AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Since these two writ petitions raise common questions concerning the interpretation of Section 213 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the MV Act, 1988’) and the power of the State Government to prescribe technical qualifications for appointment to the post of Regional Transport Officer (hereinafter referred to as the ‘RTO’) and challenge the vires of G.O.Ms.No.7, Transport, Roads & Buildings (TR.Ser) Department, dated 28.01.2021 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Impugned G.O.’) amending the Telangana State Transport Service Rules, 1993, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
W.P.No.27209 of 2024, is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the following prayer:-
“...to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the 1st Respondent in the issuing amendments to ‘Telangana Transport Service Rules, 1993’ vide Notification in G.O.Ms.No.7, Transport, Roads & Buildings (TR.Ser) Dept., dt: 28.01.2021, in Annexure to Rule 5, to the extent of prescription of Technical Qualification i.e., Degree in Mechanical Engineering or Automobile Engineering or equivalent qualification, to the AO’s working in District Offices (category-8), for appointment by transfer to the post of RTO (category-3) is without any power and authority as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and contrary to Section 213 (4) of MV Act, 1988 and consequently, quash or set aside the impugned rule and further declare that, the Petitioner and AO’s working in the District Offices are entitled to be considered for appointment to the post of RTO based on the qualification prescribed in the Pre-amended Rules issued vide G.O.Ms.No.180 dt: 01.07.1995 and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit just and proper in the circumstances of the case..”
W.P.No.29830 of 2024, is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the following prayer:-
“....to issue any writ order or direction one more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the GO.Ms.7 Transport, Roads and buildings Department(TR SER) dt 28.01.2021 amending the Telangana Transport Service Rules, 1993 issued in GO.Ms.No.180 T,R&B(Tr.1) department dt.01.07.1994 amending the qualification required for promotion to the post of RTO from the post of Administrative officers and post of RTO are filled in cycle of 10 by direct recruitment, by promotion from MVI and AOS, under the amended rules in cycle of 10 only 2 vacancies are allocated to AOs, without considering the Memo dt 22.9.2008, wherein it was decided by the Government to allocate the 2 vacancies in the ratio of 1:1 between the MVS and AOs, without calling for objections from the effected candidates who have been appointed in the feeder categories of AOs as per the service rules and rendered 25 37 years of service, ultra vires to the service rules unconstitutional depriving the petitioners right for promotion to the post of RTO who have put in long years of services as illegal, ultra-vires and unconstitutional and consequently set aside the GO.Ms 7 Transport, Roads and buildings Department(TR-SER) dt 28.01.2021 amending the Telangana Transport Service Rules, 1993 issued in G.Ms.No.180 T,R&B(Tr.1) department dt. 01.07.1994 amending the qualification required for promotion to the post of RTO from the post of Administrative, officers and an allocation of the vacancies to the MVIs and AOs in the unit of 10 as per the Government memo dt.22.9.2008 pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper.”
Heard Sri P.Amarender, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.27209 of 2024; Ms. P.K.Kalyani, learned counsel representing Sri Amancharla V.Gopala Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.29830 of 2024; Sri Santhapur Satyanarayana Rao, learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 in W.P.No.27209 of 2024 and respondent Nos.1 and 2 in W.P.No.29830 of 2024; Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Sai Prasen Gundavaram, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 7 in W.P.No.27209 of 2024 and respondent Nos.3 to 6 in W.P.No.29830 of 2024; Sri D.Sudharshan, learned counsel for respondent Nos.8 to 11 in W.P.No.27209 of 2024; Sri Vijay B Paropakari, learned counsel for respondent No.12 in W.P.No.27209 of 2024; Sri A.V.A.Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 and 8 in W.P.No.29830 of 2024 and perused the record.
History and evolution of the Transport Service Rules
The Transport Department of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh and, thereafter, the State of Telangana, has been governed by successive service rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The relevant changes in the service rules governing the post of RTO are set out hereunder:
G.O.Ms.No.375, dated 01.03.1967 (A.P. Transport Service Rules, 1967): The post of RTO was classified as Category 3. The modes of appointment included direct recruitment, appointment from among Assistant Secretaries of State Transport Authority (hereinafter referred to as the ‘STA’) and recruitment by transfer from Motor Vehicle Inspectors (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MVIs’), Superintendents of STA and Section Officers. Rule 3(d) prescribed a cycle of seven vacancies with the vacancies being apportioned between MVIs and Superintendents.
ii) G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 01.02.1983 (A.P. Transport Service Rules, 1982): The post of RTO was classified as Category 4. The modes of appointment included direct recruitment, appointment by transfer to the post of RTO from MVIs and recruitment by transfer from Superintendents of STA, Superintendents of Subordinate Offices and Section Officers of the Secretariat. Rule 3(d)(ii) prescribed a cycle of seven vacancies, with vacancies being apportioned between MVIs and Superintendents. The Superintendents, who were non-technical personnel, continued to have a legitimate channel of appointment by transfer to the post of RTO, reflecting the predominantly administrative character of the RTO’s functions.
iii) G.O.Ms.No.180, dated 01.07.1994 (Telangana State Transport Service Rules, 1993): The A.P. Transport Service Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1982 Rules’) were superseded by the said Rules. The post of RTO was classified as Category 4 and the modes of appointment included direct recruitment, appointment by transfer to the post of RTO from MVIs (Category 5), appointment by transfer of Administrative Officers/Special Category Stenographers of STA, appointment by transfer of Administrative Officers (hereinafter referred to as the ‘AOs’) in the subordinate offices of the Transport Department, and appointment by transfer of Section Officers of the Secretariat. Rule 3(b)(i) prescribed a cycle of ten vacancies, with vacancies earmarked for MVIs and AOs of the subordinate offices. Under the Annexure to Rule 5, the qualification prescribed for the post of RTO, inter alia, was possession of a degree of a University in India established or incorporated by or under a Central Act or a State Act, or any equivalent qualification.
iv) G.O.Ms.No.183, dated 08.09.1999: It is issued without amending the statutory service rules. It altered the cycle of vacancies by reducing the quota earmarked for AOs/Superintendents and correspondingly increasing the quota for MVIs. Under the revised cycle of ten vacancies, five vacancies were earmarked for MVIs and one vacancy for AOs/Superintendents. The said G.O. was challenged by the Superintendents before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (hereafter referred to as the ‘APAT’) in O.A.Nos.5584 and 5662 of 1999, inter alia, on the ground that an executive instruction could not override the statutory service rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
Order of the APAT dated 17.11.2000: The APAT set aside G.O.Ms.No.183, dated 08.09.1999, holding, inter alia, that an executive instruction could not override the statutory service rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The Tribunal further observed that the statutory rules would continue to operate until duly amended.
The record further indicates that under the pre-amended Rules, AOs of the subordinate offices of the Transport Department had a channel of appointment by transfer to the post of RTO and no technical qualification in Mechanical Engineering or Automobile Engineering was prescribed for such AOs. The petitioners contend that this position continued for about 46 years, until the amendment introduced by G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 28.01.2021.
On 28.01.2021, the State Government issued impugned G.O.Ms.No.7, Transport, Roads & Buildings Department, amending the Telangana State Transport Service Rules, 1993. The salient features of the Impugned G.O. are:
Under the amended Rules, the post of RTO was re-categorized as Category 3.
ii) Rule 3(b) prescribed a cycle of ten vacancies for appointment to the said post, which are as follows:
The amendment as per the impugned G.O. is as under:
In rule 3,
(i)in sub-rule (a), for the table thereunder, the following shall be substituted, namely,-
Category (1) Method of Appointment (2) (1) Joint transport commissioner By promotion from category – 2 i.e., Deputy Transport Commissioner. (2) Deputy Transport Commissioner i) By promotion from category – 3 i.e., Regional Transport Officer
ii) by promotion from category 4 – Assistant Secretaries working in the office of the Transport Commissioner in the ratio of 24:1 i.e., in a unit of 25 vacancies 1st to 24th vacancies shall be filled up by category – 3 and 25th vacancy shall be filled up by category – 4.
(3) Regional Transport Officers i) By direct recruitment.
ii) By promotion from category – 5 i.e., Motor Vehicles Inspector and category – 8 i.e., Administrative officer working in the District offices.
(4) Assistant Secretary in the office of the Transport Commissioner, Hyderabad (HoD) By promotion from the category – 7 i.e., Administrative Officers working in the O/o the Transport Commissioner (HoD) (5) Motor Vehicles Inspector. By Promotion from the Category – 6 i.e., Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector. (6) Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector. i) By Direct Recruitment
ii) By appointment by transfer from the category of Transport Head Constable of Transport Department.
(7) Administrative Officer working in HoD. By appointment by transfer from the category of Senior Assistant in T.S. Ministerial Service working in the O/o Transport Commissioner (HOD). (8) Administrative Officer working in District Offices. By appointment by transfer from the category of Senior Assistant in T.S. Ministerial Service working in subordinate offices of the respective Zones. Provided that in the case of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors 95% of the cadre strength in the respective Zones shall be reserved to be filled by direct recruitment and 5% of the cadre strength shall be filled by appointment by transfer from the category of Transport Head Constables in 100 point cycle, every 20th point shall be earmarked to Transport Head Constables.
(ii)After sub-rule (a) the following sub-rule shall be inserted, namely, -
“(b)Appointment by direct recruitment and by promotion to the category of Regional Transport Officers shall be made in a unit of (10) vacancies which shall be substituted as follows:-
Vacancy Method of Appointment 1st Vacancy By promotion from the category of Motor Vehicles Inspector. 2nd Vacancy By promotion from the category of Motor Vehicles Inspector. 3rd Vacancy Direct Recruitment 4th Vacancy By promotion from the category of Motor Vehicles Inspector. 5th Vacancy By appointment by transfer from the category of Administrative Officer working in District offices of Transport Department 6th Vacancy By promotion from the category of Motor Vehicles Inspector. 7th Vacancy Direct Recruitment. 8th Vacancy By appointment by transfer from the category of Administrative Officer working in District offices of Transport Department 9th Vacancy By promotion from the category of Motor Vehicles Inspector. 10th Vacancy Direct Recruitment (Direct recruitment shall be made against substantive vacancies only.) Note: If no technically qualified person is found eligible for the said post of Regional Transport Officer from the category of Administrative Officer in District Office, as on the date of DPC, the vacant point shall be filled from the category of Motor Vehicle Inspector.”
iii) The Annexure to Rule 5 prescribed the following qualifications for appointment by transfer from Category 8 (AOs working in District Offices):
For rule 5, the following shall be substituted, namely, -
“5.Qualification: No person shall be eligible for appointment to the categories specified in column (1) by the method specified in column (2) unless he/ she possesses the qualifications specified in the corresponding entry in column (3) to the Annexure to Rule 5 thereof.”
ANNEXURE
(See Rule 5)
(to G.O.Ms.No.7, Transport, R&B (Tr.Ser) Department, dt.28.01.2021)
Name of the post (1) Method of appointment (2) Qualification (3) Joint Transport Commissioner (including Secretary RTA, Hyderabad and Secretary, STA, Hyderabad. By promotion from category 2 i.e., DTC No person shall be eligible for appointment unless he/ she has served for a minimum period of three years in the category – 2 i.e., DTC Deputy Transport Commissioner By promotion from category 3 & 4 i.e., RTO & Asst. Secy., in HoD. No person shall be eligible for appointment unless she has served for a minimum period of three years in the categories of 3 & 4 i.e., RTO & Asst., Secretary in HoD Regional Transport Officer. (Including Assistant Secretary RTAs.) By direct recruitment Must hold a degree in Mechanical Engineering or Automobile Engineering or equivalent qualification of a University in India established or incorporated by or under a Central Act or a Provincial Act or a State Act or Institution recognized by the University Grants Commission (UGC). By Promotion from category 5 i.e., MVI No person shall be eligible for appointment unless he/ she has served for a minimum period of three years in the category 5 i.e., MVI. By appointment by transfer from category 8 i.e., A.O., working in Dist., Office i) No person shall be eligible for appointment unless he/she has served for a minimum period of three years in the category 8 i.e., A.O., working in Dist., Office.
ii) No person shall be eligible for appointment to the said post, unless he/she possess a degree in Mechanical Engineering or Automobile Engineering or equivalent qualification of a University in India established or incorporated by or under a Central Act or a Provincial Act or a State Act or Institution recognized by the University Grants Commission.
OR
Diploma in Automobile Engineering awarded by any institution recognized by the Central Government or State Government approved by the AICTE, New Delhi.
(Emphasis supplied)
Motor Vehicles Inspector By Promotion from Category 6 i.e., AMVI No person shall be eligible for appointment unless he/she has served for a minimum period of three years in the category (6) i.e., AMVI. Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector By direct recruitment (i) Must hold a degree in Mechanical Engineering or Automobile Engineering or equivalent qualification of a University in India established or incorporated by or under a Central Act or a Provincial Act or a State Act or Institution recognized by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
OR
Must hold a Diploma in Automobile Engineering (3 years course) awarded by any institution recognized by the Central Government or State Government approved by the AICTE New Delhi.
And
(ii) Must hold a valid Driving License authorized to drive Heavy Motor Vehicles (Transport Vehicles.)
By appointment by transfer from the category of Transport Head Constables of Transport Department Must hold a degree in Mechanical Engineering or Automobile Engineering or equivalent qualification of a University in India established or incorporated by or under a Central Act or a Provincial Act or a State Act or Institution recognized by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
OR
Must hold a Diploma in Automobile Engineering (3 years course) awarded by any institution recognized by the Central Government or State Government approved by the AICTE New Delhi.
And
Must hold a valid Driving License authorized to drive Heavy Motor Vehicles (Transport Vehicles.)
And
i) Must have passed Transport Department Test Part – I and Part II.
ii) Accounts Test for Executive Officers or Accounts Test for the Subordinate Officers Part-I and Part-II:
Administrative officer category – 7 & 8 By appointment by transfer from the category or Senior Assistant of Ministerial Services of the respective HoD and district offices respectively. Must have passed
i) Transport Department Test Part – I and Part II.
ii) Accounts Test for Executive Officers or Accounts Test for the Subordinate Officers Part-I and Part-II
iv) The aforesaid amendment, insofar as it prescribes a technical qualification for AOs, constitutes a departure from the pre-amended Rules, under which no such technical qualification had been prescribed for the said feeder category for about 46 years.
Case of the petitioners
The petitioner in W.P.No.27209 of 2024 was initially appointed as a Junior Assistant on 16.03.1996, promoted as Senior Assistant in 2003 and thereafter as AO on 13.05.2013, and claims to be the senior-most eligible AO for appointment to the post of RTO under the pre-amended Rules. Petitioner claims that he is entitled to be considered for promotion in Roster Point No.62 meant for Scheduled Castes (SCs), in the vacancy that arose during the Panel Year 2019-2020, as per the Rules then in force.
The petitioners in W.P.No.29830 of 2024 are AOs working in various offices of the Transport Department and claim to have rendered between 25 and 37 years of service. The said petitioners challenge the Impugned G.O. principally on the ground that the prescription of a technical qualification has rendered them ineligible for consideration for appointment to the post of RTO.
It is also the case of the petitioners that the Impugned G.O. is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, on the following grounds:
That the amendment was introduced without notice to, or an opportunity of hearing being afforded to, the affected AOs;
ii) That the amended Rules altered the distribution of vacancies in favour of MVIs and reduced the promotional opportunities available to AOs;
iii) That a technical qualification was prescribed for AOs for the first time, despite no such qualification having been prescribed under the earlier Rules;
iv) That the prescription of such qualification by the State Government is contrary to Section 213(4) of the MV Act, 1988, under which the power to prescribe minimum qualifications for officers of the Motor Vehicles Department vests with the Central Government;
That the amendment defeats their legitimate expectation of being considered for appointment to the post of RTO under the pre-amended Rules; and
vi) That, in the absence of a technically qualified Administrative Officer, the vacancy earmarked for the Administrative Officer category is liable to be filled by an MVI, thereby further restricting the promotional avenue of AOs.
The petitioners also rely upon a subsequent letter of the Transport Commissioner dated 02.03.2024 addressed to the Government, wherein restoration of the qualification prescribed under the pre-amended Rules was recommended. According to the petitioners, the Transport Commissioner observed that the duties of an RTO are predominantly administrative in nature and recommended restoration of the qualification of a Bachelor’s Degree in place of the technical qualification introduced by the Impugned G.O. The relevant portion of the said letter is extracted hereunder:
The basic education qualification for the post of RTO either by Direct Recruitment or appointment by transfer from the feeder category in Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra is Degree from recognized universities. The post of RTO falls under State Civil Services and it is equivalent to the post of Deputy Collector and Deputy Superintendent of Police form administration point of view.
It is further informed that basically the post of RTO functions as a senior Administrator and is more related to Administration work and on gaining expenence and seniority, they can gain technical knowledge. Also, they are assisted by executive staff (Motor Vehicles Inspector and Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector) who are technically qualified and there is no necessity for technical qualification to the post of Regional Transport Officer in the Department.
Earlier, in the G.O.Ms.No.180. TR&B (Tr.I) Dept., dated 01.07.1994 the basic qualification for the post of RTO by Direct Recruitment is a Degree/ Graduation in any discipline.
Besides direct recruitment, the post of INTO is filled up by way of promotion from the feeder category of Administrative Officers of the Department who also do not possess any technical qualification. The qualification as prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.180 TR&B (Tr.I) Dept., dated: 01.07.1994 may be restored.
In view of the above, Govt. may take a decision or the request of Group-I Aspirant and communicate orders, if any in this regard.
Thereafter, the respondents have issued provisional seniority lists of AOs, and objections submitted by some of the petitioners are stated to be pending consideration. The petitioners apprehend that the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as the ‘DPC’) may proceed with the process of appointment to the post of RTO under the Impugned Rules without finalisation of the seniority list, which is arbitrary and contrary to the prescribed procedure, as seniority is a relevant factor in determining eligibility and consideration for appointment.
Submissions on behalf of the petitioners
Learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions, have advanced the following submissions:
That Section 213(4) of the MV Act, 1988 specifically empowers the Central Government, having regard to the objects of the Act and, by notification in the Official Gazette, to prescribe the minimum qualifications to be possessed by officers of the Motor Vehicles Department or any class thereof for being appointed as such. According to learned counsel, no corresponding power is conferred upon the State Government under the said provision.
ii) That the power conferred upon the State Government under Section 213(1) to appoint such officers ‘as it thinks fit’ cannot be construed as including the power to prescribe their qualifications. The power of appointment and the power to prescribe qualifications are distinct, and Parliament has consciously vested the latter power in the Central Government under Section 213(4). The State Government, therefore, could not have prescribed an additional technical qualification for appointment to the post of RTO.
iii) That the Central Government, by Notification S.O.No.443(E), dated 12.06.1989, prescribed minimum qualifications for the category of MVI and AMVI. The said Notification was subsequently amended by S.O.No.301(E), dated 29.04.1991, which specifically provided that nothing contained therein would apply to an officer appointed to discharge functions of a non-technical nature.
iv) That the Central Government, by Notification S.O.No.1215(E), dated 08.03.2019, again amended the 1989 Notification, but even the amended Notification does not prescribe any qualification for the post of RTO and continues to prescribe qualifications only for MVI and AMVI.
That the State Government, by placing reliance on the orders of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) dated 21.07.2023 is proposing to prescribe minimum qualifications for direct recruitment to the post of RTO. It is contended that the proposal of MoRTH has not been given effect to and, in any event, relates only to direct recruitment and does not prescribe qualification for appointment by transfer.
vi) That the Impugned G.O. creates an unreasonable classification between MVIs and AOs. While MVIs, who are already required to possess technical qualifications, have been provided five vacancies in a cycle of ten vacancies, AOs have been provided only two vacancies. According to learned counsel, there is no rational basis for such classification having regard to the nature of the duties attached to the post of RTO.
vii) That the Impugned G.O. substantially curtails the promotional avenue available to AOs, which had existed under the pre-amended Rules for about 46 years. According to learned counsel, the amendment defeats the legitimate expectation of the petitioners to be considered for appointment to the post of RTO in accordance with the pre-amended Rules.
viii) That the petitioners have rendered between 25 and 37 years of service and are now above 50 years of age. The prescription of a new technical qualification at this stage effectively excludes the existing AOs from consideration for appointment to the post of RTO and results in stagnation in service.
ix) That the State, as a model employer, is required to adopt a fair and non-discriminatory approach towards its employees. According to learned counsel, the differential treatment accorded to AOs vis-a-vis MVIs under the Impugned G.O. is unsupported by any reasonable justification.
That the minutes of the meeting of the Supreme Court Committee on Road Safety dated 02.07.2019, relied upon by the respondents in support of the Impugned G.O., do not contain any direction to prescribe technical qualifications for AOs for appointment to the post of RTO. According to learned counsel, the minutes record the submission of MoRTH that technical qualifications had already been prescribed at the lower management level, namely, for MVIs, and that at the middle management level there was no direct entry and, therefore, no requirement to prescribe technical qualifications. The Committee, according to learned counsel, merely requested the Secretary, MoRTH, to examine the matter in greater detail.
xi) That neither the Supreme Court Committee on Road Safety nor MoRTH had directed or advised the State Government to prescribe a technical qualification for AOs for appointment to the post of RTO. The reliance placed upon the said minutes to justify the Impugned G.O. is therefore misplaced.
xii) That the functions discharged by RTOs under the MV Act, 1988 are predominantly administrative and do not require specialised technical qualifications. In support of the submission, learned counsel referred to the various Chapters of the MV Act and contended as follows:
a. Chapter II – Licensing: Except for the conduct of driving tests, the functions under this Chapter are essentially administrative. It was further submitted that the State Government is establishing Automated Scientific Driving Test Centres and that Learner’s Licence tests have already been made online.
b. Chapter IV – Registration: Except for functions involving inspection of vehicles for registration, renewal of registration and issuance/renewal of fitness certificates, the functions under this Chapter do not, according to learned counsel, require specialised technical knowledge. It was further submitted that Automated Testing Stations are being established and the testing function is being entrusted to such agencies.
c. Chapter V – Control of Transport Vehicles: This Chapter principally concerns the issuance of permits, which, according to learned counsel, is administrative in nature. The powers under this Chapter are vested in the Regional Transport Authority, chaired by the District Collector.
d. Chapter VII – Construction, Equipment and Maintenance of Motor Vehicles: Learned counsel submitted that the technical aspects covered by this Chapter are dealt with by testing agencies such as The Automotive Research Association of India (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ARAI’) and Central Institute of Road Transport (hereinafter referred to as ‘CIRT’).
e. Chapter VIII – Control of Traffic: Learned counsel submitted that traffic regulation and road safety are dealt with by both the Police and Transport Departments at the lower levels, and that there is no requirement for a technical qualification at the level of RTO for such functions.
xiii) The learned counsel also placed reliance on the recommendations of a Committee constituted by the Transport Commissioner in 2006 and submitted that the Committee had concluded that, so far as the Transport Department was concerned, technical work ended at the level of the AMVI and MVI cadres and that there was no need for technical cadres beyond the MVI level.
xiv) That the Impugned G.O. was issued without notice to, or an opportunity of hearing being afforded to, the AOs who were likely to be prejudicially affected by the introduction of the new qualification. According to learned counsel, the amendment substantially diminished their existing promotional avenue and, therefore, ought not to have been introduced without considering their interests.
xv) That the AOs had a legitimate expectation of being considered for appointment to the post of RTO under the pre-amended Rules, under which such avenue had been available for several decades.
xvi) In support of their case, learned counsel relied upon the following decisions:
a. Navjyoti Coop. Group Housing Society v. Union of India1(Paragraphs 15 and 16),
b. Food Corporation of India v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries2 (Paragraphs 7 and 8)
c. S.Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab3 (Paragraphs 9 and 10)
d. P.D.Aggarwal and others v. State of U.P and others4 (Paragraphs 16 and 18)
Submissions on behalf of the respondents
Learned Government Pleader for Services appearing for official respondents and learned Senior Counsel appearing for private respondents have advanced the following submissions:
That the State Government is competent, in exercise of the power under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, to make rules regulating recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State. Such rule-making power necessarily includes the power to prescribe qualifications for appointment to a particular post.
ii) That the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Satyapal Reddy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh5, held that the power of the State Government to appoint suitable officers includes the power to prescribe qualifications for such appointment. The Central Government, under Section 213(4), prescribes the minimum qualifications, whereas the State Government is competent to prescribe qualifications which are higher than such minimum qualifications.
iii) That the State Government by prescribing technical qualifications for AOs, has merely prescribed higher qualifications than the ‘Degree of a University’ prescribed earlier, which is clearly permissible in law.
iv) The Supreme Court Committee on Road Safety, in its minutes dated 02.07.2019, observed that ‘it is important that officers at the middle management level like ARTOs and RTOs should have technical qualifications’ and requested the Secretary, MoRTH, to examine the matter in greater detail. In furtherance of the said policy consideration, the Government of Telangana amended the qualification for appointment to the post of RTO by replacing the earlier requirement of ‘Degree of a University’ with the prescribed technical qualification, having regard to technical competence, road safety and efficient administration of the Transport Department.
That the policy rationale for such technical qualification is further supported by the MoRTH proposal dated 21.07.2023, prescribing, for direct recruitment to the posts of RTO/ARTO/District RTO, a degree in Automobile Engineering or Mechanical Engineering. Though the said proposal relates to direct recruitment, it reinforces the continuing policy emphasis on technical qualifications for officers at the middle-management level in Motor Vehicles Departments.
vi) That the classification made between MVI and AOs is founded upon an intelligible differentia. MVIs constitute a technical and enforcement-oriented feeder category in respect of which technical qualifications are prescribed, whereas AOs constitute a ministerial/administrative feeder category in respect of which the pre-amendment rules did not prescribe such technical qualifications.
vii) That the MVIs are numerically more in number, and therefore, they are given more slots in the cycle of 10 vacancies. The AOs are given 2 slots, which is a reasonable allocation based on the cadre strength.
viii) That the note added to Rule 3(b) that where no technically qualified person is available from the category of AO, the concerned vacancy may be filled from the category of MVI, is a pragmatic provision intended to ensure that a vacancy in the higher post is not left unfilled and that the post is occupied by a person possessing the requisite technical competence.
ix) That the petitioners do not possess a vested or accrued right to promotion to the post of RTO under the unamended service rules. At the highest, they possess a right to be considered for promotion in accordance with the service rules applicable on the date on which such consideration is undertaken.
That the rules having been amended, the petitioners must now possess the technical qualifications prescribed to be eligible for promotion. The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation cannot be invoked to defeat a policy decision taken in the public interest.
xi) That the Central Government Notifications S.O.No.443(E), dated 12.06.1989, and S.O.No.1215(E), dated 08.03.2019, prescribe minimum technical qualifications for the posts MVIs and AMVIs. The prescription of such technical qualifications for officers in the Motor Vehicles Department supports the policy rationale for requiring technical competence at higher levels of the Department, including the post of RTO.
xii) That the note contained in S.O.No.301(E), dated 29.04.1991, excluding an officer appointed to discharge functions of a ‘non-technical nature’, cannot be construed as prohibiting the State Government from prescribing technical qualifications for the post of RTO.
xiii) That the introduction of technical qualifications for appointment to the post of RTO is in the larger public interest and is intended to promote road safety and the efficient implementation of the provisions of the MV Act, 1988. It is submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken serious note of the problem of road accidents and has issued various directions and measures aimed at improving road safety.
xiv) That the State Government, in exercise of its constitutional and statutory rule-making powers, is competent to amend the recruitment rules and prescribe appropriate qualifications for public employment. The petitioners cannot challenge the amendment merely on the ground that it has affected their promotional prospects, particularly when no vested right to promotion under the unamended rules is thereby infringed.
We have taken note of the respective submissions urged and perused the material on record.
Consideration by this Court
State Government’s Power to Prescribe Higher Qualifications under Section 213(1) and Article 309
The statutory framework governing the appointment and regulation of officers provided in Section 213 of the MV Act, 1988, which is central to the present adjudication, is set out below:
213.Appointment of motor vehicles officers.—(1) The State Government may, for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Act, establish a Motor Vehicles Department and appoint as officers thereof such persons as it thinks fit.
(2)Every such officer shall be deemed to be a public servant within the meaning of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
(3)The State Government may make rules to regulate the discharge by officers of the Motor Vehicles Department of their functions and in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power to prescribe the uniform to be worn by them, the authorities to which they shall be subordinate, the duties to be performed by them the powers (including the powers exercisable by police officers under this Act) to be exercised by them, and the conditions governing the exercise of such powers.
(4)The Central Government may, having regard to the objects of the Act, by notification in the Official Gazette, prescribe the minimum qualifications which the said officers or any class thereof shall possess for being appointed as such.
(5)In addition to the powers that may be conferred on any officer of the Motor Vehicles Department under sub-section (3), such officer as may be empowered by the State Government in this behalf shall also have the power to,—
(a)make such examination and inquiry as he thinks fit in order to ascertain whether the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder are being observed;
(b)with such assistance, if any, as he thinks fit, enter, inspect and search any premises which is in the occupation of a person who, he has reason to believe, has committed an offence under this Act or in which a motor vehicle in respect of which such offence has been committed is kept:
Provided that,—
(i)any such search without a warrant shall be made only by an officer of the rank of a gazetted officer;
(ii)where the offence is punishable with fine only the search shall not be made after sunset and before sunrise;
(iii)where the search is made without a warrant, the gazetted officer concerned shall record in writing the grounds for not obtaining a warrant and report to his immediate superior that such search has been made;
(c)examine any person and require the production of any register or other document maintained in pursuance of this Act, and take on the spot or otherwise statements of any person which he may consider necessary for carrying out the purposes of this Act;
(d)seize or take copies of any registers or documents or portions thereof as he may consider relevant in respect of an offence under this Act which he has reason to believe has been committed;
(e)launch prosecutions in respect of any offence under this Act and to take a bond for ensuring the attendance of the offender before any Court;
(f)exercise such other powers as may be prescribed:
Provided that no person shall be compelled under this sub-section to answer any question or make any statement tending to incriminate himself.
(6)The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) shall, so far as may be apply to any search or seizure under this section as they apply to any search or seizure under the authority of any warrant issued under Section 94 of that Code.
A harmonious reading of the said Section 213 discloses that the provision confers distinct powers upon the State Government and the Central Government. Under sub-section (1), the State Government is empowered to establish the Motor Vehicles Department and appoint as officers thereof such persons ‘as it thinks fit’. Under sub-section (3), it is empowered to regulate the discharge of functions by such officers. Under sub-section (4), the Central Government is empowered to prescribe the minimum qualifications which the officers or any class thereof shall possess for appointment.
The expression ‘minimum qualification’ employed in sub-section (4) assumes significance. The provision cannot be construed as excluding the State Government’s power to prescribe qualifications higher than the minimum prescribed by the Central Government. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Satyapal Reddy’s case (supra 5), has held that the power of appointment under Section 213(1) includes the power to prescribe qualifications for selecting suitable officers and that the State Government may prescribe higher qualifications, provided that it does not prescribe qualifications lower than those prescribed by the Central Government.
Such an interpretation gives harmonious effect to sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section 213. The Central Government prescribes the minimum qualification having regard to the objects of the Act, whereas the State Government, in exercise of its power to appoint officers and its rule-making power under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, may prescribe higher qualifications having regard to the requirements of its service and the nature of the post concerned.
The respondents have placed reliance on S. Satyapal Reddy’s (supra 5) contending that the State Government is competent to prescribe qualifications higher than those prescribed by the Central Government under Section 213(4) of the MV Act, 1988, and has held as under:
7......Whether there is an apparent repugnance or conflict between Central and State laws occupying the same field and cannot operate harmoniously in each case the court has to examine whether the provisions occupy the same field with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List and whether there exists repugnancy between the two laws. Article 254 lays emphasis on the words “with respect to that matter”. Repugnancy arises when both the laws are fully inconsistent or are absolutely irreconcilable and when it is impossible to obey one without disobeying the other. The repugnancy would arise when conflicting results are produced when both the statutes covering the same field are applied to a given set of facts. But the court has to make every attempt to reconcile the provisions of the apparently conflicting laws and court would endeavour to give harmonious construction. The purpose to determine inconsistency is to ascertain the intention of Parliament which would be gathered from a consideration of the entire field occupied by the law. The proper test would be whether effect can be given to the provisions of both the laws or whether both the laws can stand together. Section 213 itself made the distinction of the powers exercisable by the State Government and the Central Government in working the provisions of the Act. It is the State Government that operates the provisions of the Act through its officers. Therefore, sub-section (1) of Section 213 gives power to the State Government to create Transport Department and to appoint officers, as it thinks fit. Sub-section (4) thereof also preserves the power. By necessary implication, it also preserves the power to prescribe higher qualification for appointment of officers of the State Government to man the Motor Vehicles Department. What was done by the Central Government was only the prescription of minimum qualifications, leaving the field open to the State Government concerned to prescribe if it finds necessary, higher qualifications.The Governor has been given power under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, subject to any law made by the State Legislature, to make rules regulating the recruitment which includes prescription of qualifications for appointment to an office or post under the State. Since the Transport Department under the Act is constituted by the State Government and the officers appointed to those posts belong to the State service, while appointing its own officers, the State Government as a necessary adjunct is entitled to prescribe qualifications for recruitment or conditions of service. But while so prescribing, the State Government may accept the qualifications or prescribe higher qualification but in no case prescribe any qualification less than the qualifications prescribed by the Central Government under sub-section (4) of Section 213 of the Act. In the latter event, i.e., prescribing lesser qualifications, both the rules cannot operate without colliding with each other. When the rules made by the Central Government under Section 213(4) and the statutory rules made under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution are construed harmoniously, there is no incompatibility or inconsistency in the operation of both the rules to appoint fit persons to the posts or class of officers of the State Government vis-a-vis the qualifications prescribed by the Central Government under sub-section (4) of Section 213 of the Act.
(Emphasis supplied)
It is pertinent to note that the aforesaid decision must be considered in the context in which it was rendered. In S.Satyapal Reddy’s case (supra 5), the challenge concerned the prescription of a Degree in Mechanical Engineering by the State Government for appointment as AMVI, whereas the Central Government had prescribed a Diploma in Mechanical Engineering as the minimum qualification for that class of officers. The Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the State Government’s prescription of the higher qualification and held that the power of appointment under Section 213(1) includes the power to prescribe qualifications for selecting suitable officers, subject to the minimum qualification prescribed by the Central Government. However, the position in the present case is materially different. The Central Government Notifications relied upon by the respondents, namely S.O.No.443(E), dated 12.06.1989, S.O.No.301(E), dated 29.04.1991, and S.O.No.1215(E), dated 08.03.2019, prescribe qualifications in respect of the category of MVI/AMVI and does not prescribe any qualification for the RTOs. Therefore, the present case, does not involve the enhancement of an existing minimum qualification prescribed by the Central Government applicable to the post of RTO. The similar situation did not exist in the case of S. Satyapal Reddy’s case (supra 5). The State Government in the case of S.Satyapal Reddy (supra 5) prescribed a higher qualification of Degree in Mechanical Engineering in the place of the Diploma in Mechanical Engineering prescribed as the minimum qualification by the Central Government.
The distinction is material because the validity of the impugned qualification must be examined having regard to the nature and functions of the post of RTO, the statutory scheme governing the Motor Vehicles Department, and the basis on which the State Government has considered a Degree in engineering as qualification necessary for AOs seeking appointment by transfer. The decision in S. Satyapal Reddy’s case (supra 5) establishes the State Government’s power to prescribe a higher qualification; it does not dispense with the requirement that the particular qualification prescribed must bear a rational nexus with the post and withstand scrutiny under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Further, the respondents have also relied upon S.O.No.301(E), dated 29.04.1991, which provides that “nothing contained in this notification shall apply to an officer appointed to discharge functions of a non-technical nature.” While the said provision reflects the distinction drawn by the Central Government between technical and non-technical functions, its applicability to the post of RTO cannot be determined merely by reference to the designation or the notification itself. The nature of activities performed by the RTO must be examined with reference to the statutory and administrative functions attached to the post. The said notification is, therefore, relevant only as a supporting circumstance and cannot, by itself, establish the nature of functions discharged by the RTO. The issue must ultimately be determined on the basis of the actual functions and responsibilities of RTOs and the justification advanced for prescribing an engineering qualification for AOs seeking appointment by transfer to the post.
It is also to be noted that the principal question is not whether the State Government possesses any general power under Article 309 to prescribe qualifications for public employment. The question is whether, having regard to the specific statutory scheme of Section 213 of the MV Act, 1988 and the Central notifications issued thereunder, that power can validly be exercised to introduce a technical qualification for the post of RTO when no minimum qualification is prescribed by the Central Government for the said post.
The proviso to Article 309 empowers the State Government to make rules regulating recruitment and conditions of service, but such power is expressly subject to the provisions of the Constitution and to any law made by the appropriate Legislature. The MV Act, 1988, being a Parliamentary enactment, must consequently be given effect to while examining the scope of the State Government’s rule-making power. Section 213 must, therefore, be construed harmoniously with the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. The fact that the State Government possesses rule-making power under Article 309 of the Constitution does not, by itself, conclude the question of the extent to which that power may be exercised in the field specifically regulated by Section 213 of the MV Act, 1988.
It is pertinent to note that the respondents have sought to justify the impugned G.O. by placing reliance upon the minutes of the meeting of the Supreme Court Committee on Road Safety dated 02.07.2019. However, the said minutes require to be considered in their entirety and in the context in which the observations were made. The relevant portion of the said minutes of the meeting is extracted hereunder:
The Committee pointed out that Section 213 (4) of MV Act, 1988 requires the Central Govt. to prescribe technical qualification of the officers posted in the Motor Vehicle Department of the States. The MoRTH stated that they have already prescribed the technical qualification at lower management level viz. MV Inspectors. Diploma is the minimum qualification for them. At middle management level, there is no direct entry and therefore there is no requirement for prescribing technical qualification for them. They also stated that Central Institute of Road Transport, Pune imparts training to the State Transport Officers from time to time.
The Committee said that it is important that officers at the middle management level like ARTOs and RTOs should have technical qualifications and the approach suggested by the MoRTH will take a long time to make this happen. The Committee requested the Secretary, MoRTH to examine this matter in greater detail.
Further, the said minutes disclose three material aspects, which are as under:
The statement of the MoRTH reflected the position then obtaining that no separate technical qualification had been prescribed for officers at the middle-management level on the ground that there was no direct entry at that level.
ii) The Committee expressed a policy view that technical qualifications were desirable for officers at the middle-management level, including ARTOs and RTOs.
iii) The Committee requested the Secretary, MoRTH to examine the matter in greater detail. The minutes do not record any direction requiring the State Government to prescribe technical qualifications for RTOs, nor do they themselves prescribe any such qualification.
The aforesaid minutes, therefore, cannot by themselves be construed as conferring authority upon the State Government to introduce a technical qualification for the post of RTO. At the highest, they disclose a recommendation or policy consideration for examination by the MoRTH. The distinction is material, particularly when the validity of the impugned G.O. is required to be tested with reference to the statutory scheme governing the prescription of qualifications.
It is relevant to note that the subsequent MoRTH proposal dated 21.07.2023 prescribed minimum qualifications for direct recruitment to the post of RTO, including a degree in Automobile or Mechanical Engineering. However, being a subsequent proposal relating to direct recruitment, it does not establish the State Government’s authority to prescribe technical qualifications for appointment by transfer under the impugned G.O. Nor can it, by itself, validate the impugned G.O.
The respondents’ contention that RTOs discharge technical functions and that, therefore, technical qualifications are necessary for appointment to the post, must be examined with reference to the statutory functions assigned to RTOs under the MV Act, 1988, and the actual distribution of technical and administrative functions within the Transport Department.
Chapter II of the MV Act deals with licensing of drivers. The functions of the Licensing Authority, which may include the RTO/ARTO/DTO, include the issuance, renewal and endorsement of driving licences and other matters relating to licensing. While certain functions, such as conducting driving tests, may involve technical assessment, the licensing functions as a whole are substantially regulatory and administrative in nature.
It is also relevant that the State Government has proposed the establishment of Automated Scientific Driving Test Centres and the entrustment of such functions to specialised agencies. Further, learner’s licence tests have been made online. These developments indicate that certain functions involving technical assessment are increasingly being performed through automated or specialised mechanisms rather than by the RTO personally.
Chapter IV of the MV Act, 1988 deals with registration of motor vehicles. The functions of the Registering Authority, which may include the RTO/ARTO/DTO, include registration of vehicles, assignment of registration marks, issuance of certificates of registration and related matters, as well as functions relating to fitness certificates under Section 56.
While vehicle inspection and the determination of fitness may involve technical expertise, the material placed before the Court indicates that such technical functions are performed with the assistance of technically qualified officers like the AMVI’s and the MVI’s. The existence of such technical components in the functions of the Department does not establish that the post of RTO is technical in character.
Chapter V of the MV Act deals with the control of transport vehicles. The functions of the Regional Transport Authority which is chaired by the District Collector and has the RTO as its Secretary, include functions relating to the issuance of permits, variation and transfer of permits, which are purely administrative in nature and do not require the exercise of specialised engineering expertise
The material further indicates that technical aspects relating to vehicle inspection and roadworthiness are substantially performed by technically qualified officers in the AMVI/MVI cadres, whereas the RTO occupies a supervisory and administrative position in the departmental hierarchy. This allocation of technical functions is consistent with the statutory scheme under Section 213(4) of the MV Act, 1988, pursuant to which the Central Government has, by Notifications S.O.No.443(E), dated 12.06.1989, and S.O.No.1215(E), dated 08.03.2019, prescribed minimum qualifications specifically for the posts of MVI and AMVI.
Significantly, in 2006 the A.P. Transport Department Technical Officers Association represented to provide Technical pattern cadres in the Department, wherein a Committee was constituted by the Department and categorically decided as follows:
“As far as Transport Department is concerned, technical work ends up at the level of AMVI and MVI cadres. Section 56 of MV Act provides for the prescribed authority who does not hold technical qualification to take decisions on the report of an officer having technical qualifications. The above provision clearly demarcates the distinction between technical and non technical authorities in the Department, such being the case, demarcation is bound to be there. Beyond the cadre of MVI, there is no need for creation of technical cadres. If at all department feels to create technical cadres beyond the cadre of MVI, it should be within the technical personnel promoted to that cadre, not touching personnel drawn from other channels.”
The aforesaid internal decision of the Transport Department treated the AMVI/MVI cadres as the level at which the technical work of the Department substantially ends and found no necessity for creation of further technical cadres.
The Transport Commissioner, by letter dated 02.03.2024, also recommended restoration of the educational qualification for the post of RTO to ‘Any Bachelor’s Degree’ in place of the technical qualification. The Transport Commissioner observed that the post of RTO functions as a senior administrative post and that there was no necessity for a technical qualification for the post.
On a consideration of the statutory functions and the material placed before the Court, it appears that the functions of an RTO are predominantly supervisory, regulatory and administrative, although the post is connected with certain functions involving technical aspects. The technical functions relating to vehicle inspection and assessment of roadworthiness are substantially performed by the AMVI/MVI cadres, who possess the requisite technical qualifications.
In S. Satyapal Reddy’s case (supra 5), the Hon’ble Supreme Court recognised the distinction between technical and non-technical functions and noticed the exclusion of prescription of minimum qualification by the Central Government in respect of officers appointed to discharge functions of a non-technical nature. The applicability of that exclusion in the present case turns on the nature of the functions assigned to and discharged by RTOs. Since the Central Government has not prescribed a minimum technical qualification for RTOs except in cases by direct recruitment and its notifications exempt officers in non-technical roles, the State’s introduction of a technical qualification for AOs shows that it had prescribed minimum qualification for AOs for being appointed as RTOs, where it could have prescribed a higher qualification after the Central Government had prescribed a minimum qualification.
The existence of the technical MVI/AMVI cadres, whose qualifications are prescribed by the Central Government, is specifically to discharge functions requiring specialised technical expertise. In this statutory scheme, the RTO functions primarily in a regulatory and managerial capacity. The effective functioning of the Department relies on the complementary contribution of the technical cadre and the administrative cadre, each performing distinct roles defined by the Act. The State’s attempt to prescribe a technical qualification for the administrative feeder category (AOs) for promotion to RTO is inconsistent with this established statutory framework and appears to be an attempt to mandate a qualification where the Central Government has not chosen to prescribe any qualification to such appointment by transfers.
It is in this context that the introduction of the technical qualification for AOs must be considered. The impugned G.O. not only prescribes a Degree in engineering qualification for appointment by transfer to the post of RTO, but also provides that, where no technically qualified Administrative Officer is available, the vacancy earmarked for that category may be filled from the MVI category. The combined effect of these provisions is to substantially restrict the established avenue of appointment by transfer available to AOs.
In T.R. Kapur v. State of Haryana6, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that while the competent authority may alter qualifications for promotion, such alteration, affecting the right to be considered for promotion, must satisfy Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The relevant para of the said decision is extracted hereunder:
16.....It is equally well-settled that any rule which affects the right of a person to be considered for promotion is a condition of service although mere chances of promotion may not be. It may further be stated that an authority competent to lay down qualifications for promotion, is also competent to change the qualifications. The rules defining qualifications and suitability for promotion are conditions of service and they can be changed retrospectively. This rule is however subject to a well-recognised principle that the benefits acquired under the existing rules cannot be taken away by an amendment with retrospective effect, that is to say, there is no power to make such a rule under the proviso to Article 309 which affects or impairs vested rights. Therefore, unless it is specifically provided in the rules, the employees who are already promoted before the amendment of the rules, cannot be reverted and their promotions cannot be recalled. In other words, such rules laying down qualifications for promotion made with retrospective effect must necessary satisfy the tests of Article 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution: State of Mysore v. M.N. Krishna Murty and Ors. MANU/SC/0600/1972 : (1973)ILLJ42SC B.S. Yadav and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. MANU/SC/0409/1980 : (1981)ILLJ280SC State of Gujarat and Anr. v. Ramanlal Keshavlal Soni and Ors. MANU/SC/0346/1983 : (1983)ILLJ284SC and Ex Captain K.C. Arora and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors. MANU/SC/0271/1984 : (1984)IILLJ362SC.
(Emphasis supplied)
It is well settled that a government servant has no vested right to promotion to a particular post. However, a right to be considered for promotion in accordance with the rules applicable at the relevant time is distinct from a right to promotion itself. In the present case, the AOs had, under the pre-amended service rules, an avenue for consideration for appointment by transfer to the post of RTO, subject to fulfilment of the prescribed qualifications and other conditions. The impugned G.O. has altered the eligibility conditions by introducing a technical qualification, thereby excluding the petitioners from consideration notwithstanding their eligibility under the earlier rules.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.D. Aggarwal’s case (supra 4), has recognised that although the Government possesses the power to amend service rules, such power is subject to constitutional limitations and cannot be exercised in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner. The fact that the petitioners were appointed under the pre-amended rules does not confer upon them a vested right to promotion under those rules. But, where an amendment alters the eligibility conditions governing an existing promotional avenue, its validity must be tested against the applicable statutory and constitutional limitations, including the principles of non-arbitrariness and fairness. The impugned G.O., by introducing a technical qualification for appointment by transfer to the post of RTO, thereby excludes the petitioners from consideration despite their eligibility under the pre-amended rules and is, to that extent, arbitrary and unreasonable.
Further, the petitioners have invoked the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation on the basis of the long-standing promotional avenue available to AOs for appointment to the post of RTO. The doctrine does not confer an absolute right to the continuation of an existing policy or service rule; however, where a consistent past practice has created a reasonable expectation, such expectation is required to be duly considered before the established position is altered, particularly where the alteration adversely affects the persons who have relied upon the existing arrangement.
In Navjyoti Coop. Group Housing Society’s case (supra 1), the Hon’ble Supreme Court recognised that legitimate expectation may arise from consistent past practice and that such expectation ought not to be defeated without an overriding reason of public policy. Similarly, in Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries’s case (supra 2), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that although legitimate expectation may not, by itself, constitute an enforceable right, failure to consider and give due weight to such expectation may render the decision arbitrary and thereby offend the principle of non-arbitrariness.
In the present case, the material placed before the Court indicates that AOs had a promotional avenue to the post of RTO for several decades under the successive service rules, and that the qualification prescribed for the post was a ‘Degree of a University’, which the petitioners possess. Therefore, the petitioners could reasonably expect to be considered for appointment by transfer to the post of RTO in accordance with the qualification and promotional structure that had prevailed over the preceding years. The impugned G.O. has materially altered that established position by introducing a technical qualification for appointment by transfer to the post of RTO, thereby excluding AOs who otherwise satisfied the qualification prescribed under the earlier rules. The respondents have not been able to demonstrate any compelling public interest that warrants the sudden and drastic change in the qualification for AOs to be promoted as RTO.
Arbitrariness, Discrimination and Violation of Articles 14 and 16
Article 14 of the Constitution of India guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws, while Article 16 guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. A classification made by the State must be founded on an intelligible differentia and must bear a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
The impugned G.O. provides for allocation of vacancies between the feeder categories of MVIs and AOs, with 5 out of every 10 vacancies being allocated to MVIs and 2 to AOs. The respondents seek to justify this distinction on the basis of the technical qualifications possessed by MVIs and the respective cadre strength. The classification, however, cannot be sustained merely by referring to the technical qualifications of MVIs, for the following reasons:
MVIs and AOs constitute feeder categories for appointment by transfer to the post of RTO and, under the pre-amended rules, both categories were eligible for consideration for such appointment. The mere difference in their educational qualifications does not establish a rational nexus between the classification and the nature of duties attached to the post of RTO, particularly in light of the Central Government’s notifications. By prescribing specific technical qualifications for MVIs/AMVIs, the Central Government has effectively designated them as the technical cadre. Central Government did not prescribe any minimum technical qualification to the post of RTO by transfer; this regulatory structure is a relevant circumstance showing that technical expertise is concentrated in the MVI/AMVI cadre. Thus, the State failed to demonstrate as to why an engineering qualification is nevertheless necessary for appointment by transfer to the RTO post.
ii) The AOs have acquired substantial experience in the administration and functioning of the Transport Department over several years.
iii) The allocation of 5 vacancies to MVIs and only 2 vacancies to AOs requires a rational basis having regard to the object sought to be achieved. The numerical strength of the respective cadres may be a relevant consideration for determining the quota, but it cannot justify differential treatment if the resulting classification bears no reasonable relationship to the functions and responsibilities of the promotional post.
iv) The further stipulation that, where no technically qualified person is available from the AO category, the vacancy shall be filled from the MVI category has a direct bearing upon the promotional avenue of AOs. If the technical qualification is not otherwise necessary for the discharge of the principal functions of the RTO, such a condition would substantially impair the promotional opportunity of AOs and requires a rational justification.
Moreover, the Cadre strength may legitimately be considered in determining the distribution of promotional vacancies. However, the respondents have not placed sufficient material before the Court to demonstrate how the particular allocation of five vacancies to MVIs and two vacancies to AOs was arrived at, or how that allocation bears a rational relationship to the functions and responsibilities of the post of RTO
The classification between MVIs and AOs also warrants examination in light of the length of service and departmental experience possessed by the AOs, as also the statutory scheme under Section 213(4) of the MV Act, 1988, whereunder the Central Government has confined the prescription of technical qualifications to the MVI/AMVI cadres and has not extended any such requirement to the appointment by transfer to the post of RTO. The petitioners have rendered several years of service in the Transport Department and have acquired experience in its administrative and regulatory functioning. Such experience cannot be disregarded altogether while determining their suitability for appointment to a administrative post merely because they do not possess an engineering qualification.
In the present case, the distinction between MVIs and AOs must therefore be tested with reference to the nature of the functions attached to the post of RTO, the respective roles of the two feeder categories, their experience and qualifications, and the object sought to be achieved by the impugned G.O. Where the principal functions of the RTO are administrative and supervisory, the mere possession of a technical qualification by one feeder category cannot justify curtailing the promotional opportunity of the other category.
The differential treatment accorded to AOs under the impugned G.O. is not supported by a sufficient rational basis and is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the State Government possesses the power, in exercise of its rule-making authority, to prescribe qualifications for appointment to posts in the Transport Department, including qualifications higher than the minimum qualification prescribed by the Central Government. However, such power is subject to the constitutional requirement of non-arbitrariness and must bear a rational nexus with the nature and responsibilities of the post concerned. In the present case, the respondents have not demonstrated a sufficient rational connection between the engineering qualification prescribed by the impugned G.O. for Administrative Officers for appointment by transfer to the post of RTO. The impugned qualification, coupled with the altered allocation of vacancies, substantially curtails the established avenue of appointment by transfer available to Administrative Officers and is not supported by a sufficient rational basis. The impugned provisions are therefore arbitrary and discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are allowed, with the following directions:
G.O.Ms.No.7, Transport, Roads & Buildings (TR.Ser) Department, dated 28.01.2021, insofar as it prescribes a technical qualification of a Degree in Mechanical Engineering or Automobile Engineering or equivalent qualification for Administrative officers working in District offices (Category 8) for appointment by transfer to the post of Regional Transport Officer (Category 3), is declared illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the statutory scheme under Section 213 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and is accordingly quashed to that extent.
ii) The amendment to Rule 3(b) of the Telangana State Transport Service Rules, 1993, introduced by G.O.Ms.No.7 dated 28.01.2021, insofar as it alters the cycle of vacancies allocated to Administrative Officers for appointment to the post of RTO, is quashed and set aside. The vacancies shall accordingly be dealt with in accordance with the pre-amended Rules contained in G.O.Ms.No.180, Transport, Roads & Buildings (Tr.I) Department, dated 01.07.1994.
iii) The petitioners and other similarly situated Administrative Officers shall be considered for appointment by transfer to the post of RTO in accordance with the qualification prescribed under the pre-amended Rules, without insisting upon the technical qualification introduced by G.O.Ms.No.7 dated 28.01.2021.
iv) The respondents shall undertake the process of consideration for appointment to the post of RTO in accordance with the pre-amended Rules and the directions contained in this judgment, without giving effect to the technical qualification or the altered vacancy cycle introduced by G.O.Ms.No.7 dated 28.01.2021.
Any appointments already made pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.7 dated 28.01.2021 shall not, solely on account of this common order, be disturbed without notice to the affected persons and an order passed in accordance with law.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.