assistant
constituted one single cadre. There is no difference' as regards their pay or
other emoluments on the ground that they are degree-holders or diploma
holders. The nature of duties and responsibilities of diploma holders is not
different from those of degree holders. Thus no distinction is recognised G
between graduates and diploma holders at the level of Engineering Assistants
and they all are considered as equals. (21-G~H; 22-A-B)
. '

2; Just because certain percentage of th~ posts of Assistant Engineers
were reserved for graduate Engineers in the past did not create any vested
right in their favour. If merit and efficiency are the consideration while making H
18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A promotions to the higher posts, there is no reason why a certain percentage
of posts of Assistant Engineers should be reserved for graduate Engineers
and they should not be made to compete with diploma holders.[22-G-H; 23-A]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6122of1997
Etc.·
B
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.5.93 of the Central Administrative
Tribunal, New Delhi in T.A. No. 85/87 in W.P. No. 10437of1985.

Altaf Ahmed , Additional Solicitor General, Hemant Sharma, S.D. Sharma,
S.K. Dwivedi and V.K. Verma for the Appellants in C.A. No. 6122/97
c Ranjit Kumar and Ms. Anu Mohla for the Appellants in C.A.No.6123/

M.A: Krishna Moorthy for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
NANA VATI, J. Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for both the sides.

Only question that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether
Rule 2(1)(a) of the Assistant Engineers (Akashwani and Doordarshan Group
'B' Posts) Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 1985 is discriminatory and, therefore,
E violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Principal Bench of the
Central Administrative Tribunal has held that it is chai!enging the decision of
Tribunal, the Union of India and also P.N. Kohli and Malcher Malviya who
were respondent Nos. 2 and 3 before the Tribunal, have filed these appeals.

The All India Radio and Doordarshan have a common technical cadre.
F The channel of promotion in the Engineering section is from the post of
Engineering Assistant to the post of Senior Engineering Assistant and then
to the post of Assistant Engineer (Gazetted). Earlier, recruitment to the post
of Assistant Engineer was made in accordance ~ith the Recruitment Rules of
1972. Under those Rules, 60 per cent posts of Engineering Assistants were
G reserved for departmental Engineering Assistants who were degree-holders
and 40 per cent posts were filled up by direct recruitment on the basis of
Engineering Services Examination conducted by the Union Public Service
Commission. Those Rules were replaced by the Assistant Engineers (Akashwani
and Doordarshan Group 'B' posts) Recruitment Rules of 1982. Under these
rules also, before they were amended in 1985, 60 per cent of the promotion
H quota was filled up from amongst Graduate Engineers and remaining 40 per
U.0.1. v. R.. IYYASWAMY [NANAVAT!,J.] 19
cent posts from the Diploma-holders after they cleared the departmental A
examination. !n 1985, the President made the following rules to amend the 1982
Rules:

"'(l) .These rules may be called the Assistant"Engineers (Akash-wani
and Doordarshan Group 'B' posts) Recruitment (Amendment)
Rules, 1985. B
(2) They shall come into force on the d~te of their publication in the
Official Gazette. .
2. In the Schedule to the Assistant Engineers (Akashwani and
Doordarshan Group 'B' Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1982.
c
(!) In column 11, for the entry, the following entry shall be
substituted namely :
"Promotion".
(a) 25% of the promotion quota
D
By selection in accordance with provisions laid down in Appendix
I to these rules.
(b) 75% of the promotion quota
By selection on the basis of Departmental Competitive
Examination conducted in accordance with provisions laid down E
in Appendices II and Ill to these rules. •
xxx xxx xxx

(ii) For Appendix I, the following Appendix shall be substituted
namely:
F
"APPENDIX-I"
(See rule 3)
Promotion by selection against 25% quota
(1) The promotion by selection shall be made by the Departmental
. Promotion Committee. The eligibility for consideration for G'
promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee shall be as
follows:-
(a) Senior Engineering Assistants with 8 years regular service in the
grade; failing which senior Engineering Assistants with 8 years'
combined regular service in the grades of seriior 'Engineering H
20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. .
A Assistant and Engineering Assistants; and
(b) Possessing educational qualifications not lower than those
prescribed for direct recruits to the post of Engineering Assistant
in the Akashwani and Doordarshan."

B We have not set out the remaining rules, as they have no bearing on
the question to be decided in these appeals.

These Amendment Rules of 1985 were challenged by the graduate
Senior Engineering Assistants/Assistant Engineers as discriminatory and
violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution by filing a writ petition in
C the Madras High Court. It was subsequently transferred to the Madras Bench
of the Tribunal and renumbered as T.A. No. 587of1986. It was then transferred
to the Principal Bench of the Tribunal and renumbered as T.A. No. 85of1987.
The contention of the applicants was that till 1972 all the higher posts were
reserved for educationally better qualified persons and thereafter a certain
D percentage was reserved for them; but, as a result of the 1985 Amendment,
the reservation in favour of educationally better qualified persons has been
completely done away, with the result that they will now lose initiative in
obtaining higher educational qualifications. It was submitted that now the
Engineering graduates are equated with diploma-holders and the earlier
distinction between graduate Engineers and diploma-holders, which was a
E recognized and valid distinction, has been obliterated to the detriment of
degree-holder Engineers. The Tribunal rejected the contention raised on behalf
of the applicants that Rule 2 (i) (b) of the Amendment Rules providing for
filling up of 75 percent of the posts in the promotion quota by selection on
the basis of departmental competitive examination was either discriminatory
F or arbitrary merely because it provided for competitive examination and made
the diploma-holders eligible for competing with the degree-holders. It held
that by permitting both the degree and diploma-holders to compete for 75 per
cent promotion quota, the Government cannot be said to have made unequals
equal, more particularly in view of the purpose and reason behind the said·
rule.
G
As regards the rule relating to 25% promotion quota, the Tribunal,
however, took a different view and held as under :

"37. So far as the remaining 25% quota is concerned, as provided in
rule 2 (i) (a) of the Appendix to that rule, this is tci go by seniority.
H Degree holders and diploma holders have been placed on par. This
I

U.0.1. v. R. IYYASWAMY[NANAVATI, J.] 21
may tend to discourage person from pursuing degree course for A
getting higher and better promotional avenues if the same can be
available after getting a diploma. Degree and diploma holders have .
come through different channels and they have entered service through
their own channel; and at that stage requisite minimum qualifications
are different. The trend of cases referred to above is that even if there B
is some discrimination as recognition of this difference, it would be
within the constitutional limits and will not go against the constitutional
provisions and aspirations.

38. The contention that complete obliterati~n of difference between
degree and diploma holder by promoting them on seniority basis C
which may even give an edge to diploma holders over degree holders
because. of entry on a lower post earlier, may create frustration and
take away initiative and impetus for higher educational and better
standard, is not without force: Th.ey have been put on the same par
so far as 75% posts are concerned as stated above. ff for 25% posts
also they are also put on the same par, with even some edge to D
diploma holders because of their longer per!od of service, the same
tends to make unequals, equal. Inter-rotation of two channels may
gi_ven them double benefits.',. .

"40. So far as this part of the rule viz., regarding 25% quota is E
concerned, it is apparent, that the same makes unequal as equal ·and
does not fully fit in with the equality clause which stanqs in Article
14 of the Constitution oflndia which permits reasonable classifications..
Thus, it being bad, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 of the
Constitution of India and legally barred, the same has got to be struck
down .... ". F

In these appeals, the appellants have questioned that part of the decision
of the Tribunal whereby Rule 2(i) (a) of the Amendment Rules of 1985 has
· been declared ultra vires Article 14 of the constitution. ·Mr. Altaf Ahmad,
learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India, has G
submitted that the decision of the Tribunal is wrong not only because it is
based upon an incorrect premise that degree and diploma-holde~s enter the
cadre. of Engineering Assistants through different channels at which stage
the minimum qualifications for them are different but also because it is
inconsistent with the decision of this Court in N. Abdul Basheer v. l(.K.
Karunakaran, [1989] Supp. 2 sec 344. H
22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A As noted by the Tribunal, minimum qualification for direct recruitment
as Engineering Assistant is diploma in Engineering or B. Sc. degree with
physics as the main subject. All those who are recruited as Engineering
Assistants constitute one single cadre. There is no difference as regards their
pay or their emoluments on the ground that they are degree-holders or
diploma-holders. It is nobody's case that the nature of duties and
B responsibilities of diploma-holders is different from those of the degree-
holders. Thus no distinction is recognised between graduates and diploma-
holders at the level of Engineering Assistants and they are all considered as
equals. The Tribunal was, therefore, wrong in proceeding on the basis that
the degree-holders and diploma-holders enter the cadre of Engineering
C Assistants through different channels and that at the stage of entry, the
requisite qualifications are also different. Even when the Engineering Assistants
are considered for promotion to the higher post of Senior Engineering
Assistants no distinction is made on the ground of their educational
qualifications. The cadre of Senior Engineering Assistants is abo a single
undivided cadre and in the matter of pay, duties and responsibilities, all Senior
D Engineering Assistants are treated equally. Except that the post of Assistant
Engineer is a Group 'B' gazetted post, no other reason could be advanced
by the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents justifying
a necessity to make a distinction between a graduate Engineer and diploma-
holder while considering a Senior Engineering Assistants for promotion to
E that post. Simply because a certain percentage of the posts of Assistant
Engineers was reserved for graduate Engineers in the past, that did not create
any vested right in their favour. If merit and efficiency are the considerations
while making promotions to the higher posts, there is no reason why a certain
percentage of posts of Assistant Engineers should be reserved for graduate
Engineers and they should not be made to compete with diploma-holders. A
F degree in Engineering is a better educational qualification than a diploma in
Engineering; and, therefore, while competing for the posts of Assistant
Engineers, the graduate Engineers will have an edge over the diploma-holders.
By adopting the new policy contained in Rules 2(i)(a) and (b) of the Amendment
Rules, the Government appears to have made an attempt to balance the
G advantages arising out of merit and experience based on long service. The
25 pet cent promotion quota rule enables those Senior Engineering Assistants
who have rendered long years of service but due to certain reason like age
etc. do not desire to appear for the competitive examination but are otherwise
fit for being promoted to such Jiigher post. The policy underlying Rules 2(i)(a)
and (b) of the Amendment Rules of 1985, therefore, cannot be regarded either
H as discriminatory or arbitrary. It is also not correct to say that by providing
U.0.1. v. R. IYYASWAMY[NANAVATI, J.] 23
for promotion by selection by Departmental Promotion Committee against the · A
25 per cent promotion quota what the Government 'has done is to make
unequals equal. As stated earlier, the diploma-holders were treated as equals
in all respects in the· subordinate cadres of Senior Engineering· Assistants and
Engineering Assistants.

In N. Abdul Basheer's case (supra), in the context of a rule fixing B
graduate-non graduate ratio for filling up the promotional post of Excise
Inspector, this Court observed as under :

"13.... This is not a case where the cadre of officers was kept in two
separate divisions. It was a single cadre and they were all equal C
members of it. There is no evidence that graduate Preventive Officers
enjoyed higher pay than non-graduate Preventive Officers. The High
Court has noted that the nature of the duties of Preventive Officers
whether graduate or non-graduate was identical, and both were put
to field work. Non-graduate Preventive Officers were regarded as
competent as graduate Preventive Officers. There is no evidence of D
any special responsibility being vested in graduate Preventive Officers.
Once they were promoted as Excise Inspector there was no distinction
between graduate and non-graduate Excise Inspector."

'While dealing with the contention that the recognition of graduation is
r:;·
recognition of merit and that more merit in the po;:t 6f Excise lnspector would ~
be conducive to better administrative efficiency, this Court further observed
thus :

"15.... Ordinarily, it is for the government to decide upon the
considerations which, in its judgment, should underline a policy to be F
formulated by it. But if the considerations.are such as prove to be of
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 of the Constitution. In the
present case, we ha,ve already commented on the circumstance that
the conditions of employment and the incidents of service recognise G
no distinction between graduate and non-graduate officers and that
for all material purposes they are effectively treated as equivalent.
Accordingly, this contention must also be rejected."

In view of this clear: pronouncement of law, the contrary view taken by
the Tribunal has to be regarded as bad. In the result, these appeals are H
24 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A allowed. The order passed by the Tribunal is set aside. Rule 2(i)(a) of the
Amendment Rules of 1985 is held to be valid and the T.A. No. 85of1987 filed
by the contesting respondents, is dismissed. In view of the facts and
circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

S.V.K.I. Appeals allowed.

'