P. A. Chandran vs Board Of Revenue (Excise)
- SCC1995 Supp (1) SCC 159
- Neutral1994 INSC 481
- SCR[1994] Supp (4) SCR 703
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a classification based on educational qualification is used to restrict the scope of promotion (rather than bar it entirely), the restriction will not be constitutionally infirm if: (1) the educational qualification forms a rational basis of classification depending on the facts and circumstances of each case; (2) the restriction is reasonable and does not seriously jeopardise the chances of promotion of those without the qualification; and (3) the history of the position shows that the two categories of incumbents have been consistently treated differently since the inception of the cadre or scheme. A ratio of 1:1 for promotion between those possessing and those not possessing a minimum educational qualification such as S.S.L.C., when applied to restrict the scope of promotion rather than to bar it entirely, satisfies the test of reasonableness and does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution, particularly where Government Orders contemporaneous with or following the formation of the State show that the educational qualification requirement had been prescribed from the beginning for the higher cadre.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HANSARIA, J.- In these appeals, writ petitions and special leave petitions, in which we grant leave, the point for determination is whether the prescription of ratio of 1:1 for promotion to the post of Excise Preventive Officer from Excise Guard as between those who possess the qualification of S.S.L.C. (Secondary School Leaving Certificate) and those who do not possess this qualification, is constitutionally infirm. The Kerala High Court having held so and the State of Kerala having accepted the judgment and having issued certain Government Orders pursuant thereto, these appeals/writ petitions have been filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
+ From the Judgment and Order dated 24-7-1987 of the Kerala High Court in O.P. No. 1828 of 1981-G 160
2.As to when educational qualification can form the basis of classification in the matter like one at hand was examined recently in detail by two of us (Kuldip Singh and Hansaria, JJ.) in Writ Petition (C) No. 3736 of 1982 and connected matters (T.R. Kothandaraman v. T.N. Water Supply & Drainage Board)1, judgment in which was rendered on 13-9-1994. The Bench laid down following legal propositions in this regard, after noting earlier important decisions on this point, in para 16 of the judgment: (SCC p. 290) "(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."
3. In the aforesaid judgment, ratio of even 1:3 was upheld on the fact situation of some cases. Here the ratio being 1:1, the same has to be regarded as reasonable. The learned counsel appearing for non-S.S.L.C. Excise Guards, however, contend, in support of the impugned judgment, that this Court having held in N. Abdul Basheer v. K.K. Karunakaran2, that providing of ratio of 1:3 for graduates and non- graduates for promotion from the posts of Excise Preventive Officers to Second Grade Excise Inspectors is discriminatory, the same has to be held regarding the ratio at hand.
4. As to the aforesaid contention we would state that in Abdul Basheer case2 this Court regarded the ratio in question as discriminatory as the history did not point out if the two categories of incumbents were treated differently, as has been pointed Out in para 7 of the judgment in Kothandaraman1. The decision in Abdul Basheer case2 cannot, however, assist the non-S.S.L.C. Excise Guards because there are material on record in the present cases to show that ever since the Kerala State was formed (1-11- 1956), the Excise Preventive Officers were required to have educational qualification similar to that of S.S.L.C. This would be apparent from the fact that after the formation of the State, by issuing executive orders it was prescribed that for promotion to the cadre of Excise Preventive Officers the incumbents must have the minimum educational qualification of E.S.L.C. or S.S.L.C. This had been done by G.O. dated 23-8-1957, a copy of which is at Annexure A-4 to the appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 12398 of 1987. Thereafter G.O. dated 14-8-1959 (Annexure A5) was issued in which also the minimum educational qualification for promotion of Excise Guards to the cadre of Preventive Officer was mentioned as E.S.L.C. or S.S.L.C. Then came G.O. of 2-3-1965 (Annexure A-6) which provided the ratio of 1:1 between Excise Guards possessing S.S.L.C. qualification with minimum service of 3 years and non-S.S.L.C. Excise Guards with minimum service of 15 years. There is still another order dated 29-2-1968 as at Annexure A-7 which is by and large to the same effect. Thereafter came to 1 (1994)6SCC282 2 1989 Supp (2) SCC 344: 1990 SCC (L&S) 153 : (1991) 17 ATC 160: (1989) 3 SCR 201
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free