Damodaran, M.N. vs State of Kerala and Others

J.B. Koshy, J.—Petitioner in this Original Petition was appointed in the Government Analyst''s Laboratory of the Health Service Department as Technical Assistant Grade II on 3rd September 1962. Later, he was promoted as Technical Assistant Grade I in 1964. He got further promotion as Junior Research Officer on 4th May 1966. Petitioner possesses Diploma in Food Technology. According to the seniority list published by order dated 18th October 1983 (Ext. P-1) Petitioner is given rank No. 14 and third Respondent is given rank No. 44. By Ext. P-2 G.O. (Ms.) No. 245/75/Health, dated 31st October 1974 there was quota for M.Sc. degree holders for promotion to the post of Research Officers. The ratio of 3:1 between M.Sc. degree holders and non M.Sc. degree holders was prescribed by Ext. P-2. By Ext. P-3 G.O. No. 10/75/Health dated 8th January 1975 it was clarified by the Government that Ext. P-2 is applicable in the Government Analyst''s Laboratory also. Therefore, persons possessing B.Sc. in Chemistry, first or second class, and Diploma holders were considered for promotion in the non-M.Sc. quota. Thereafter, by Ext. P-10 Order, G.O. (Ms.) No. 36/85/HD dated 20th February 1985 Government prescribed 4:1 ratio for promotion to the cadre of Research Officers from candidates possessing M.Sc. in Chemistry or Bio-Chemistry or Associate ship Diploma of the Institution of Chemists or B.Sc. in Chemistry, first or second class, with five years experience in the analysis of food and water in one group and Diploma in Food Technology in the other group. The ratio was fixed as 4:1. According to the Petitioner, special rules prescribing quota between degree holders and diploma holders for promotion to the category of Research Officer is incorrect. All these persons were fused into one category of Junior Research Officer and were discharging the same duties and functions. Therefore, there cannot be any quota for promotion to the higher category based on their qualifications. Based upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mohammad Shujat Ali and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, and in Velappan v. Chandran and Ors. 1975 KLT 801 it was contended that fixation of quota is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Since conflicting views were expressed in E.C. George and Anr. v. State of Kerala 1983 KLT 746 in Rajan v. State of Kerala and Ors. 1983 KLT 878 and in Pushpadharan v. Food Corporation of India 1983 KLT 987 the matter was referred to a Division Bench.

The challenge in this Original Petition is only with regard to the special rule prescribing quota between degree holders and diploma holders for promotion to the category of Research Officer in Government Analytical Laboratories by Ext. P-10 order. By Ext. P-10 order candidates possessing M.Sc. in Chemistry or B.Sc. in Chemistry, first or second class, with five years experience in the analysis of food and water were treated as one category and holders of Diploma in Food Technology were treated as Anr. category and 4:1 ratio was fixed. The earlier decisions of this Court mentioned earlier were now resolved by the Supreme Court decision in T.R. Kothandaraman and Others Vs. Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage BD and Others, It was held by the Supreme Court that there is no constitutional infirmity in the classification based on educational qualifications. In the above case between degree holders and diploma holders a ratio of 3:2 was fixed by Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Agricultural Engineering Service. Supreme Court found that the above classification based on educational qualification is reasonable and not violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The entire case law on the subject were discussed by the Supreme Court. In paragraph 16 of the judgment the Court held as follows:

From what has been stated above, the following legal propositions emerge regarding educational qualification being a basis of classification relating to promotion in public service:

(1) Higher educational qualification is a permissible basis of classification, acceptability of which will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.

(2) Higher educational qualification can be the basis not only for barring promotion, but also for restricting the scope of promotion.

(3) Restriction placed cannot however go to the extent of seriously jeopardising the chances of promotion. To decide this, the extent of restriction shall have also to be looked into to ascertain whether it is reasonable. Reasons for this are being indicated later.

As held by the Supreme Court at paragraph 23 of the judgment by maintaining the ratio between diploma holders and degree holders reasonableness of classification is maintained.

It was contended by the Petitioner that the historical aspects also should be looked into, by fixing the ratio. The Supreme Court was categoriy in holding that educational qualifications can be basis for classification. In the very same department there was classification and quota based on educational qualifications from 1974 onwards, as can be seen from Ext. P-2. Therefore, it cannot be held that for historical reasons ratio cannot be maintained and quota cannot be given on the basis of educational qualification.

We were not given any material to hold that the ratio fixed is arbitrary or mala fide. The decision of the Supreme Court of India in Chandran v. Board of Revenue 1995 (1) KLT 12 also shows that prescription of ratio based on educational qualification is constitutionally valid. As the Supreme Court has categorically held that the ratio for quota can be fixed for promotion based on educational qualification, we see no ground for quashing Ext. P-10 order. Therefore, we dismiss this Original Petition.

Each parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.