STATE OF RAJASTHAN S C JOHRI AMRIT KAUR BAJWA Vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR GODIKA:RAJENDRA KUMAR GODIKA:KUSUM TANDON MS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) These appeals by special leave are by the State of Rajasthan and certain candidates whose promotions are adversely affected by the impugned judgment of the Rajasthan High court. The dispute in the writ petitions filed in the High court was between members of the Rajasthan Educational Service belonging to Group 'e' and Group 'f' pertaining to their rival claims for promotion to the posts of Principal, Higher Secondary School, which posts are in Group 'd', Section II of the Rajasthan Educational Service. The dispute between these two groups arises from the fact that in the Rajasthan Educational Service Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') , the aforesaid two Groups 'e' and 'f' - are clubbed together - as the feeder cadre for promotion to Group 'd', Section 11, even though in the service hierarchy the lowest is Group 'f', above which is Group 'e' and then comes Group 'd'. In the writ petitions filed in the High court, the writ petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of this provision in the Rules clubbing together Group 'e' and Group 'f' for the purpose of promotion to Group 'd', Section II on the ground that unequals had been equated. The High court has allowed these writ petitions and held that Item No. 1 (a) in Column 5under the head "group 'd' Section II" of Schedule I to the Rules as also Item I in Schedule II under the head "group 'd' Section II" in Column 5 a are unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the High court has quashed the orders promoting members of Group 'f' to posts in Group 'd'. It is this judgment dated 3/09/1991 of the Rajasthan High court which is challenged in these appeals by special leave by the State of Rajasthan and members belonging to Group 'f' of the service whose promotions are quashed.

(3.) Before we refer to the relevant provisions, mention may be made of the rival contentions before us. Shri P. P. Rao, learned counsel for the aggrieved Group 'f' teachers, advanced several arguments. He submits that the Rules require preparation of a combined seniority list of all eligible members of Groups 'e' and 'f' and prescribe the placing of those in Group 'e' en bloc above the persons belonging to Group 'f'; and it is also prescribed that amongst those selected for promotion to Group 'd', the pre-existing inter se seniority within the group and also between the two groups is to be maintained, that is, all those from Group 'e' are to rank above those from Group 'f'. He submits that the interpretation and working of the Rules in this manner, which is the case of the State government, is in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. His next submission is that reservation of a percentage of the promotion quota to be filled exclusively on the basis of merit does not violate the guarantee of equality since it promotes the object of greater efficiency as those considered in the merit quota are all qualified and eligible for promotion. His further submission is that Rule 25 (5 applies to promotion to the next higher grade from the lowest grade while Rule 25 (6 applies to promotions to all other higher grades. In other words, for promotion from Group 'f' to Group 'e', Rule 25 (5 applies while for promotion from Group 'f' directly to Group 'd'; Rule 25 (6 applies. He also submitted that Rule 23-A does not apply where promotion to a higher grade is from more than one grade. Shri Aruneshwar Gupta, appearing for the State of Rajasthan, adopted the arguments of Shri Rao. He also submitted that the writ petitioners having appeared for interview before the DPC and taken their chance, they are precluded from making the challenge when they failed to get selected. Shri V. M. Tarkunde, who appeared for one of the aggrieved appellants, supported Shri Rao and made some more " submissions. Shri Tarkunde submitted that the difference between members of Group 'f' and Group 'e' is not substantial since both of them had been functioning as Headmasters and discharging similar duties so that they were equally suitable and qualified for promotion as Principal of a Higher Secondary School. Shri Tarkunde submitted that no person belonging to Group 'e' found suitable for promotion to Group 'd' was left out and, therefore, filling the remaining vacancies from amongstsuitable and qualified persons belonging to Group 'f' cannot be violative of the rights, if any, of those in Group 'e' who were not promoted because they were not found suitable for promotion. Learned counsel also submitted that qualitatively those promoted from Group 'f' were, according to the service record, not inferior to persons lower down in Group 'e' who had not been selected and the principle of equation adopted was fair to all. It was also shown with reference to the particulars of those not selected for promotion from Group 'e' and those found suitable for promotion in Group 'f' that the principle adopted and applied was fair and reasonable, with no element of arbitrariness.