K R LAKSHMAN Vs. KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment of the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court, setting aside the judgment of the learned single Judge is the subject matter of challenge in these appeals. The appellants are technically qualified direct recruits to the post of Operator/Overseer/Meter Rader/Assistant Store Keeper. The Karnataka Electricity Board Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, 1969 were amended on 3-2-1982, providing a ratio of 1:1 for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) between technically qualified (Direct Recruit) and technically not qualified (Promotees). The present appellants, assailed the aforesaid amendment by filing writ petitions, inter alia, on the ground that it is highly discriminatory and arbitrary and that there is no rational basis for providng a ratio between technically qualified and technically unqualified people for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer. The learned single Judge accepted the contention of the appellants and allowed the writ petitions by judgment dated 12th of January, 1994. In arriving at its conclusion that providing ratio for promotion is discriminatory, the learned single Judge relied upon the decisions of this Court in Mervyn Coutindo, (1966) 3 SCC 600, Roshan Lal Tandon, (1968) 1 SCR 185, Punjab State Electricity Board, (1986) 4 SCC 617, Mohammed Shujat Ali vs. Union of India, (1975) 5 SCC 76, G.M.S.C. Rly. vs. AVR Siddanti, (1974) 4 SCC 335 and N. Abdul Basheer, (1989) 2 Suppl. SCC 344. The Board assailed the judgment of the learned single Judge by preferring an appeal. The Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, set aside the judgment of the single Judge and allowed the appeal, preferred by the Board, relying upon the decisions of this Court in P. Murugeshan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1993) 2 SCC 340 and S. N. Deshpande vs. Maharashtra I. D. Corporation, 1993 (Supp) 2 SCC 194. It is this judgment of the Division Bench, which is the subject-matter of these appeals.

(2.) Mr. M. Rama Jois, the learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellants, contended that providing a ratio for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer for the unqualified promotees, would not tantamount to a classification based on qualification, as in the case of Murugeshan, and as such the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court committed serious error in interfering with the judgment of the learned single Judge. According to Mr. Rama Jois, the amendment to the regulation is nothing but an act of hostile discrimination against the qualified direct recruits inasmuch as there is no rationale behind providing such a ratio, which jeopardises the chances of promotion of the qualified people and consequently, the regulation is liable to be struck down, being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Mr. Rama Jois, further urged that the unqualified people, who are not ordinarily entitled to the promotion to the post of Junior Engineer, were being shown favoritism by providing a channel of promotion to them. But without any rational basis for providing a ratio and putting the unqualified people at more advantageous position, must be held to be discriminatory and the Division Bench of the High Court committed error in holding that it does not work out any discrimination.

(3.) The learned counsel, appearing for the respondents on the other hand contended that stagnation in any public service, not being in the interest of administration and taking into account the experience of the unqualified promotees, when the Rule making Authority, provided for a ratio for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer, the same cannot be struck down, as being violative of Article 14, unless it is positively shown that either it is mala fide or that it really works out any hostile discrimination between the two categories of employees. According to the learned counsel, no doubt in the feeder category, the appellants had entered by direct recruitment, while respondents had entered by way of promotion, but the further promotion to the post of Junior Engineer is the maximum rank to which the unqualified promotee could ever aspire of, whereas qualified direct recruits can go still higher up in the ladder and that being the provision to avoid harassment of stagnation, the authorities having provided for a ratio between the qualified direct recruits and unqualified promotees, on consideration of germane and relevant materials, the same should not be interfered with by this Court. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the ratio of the judgment of this Court in Murugeshan (supra) squarely applies and, therefore, the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court was fully justified in interfering with the conclusion of the learned single Judge.