Educational Qualification is a valid ground for classification between persons of same class in matters of promotion
Factual Matrix:
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 21.09.2021 in the matter of “Chandan Bannerjee & Ors. vs. Krishna Prosad Ghosh & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 5582 of 2021)” had the occasion to deal with the issue as to whether educational qualification is a valid ground for classification between persons of same class who were recruited by a common examination in matters of promotion.
In the present matter, the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as KMC) i.e. Respondent No. 20 vide a circular dated 03.07.2012 sought to create supernumerary Assistant Engineer (hereinafter referred to as “AE”) posts for opening promotional avenues for Sub-Assistant Engineers (hereinafter referred to as “SAE”). However, as per the circular, the SAEs who held Engineering diplomas would be promoted to the post of an AE if they had completed 25 years of service while the SAEs who held Engineering degrees would be promoted to the post of AE if they had completed 13 years of service or more out of which 5 years were served as a degree holder. Thus, the circular created 2 classes of SAE’s and placed different conditions on them in order for them to be promoted to AE’s. Thereafter, on 05.07.2012, in pursuance of the said circular, an office order was published which had a list of SAEs who had been promoted to the post of AE owing to the circular.
Aggrieved, the SAEs who possessed a diploma in engineering challenged the circular dated 03.07.2012 and the subsequent graduation list dated 05.07.2012 before the Calcutta High Court contending that the classification made by the circular within the same cadre of SAE for the purpose of promotion to the post of AE violated Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The single judge bench vide order dated 06.10.2015, allowed the Writ petition and held that the circular was arbitrary and unconstitutional. The Respondents thereafter filed a Letter Patent Appeal wherein the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court overturned 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 AE is valid.
Aggrieved by this decision, the Appellants who are SAEs possessing diplomas, filed an SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Analysis of the Judgment:
The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its decision dated 21.09.2021 upheld the decision of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court and dismissed the Appeal filed by the Appellants.
The Supreme Court relied on its own judgment in “State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Trilokinath Khosa, (1974) 1 SCC 19” wherein it was held that classification done on the basis of educational qualifications between persons of the same class is valid if the object of such classification was to achieve administrative efficiency.
The Appellants contended that this decision was not applicable in the present case as in the Trilokinath Khosa case, there were 2 sources of recruitment (direct and through promotion) after which diploma holders and degree holders were integrated into one class. Thus, when a classification was thereafter done within that class for the purpose of promotion, it was justified but in the present case all the SAEs were hired through one common exam and thus any classification done thereafter within the SAEs for the purpose of promotion would be invalid. The Supreme Court rejected this contention and held that whether there are two different streams of recruitment, or a single source of recruitment merged into a common pool, the classification that was upheld in Trilokinath Khosa case was based on educational qualification which was linked to the purpose of enhancing administrative efficiency in the organization.
The Supreme Court further held that SAEs once promoted to the post of an AE in these supernumerary posts would be performing the task and functions of an AE which would entail an increase in workload and supervisory functions which would require a higher level of technical expertise. Therefore a higher educational qualification, coupled with stipulated years of experience, could bring in certain benefits to the position of an AE that the management desires. Thus, in the present case, classification on the basis of educational qualifications wherein different conditions were placed on SAEs who were diploma holders and SAEs who were degree holders for their promotion to the post of AE clearly bears a nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the KMC and is not in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.