Read Time: 11 minutes

In a recent decision, Supreme Court has held that classification made based on educational qualifications for supernumerary appointments to the higher post of Assistant Engineer, is valid.

The Bench comprising of Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Vikram Nath was hearing an appeal from the division bench of Calcutta High Court that upheld a circular dated 3 July 2012 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation which prescribed separate conditions for diploma and degree holder Sub-Assistant Engineers for supernumerary appointments as Assistant Engineers.

Court noted that in matters of public policy and public employment, the legislature or its delegate must be given sufficient room to decide the quality of individuals it seeks to employ as against different positions.

"As long as these decisions are not arbitrary, this Court must refrain from interfering in the policy domain" - Supreme Court

BRIEF FACTS:

The Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) issued a circular on 3rd July, 2012 which provided differing classification within the same cadre of Sub Assistant Engineers (SAE's) for the purpose of appointment to supernumerary posts.

The premise of the circular was to rectify the stagnation faced by SAEs who, despite having completed twenty to twenty-five years of service, had not been promoted. In addition to this, some SAEs had acquired an engineering degree while in service, and yet had not been promoted. The proposal sought to create a distinction between SAEs holding a diploma and those holding a degree (acquired prior to joining KMC as an SAE, or during the service). The former would be promoted to the post of an AE if they had completed twenty-five years of service, while the latter would be if they had completed thirteen years of service or more, out of which five years were served as a degree holder.

The appellants, who are SAEs possessing a diploma in engineering, instituted a writ petition before the High Court challenging the circular  on the ground that violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

What the High Court held:

By a judgment dated 6 October 2015, the Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition and held the circular to be arbitrary and unconstitutional. The Single Judge of the High Court held that when persons having different educational qualifications are subject to a common recruitment process and are selected thereafter, a subsequent classification in that cadre would be in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Single Judge also observed that the classification for promotion was not made to reward those SAEs who had improved their educational qualification during service, but instead was a benefit granted to all degree holders.

In a Letters Patent Appeal, the Division Bench, reversed the decision of the Single Judge and held that classification made on the basis of educational qualifications for supernumerary appointments to the higher post of Assistant Engineer, is valid.

This was further affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case at hand.

VIEW OF THE SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court after considering various precedents observed that the following principles emerge as a result:

1. Classification between persons must not produce artificial inequalities. The classification must be founded on a reasonable basis and must bear nexus to the object and purpose sought to be achieved to pass the muster of Articles 14 and 16;
    
2. Judicial review in matters of classification is limited to a determination of whether the classification is reasonable and bears a nexus to the object sought to be achieved. Courts cannot indulge in a mathematical evaluation of the basis of classification or replace the wisdom of the legislature or its delegate with their own;
    
3. Generally speaking, educational qualification is a valid ground for classification between persons of the same class in matters of promotion and is not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution;
    
4. Persons drawn from different sources and integrated into a common class can be differentiated on grounds of educational qualification for the  purpose of promotion, where this bears a nexus with the efficiency required in the promotional post;
    
5. Educational qualification may be used for introducing quotas for promotion for a certain class of persons; or may even be used to restrict promotion entirely to one class, to the exclusion of others;
    
6. Educational qualification may be used as a criterion for classification for promotion to increase administrative efficiency at the higher posts; and
    
7. However, a classification made on grounds of educational qualification should bear nexus to the purpose of the classification or the extent of differences in qualifications.

The Apex Court observed that the amendments made to the Recruitment Regulations indicate that in matters of promotion, KMC has repeatedly sought to create a distinction between degree-holder SAEs and diploma-holder SAEs since 1997, by introducing a quota for the promotion of the former. In doing so, it did not foreclose promotional avenues for diploma holder SAEs.

The Supreme Court also referred to the career enhancement initiatives taken by KMC for betterment of the cadre.

The Court, while upholding the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court held that:

“It is not amiss to draw a conclusion that a higher educational degree, coupled with stipulated years of experience, could bring in certain benefits to the position of an AE that the management desires. In any case, it is not for this Court to decide whether a higher educational qualification would fulfil the objectives of the management, as long as the nexus between the education.”

 

[Case title - Chandan Banerjee & Ors Versus Krishna Prosad Ghosh & Ors]

Access Copy of Judgment Here