Bhagwan Singh Dhurve vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

Per: Pradeep Mittal J.

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, who is working as a Sub Engineer (Electrical/Mechanical) in the Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter, "PHED"). The petitioner challenges the entries contained in Schedule-II of the Madhya Pradesh Lok Swasthya Abhiyantriki (Rajpatrit) Seva Niyam, 1980 (hereinafter, "the 1980 Rules"), as substituted by Notification dated 24.11.2014, to the extent the said entries earmark only 10% of the promotional quota for Degree holder Sub Engineers, as against 35% for Diploma holder Sub Engineers, for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical/Mechanical). The prayer is for a declaration that the said prescription is unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and for a consequential direction that all eligible Sub Engineers be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer on a rational and non discriminatory basis, without applying the impugned qualification based sub classification.

The petitioner is serving as a Sub Engineer (Electrical/Mechanical) in the Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh. He possesses a Bachelor's Degree in Mechanical Engineering obtained in the year 2004 and was appointed as Sub Engineer on 16.02.2016. He has been rendering continuous service in the department and is presently posted at Shahdol.

Promotion from the post of Sub Engineer to the gazetted post of Assistant Engineer in PHED is governed by the 1980 Rules. By Notification dated 24.11.2014, Schedule-II of the 1980 Rules was amended, prescribing that out of the 50% departmental promotional quota for Assistant Engineer, 35% shall be filled from Diploma holder Sub Engineers, 10% from Degree holder Sub Engineers, and 5% from the Chief Draughtsman/Draughtsman cadre. It is this distribution which is under challenge.

The petitioner's case is that the 1980 Rules themselves recognise Degree holder Sub Engineers as possessing a superior qualification, inasmuch as only eight years' qualifying service is prescribed for their promotion, as against twelve years for Diploma holder Sub Engineers, yet, at the same time, Degree holders are restricted to a mere 10% quota. This, according to the petitioner, is arbitrary and self contradictory. Reliance is also placed on proceedings of the Water Resources Department dated 14.07.2026 to contend that Degree holder and Diploma holder Sub Engineers constitute a common, integrated feeder cadre, with a common seniority list prepared before the impugned sub quota is even applied, thereby demonstrating that the distinction drawn only at the promotion stage is artificial.

It is necessary, before proceeding further, to trace the statutory background placed before this Court, since the petitioner's grievance is founded substantially on a comparison of different Notifications issued at different points in time and, indeed, governing different posts.

By Notification No. F-2-10/2011/1/34 dated 25.11.2011, issued in exercise of the power under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, the Governor of Madhya Pradesh amended the Madhya Pradesh Public Health Engineering Department (Non-Gazetted) Service (Conditions of Service and Recruitment) Rules, 1976, and substituted Schedules I to IV thereof. Schedule-I thereunder sanctioned 974 posts of Sub-Engineer (Civil) and 263 posts of Sub Engineer (E&M), classified as a State wide, non-gazetted cadre. Schedule-II prescribed that recruitment to the very post of Sub-Engineer (a feeder, non-gazetted post) shall be 90% by direct recruitment and 10% by promotion, the latter further split as 5% from Artificer/Sub Artificer/Surveyor (holding a Degree/three year Diploma with ten years' experience) and 5% from Tracer/Assistant Draughtsman/Draughtsman (holding a three year or part time Diploma with ten years' experience), through a limited departmental examination. Schedule-III prescribed, for direct recruitment to the post of Sub Engineer itself, a three year Diploma in the concerned engineering discipline as the qualifying educational requirement.

It is thus evident that the 2011 Notification operates at the level of recruitment to the non-gazetted post of Sub Engineer, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the quota for further promotion of Sub Engineers to the gazetted post of Assistant Engineer. The two sets of Rules the 1976 Rules governing the non-gazetted Sub Engineer cadre, and the 1980 Rules governing the gazetted Assistant Engineer cadre operate at different rungs of the same service hierarchy and address entirely different questions.

Subsequently, by Notification No. F.2-2-2014-1-XXXIV dated 24.11.2014, again issued under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, the Governor amended Schedule-II of the 1980 Rules, this time in relation to the gazetted posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) 241 duty posts and Assistant Engineer (E/M) 62 duty posts. The amended entries provide that 50% of such posts shall be filled by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion, and that the 50% promotional share shall further stand apportioned as 35% from the cadre of Diploma holder Sub Engineers, 10% from the cadre of Degree holder Sub Engineers, and 5% from the cadre of Chief Draughtsman/Draftsman. This is the impugned quota.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced, in substance, the following submissions:- (a) that the impugned Notification dated 24.11.2014, by earmarking only 10% quota for Degree holder Sub Engineers as against 35% for Diploma holder Sub Engineers, is manifestly arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution (b) that once Degree holder and Diploma holder Sub Engineers constitute a common feeder cadre considered for the very same post of Assistant Engineer, the respondents cannot create artificial promotional compartments purely on the basis of educational qualification (c) that the 1980 Rules themselves recognise the superiority of the Degree qualification, by prescribing a shorter qualifying service of eight years for Degree holders as against twelve years for Diploma holders, having acknowledged this superiority for eligibility, the Rule making authority could not, without rational basis, allocate a smaller quota to Degree holders, such classification having no nexus with the object sought to be achieved (d) that promotion from Sub Engineer to Assistant Engineer is governed by the principle of merit cum seniority, and the impugned qualification based sub quota curtails equal opportunity in public employment guaranteed under Article 16, despite there being only one sanctioned cadre of Sub-Engineers and (e) that the Departmental Promotion Committee process has already been set in motion by applying the impugned quota, on account of which the petitioner is being considered only against the restricted 10% quota if promotions are finalised before adjudication of this petition, the petitioner would suffer irreparable prejudice.

Learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents, has opposed the petition on the following counts: (a) that the power to frame and amend service rules, including promotional quotas, is a legislative power exercised under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, and no employee has a vested right to the continuance of any particular ratio; the State is entitled to revise the quota having regard to cadre strength and administrative requirements (b) that classification of a feeder cadre into Degree holders and Diploma holders, for purposes of a further promotional avenue, is a well recognised and judicially upheld basis of classification in engineering services, and does not offend Articles 14 or 16 (c) that the shorter qualifying service prescribed for Degree holders and the larger quota reserved for Diploma holders address two distinct concerns individual eligibility, and equitable protection of the cadre that has no alternate avenue of advancement and are not mutually contradictory (d) that the proceedings of the Water Resources Department dated 14.07.2026, relied upon by the petitioner, pertain to a different department governed by its own distinct Rules, and cannot be read into or made to override the 1980 Rules applicable to PHED and (e) that the petitioner is not without remedy he remains fully eligible to be considered for promotion against the 10% quota applicable to Degree holder Sub Engineers, and there is no impediment to the Departmental Promotion Committee proceeding in accordance with the Rules as they stand.

On the rival submissions, the following points arise for determination (i) whether the classification made between Degree holder and Diploma holder Sub Engineers, for purposes of promotional quota to the post of Assistant Engineer under Schedule II of the 1980 Rules as substituted by the Notification dated 24.11.2014, is founded on an intelligible differentia having a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, or whether it is arbitrary and self contradictory, as alleged (ii) whether the alteration of the promotional ratio effected by the Notification dated 24.11.2014, viewed against the earlier statutory position, is shown to be an unconstitutional exercise of the rule making power under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution; (iii) whether the existence of a common feeder cadre/common seniority list at the Sub Engineer stage, as reflected in the Water Resources Department proceedings dated 14.07.2026, precludes the impugned sub classification at the promotion stage; and (iv) what relief, if any, the petitioner is entitled to.

Before examining the rival contentions, it is necessary to recall the well settled, twofold test applicable to a challenge of this nature under Article 14 of the Constitution. This twin test was authoritatively laid down by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538, following the earlier decision in Budhan Choudhry v. State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 191. The relevant part of the enunciation reads thus:

This twin test continues to guide the examination of every classification made by a rule making or legislative authority, including in matters of service and promotion. Applying it to the classification made between Degree holder and Diploma holder Sub Engineers for the limited purpose of fixing a promotional quota to the post of Assistant Engineer, this Court finds that educational qualification is, without doubt, an identifiable and intelligible differentia. It is not a vague, whimsical, or extraneous criterion; it is a criterion that has consistently been recognised as germane to service jurisprudence, particularly in technical and engineering cadres, where the nature of duties attached to a higher post may call for a certain calibre of formal training.

This very question whether Degree holders and Diploma holders in an engineering service can be validly classified, for purposes of promotion, on the basis of their educational qualification stood squarely considered by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa, (1974) 1 SCC 19. The Supreme Court, dealing with an analogous engineering cadre where Degree holder and Diploma holder Assistant Engineers were sought to be treated differently for further promotion to the cadre of Executive Engineers, held as follows:

The principle enunciated therein applies with full force to the facts of the present case. If Degree holder and Diploma holder Sub Engineers, though forming part of a common feeder cadre, can validly be classified for purposes of the further promotional avenue to the gazetted post of Assistant Engineer, the mere existence of a common cadre or a common seniority list at the Sub Engineer stage the third point framed above cannot, by itself, invalidate the sub classification made at the subsequent promotional stage. A common feeder cadre is only the threshold for being considered at all, it does not translate into an indefeasible right to an undifferentiated, merged quota at the next stage of promotion. This answers point (iii) as well; the reliance placed by the petitioner on the Water Resources Department proceedings dated 14.07.2026 does not assist him. Those proceedings pertain to a different department, governed by its own distinct service rules framed independently under the proviso to Article 309; a policy choice made for that department cannot be read into, or be permitted to override, the statutory rules specifically applicable to PHED. Even otherwise, and as noticed above, a common seniority list at the feeder stage is not incompatible with a rational, qualification based bifurcation of the promotional quota at the next stage.

This brings the Court to the petitioner's central grievance that the Rules are self contradictory in prescribing a shorter qualifying service of eight years for Degree holders while simultaneously restricting them to a smaller 10% quota. On a closer examination, this Court is unable to accept that the two prescriptions are in any real conflict. The qualifying service requirement and the quota percentage address two altogether different concerns. The qualifying service determines the minimum length of experience after which an individual becomes eligible to be considered at all; a shorter period for Degree holders reflects a recognition that formal degree level training may equip a candidate for the responsibilities of Assistant Engineer somewhat sooner than a diploma level training would. The quota percentage, on the other hand, reflects a distinct policy choice as to how the limited promotional avenue is to be apportioned between the two components of the feeder cadre, having regard to their respective strength and their respective alternate avenues of advancement. It bears notice, in this context, that under the very Rules governing recruitment to the post of Sub Engineer, a three year Diploma has historically been the basic qualifying requirement, making Diploma holders the numerically dominant component of the feeder cadre, with promotion to Assistant Engineer being, in practical terms, their only avenue of upward movement in this line. Degree holder Sub Engineers, by contrast, additionally remain eligible to compete for the 50% quota reserved for direct recruitment to the very post of Assistant Engineer. Viewed in this light, a larger promotional quota reserved for Diploma holders, coupled with a longer qualifying service, and a smaller promotional quota for Degree holders, coupled with a shorter qualifying service, represents a coherent and calibrated policy rather than a self contradictory one. Two different variables addressing two different concerns cannot be said to be irreconcilable merely because, considered in isolation and without reference to their respective objects, they appear to point in different numerical directions. No material has been placed before this Court to show that this calibration is without any basis in fact or is a mere pretence. This finding disposes of point (i).

This leaves point (ii) the petitioner's grievance that the ratio was different at some earlier point and has now been altered to the disadvantage of Degree holders by the impugned Notification. On a careful reading of the material placed on record, the only prior Notification produced by the petitioner is the one dated 25.11.2011, which, as already noticed, governs recruitment to the non gazetted post of Sub Engineer and has no bearing on the promotional quota to the gazetted post of Assistant Engineer. No anterior version of Schedule-II of the 1980 Rules that is, no previously existing quota for promotion to Assistant Engineer, said to have been more favourable to Degree holders has been placed before this Court. The comparison sought to be drawn by the petitioner is, therefore, between two Notifications operating in entirely different fields, and does not establish, factually, that any earlier, more advantageous ratio applicable to Degree holder Sub Engineers has been withdrawn or reduced by the Notification dated 24.11.2014.

That said, and even proceeding on the assumption most favourable to the petitioner namely, that some different ratio may have existed prior to 24.11.2014 and has since been altered that circumstance, without more, would still not render the impugned Notification unconstitutional. The power to frame service rules under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution is legislative in character. Like any other piece of subordinate legislation, a service rule can be prospectively amended, altered, or substituted by the very authority that made it, having regard to cadre strength, administrative exigencies, and evolving policy considerations. It is well settled that no member of a service acquires a vested or fundamental right to the continuance, unaltered, of a particular quota or ratio prescribed under a service rule; at best, an employee has a right to be considered for promotion in accordance with the rule validly in force at the relevant point in time. A change in ratio, therefore, does not by itself amount to a violation of Articles 14 or 16 what would attract constitutional scrutiny is only a change that is shown to be arbitrary, capricious, or without any rational basis. For the reasons already discussed while dealing with point (i), no such infirmity has been demonstrated in the present case. The mere fact of change, unaccompanied by proof of irrationality, furnishes no independent ground for interference. This finding disposes of point (ii).

As regards the apprehension that the Departmental Promotion Committee proceedings have already been set in motion, once this Court has found the impugned Notification to be constitutionally valid, no case for interim protection or injunction survives. The Departmental Promotion Committee proceedings, if already initiated, may proceed and be finalised strictly in accordance with the 1980 Rules as they presently stand. The petitioner's case shall be considered against the 10% quota applicable to Degree holder Sub Engineers, on the basis of his eligibility and seniority, in the ordinary course. This answers point (iv).

There was originally no promotion from the cadre of Sub Engineer to Assistant Engineer. The only advancement available to Sub Engineers was the grant of a Selection Grade. The minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Sub Engineer was a Diploma in Engineering.

21 The post of Assistant Engineer is a Gazetted post. Subsequently, the Government introduced a promotional avenue from the post of Sub Engineer to the post of Assistant Engineer. The prescribed qualification for direct appointment as an Assistant Engineer is a Degree in Engineering. However, while introducing the promotional channel, the Government relaxed the educational qualification for those promoted from the cadre of Sub Engineer. This clearly indicates that the Government intended to extend promotional opportunities to Sub Engineers who did not possess a Degree in Engineering.

The dispute arose because some persons were appointed as Sub Engineers despite already possessing a Degree in Engineering. They claimed that they should receive the same promotional benefits as those available to diploma holder Sub Engineers.

22 This contention cannot be accepted. Firstly, 50% of the posts of Assistant Engineer are already reserved for direct recruitment of Degree holders in Engineering. Of the remaining promotional quota, 35% is reserved for Diploma holder Sub Engineers, 10% for Degree holder Sub Engineers, and 5% for Draftsmen. Thus, 60% of the total posts of Assistant Engineer are available to Degree holders, while 35% are available to Diploma holders.

23 A person who enters service with qualifications higher than the minimum qualification prescribed for the post cannot, during service, claim additional privileges merely because he possesses a higher qualification. Once appointed as a Sub Engineer, all employees belong to the same cadre, the minimum qualification for which is a Diploma in Engineering. Therefore, the Government has reasonably and validly distributed the promotional quotas between Degree holders and Diploma holders.

24 The Government also requires a certain number of Assistant Engineers who possess only a Diploma in Engineering, as such officers may not be eligible for further promotion to higher posts such as Executive Engineer, for which a Degree in Engineering is generally required. The quota distribution therefore maintains a proper balance between Degree holders and Diploma holders. Overall, 60% of the opportunities are available to Degree holders, whereas 40% are available to Diploma holders.

If the promotional quota reserved for Diploma holders were reduced or made equal to that of Degree holders, the promotional prospects of Diploma holder Sub Engineers would be substantially curtailed. Conversely, Degree holder Sub Engineers are not deprived of promotional opportunities, as they may compete within the quota specifically reserved for Degree holders in addition to having already benefited from the 50% quota earmarked for direct recruitment.

The petitioner may have been qualified to apply directly for the post of Assistant Engineer. However, he voluntarily opted to apply for the post of Sub Engineer pursuant to the impugned Notification of 2014 and was selected in the year 2016. He never challenged the said notification before entering service. This clearly indicates that, at the time of his appointment, he was fully aware that his future promotion would be governed by the 10% promotional quota prescribed under the Rules. Having accepted the appointment with full knowledge of the applicable service conditions, the petitioner cannot subsequently claim promotion against the 35% quota reserved for the Diploma Cadre. Any diversion or disturbance of the said quota would infringe the vested rights of employees belonging to the Diploma Cadre, for whom the quota has been specifically reserved. It is a settled principle that candidates possessing higher educational qualifications cannot claim appointment or promotional benefits against posts or quotas specifically intended for candidates with lower qualifications. Overqualified candidates who suppress or conceal their higher qualifications to secure such benefits are liable to be proceeded against, as such conduct deprives genuinely eligible candidates possessing the prescribed lower qualifications of their rightful opportunities.

Accordingly, the classification is based on an intelligible differentia and has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The policy does not violate Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India, as it provides a fair and balanced distribution of promotional opportunities between Degree holders and Diploma holders while maintaining efficiency in public service.

For the reasons discussed above, this Court holds that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the classification made between Degree holder and Diploma holder Sub Engineers, for purposes of the promotional quota to the post of Assistant Engineer under Schedule-II of the 1980 Rules, as substituted by Notification dated 24.11.2014, suffers from want of intelligible differentia or rational nexus. The said classification, and the quota fixed thereunder, is held to be intra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

In view of the foregoing discussion, this Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed, with the following directions: (i) the Notification dated 24.11.2014, amending Schedule-II of the Madhya Pradesh Lok Swasthya Abhiyantriki (Rajpatrit) Seva Niyam, 1980, is held valid and intra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India (ii) the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed with and finalise the Departmental Promotion Committee proceedings strictly in accordance with the Rules as they stand (iii) the petitioner's case for promotion shall be considered against the 10% quota applicable to Degree holder Sub Engineers, on merit and seniority, in accordance with law (iv) any interim order(s) passed earlier in this petition, if any, shall stand vacated and (v) there shall be no order as to costs.