The Supreme Court on 18.01.2021(Monday) comprising of a bench of CJI SA Bobde, Justices AS Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian reiterated that the prescription of a Higher educational qualification as a qualification for promotion to a post cannot be held as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of of the Constitution. (Ashok Kumar Vs. State Of Jammu And Kashmir)
Facts of the Case
An appeal was filed in the Supreme Court against a judgment passed by the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, where it was held that promotions based on higher education qualifications are violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution. The High Court stated that basing promotions upon higher education qualification cannot be a valid qualification given that all members working as Senior Assistants formed a homogeneous group. However, the appellants in the present case submitted that while a homogeneous group of Senior Assistants is constituted, reasonable classification of people for the purposes of promotions can be made.
Contention Of the Parties
The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that as on date, those contesting respondents who are now in service, have all acquired a degree and that therefore the question that remains to be answered is only one of seniority. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that if no one is reverted and if the power of the Chief Justice to prescribe the qualifications under Rule 6 is upheld, then the long standing lis can be put to an end by fixing seniority on the basis of possession of qualifications at the time of appointment/promotion to the relevant post.
On the other hand the learned Counsel on behalf of the respondents submitted that once a person has been appointed/promoted, he becomes part of a homogenous class within which there can be no differentiation and that what is applicable to the case on hand is only Rule 5 of the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, (hereinafter referred to as “CCA Rules, 1956”) under which the power of relaxation vests with the Government and that under Rule 18 of these Rules, it is for the Government to prescribe the qualifications for appointment to any service.
Courts Observation & Judgment
One of the reasons for quashing given by the High Court was that all persons working as Senior Assistants constituted a homogenous group and hence there cannot be any differentiation among them on the basis of educational qualifications. Before the Apex Court, the aggrieved parties contended that classification is permissible on the basis of educational qualifications, even within a homogenous group, for the purpose of promotion to a higher post.
To answer this, the bench, also comprising of Justices AS Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian, referred to a 1968 Constitution Bench Judgment viz. State of Mysore & Anr. vs. P. Narasinga Rao AIR 1968 SC 349, in which it was observed that Article 16(1) does not bar a reasonable classification of employees or reasonable test for their selection. The court further noted that in Jammu & Kashmir vs. Triloki Nath Khosa (1974) 1 SCC 19, it was held that the Rule providing for graduates to be eligible for promotion to the exclusion of diploma holders is not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Further referring to T.R. Kothandaraman vs. Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board (1994) 6 SCC 282, the bench observed:
"The legal position in this regard was summarised as follows: (i) Higher educational qualification is a permissible basis of classification, acceptability of which will depend on the facts and circumstances; (ii) Higher educational qualification can be the basis not only for barring promotion, but also for restricting the scope of promotion; (iii) restriction placed cannot however go to the extent of seriously jeopardising the chances of promotion."
While allowing the appeal, the bench further observed:
As pointed out in T.R.Kothandaraman (supra), the Court shall have to be conscious about the need for maintaining efficiency in service, while judging the validity of the classification. Though the High Court took note of these decisions, the High Court fell into an error in thinking that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court could not establish the necessity for higher qualification for the efficient discharge of the functions of higher posts. It is apparent from the facts and circumstances of the case that the non graduates have had opportunities to qualify themselves, which they have also done. Therefore, the prescription of graduation as a qualification for promotion to the post of Head Assistant cannot be held as violative of Articles 14 and 16.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :