G R LAKSHMAIAH Vs. SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER ELECTRICAL KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD BANGALORE CIRCLE BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This group of petitions basically concerns one common point of grievance which has been canvassed by the various petitioners. Barring individual differences which are inevitable in view of the fact that the petitioners have joined service at different points of time, what is sought to be contended is that they all belong to one common cadre as employees of the electricity board and that they consist of meter readers, overseers and operators. It is undisputed that this cadre or category of employees is the one that is immediately below the next higher promotional category namely the post of Junior Engineers. It is from this particular class of employees or rather grade of employees, that promotion to 35% of the posts of Junior Engineers are made by the board. It is necessary for me to record here that in leading to this common pool, we have two broad streams which have been categorised as technical and non-technical. As far as the technical persons are concerned, they are direct recruits and the qualifications that are required of them are prescribed by the rules but they are all basically having the minimum qualification of an I.T.I. Diploma. This requirement is absent as far as the second stream is concerned namely the non-technical persons who are promoted from the lower cadre of linemen, etc, There is no bar to this category of employees having higher qualifications but the fact remains that such qualifications are not a requirement to those lower posts from where the promotees ultimately come up and consequently the fact is that the majority of them barring very few exceptions do not possess the higher qualification. I shall deal with the arguments that have been canvassed by the learned counsel who represents the board subsequently but at this stage suffice it to say that it is these two streams which have merged into the common cadre with which we are concerned. The petitioners who ultimately belong to the technical wing have pointed out to the court that under the rules framed by the board, from the year 1982 onwards a decision was taken to promote employees from this cadre to the higher post or Junior Engineers in the ratio of 1:1 namely one from the technical and one from the non-technical wing. In order to achieve this, the board has been following the practice of drawing up separate seniority list as far as the technical and non-technical employees are concerned and it is this particular procedure followed by the board which is undoubtedly sanctioned under the rules framed in 1982 that has been challenged in the present petitions. The petitioners who belong to the technical wing have demonstrated in the petitions that for variety of reasons some of which rather comes under the various circumstances, that the number of employees in each of the wings differ. That in actual practice, a minimum of the persons who are junior to the petitioners in terms of induction to the post they are now holding have benefitted by being promoted as Junior Engineers only because of the bifurcated seniority list and the mechanical application of the 1:1 formula. The corrective that the petitioners are demanding is that all the employees who form part and parcel of this particular cadre must be listed through a common seniority list so that when it comes to the question of promotion to the next higher cadre of Junior Engineers, that the rule of seniority will not be upset. It is pointed out by the petitioners that the injustice to them is manifest for a second reason also because the experience over the last few years has demonstrated that not only persons who are junior to the petitioners as far as this cadre is concerned received promotions but more importantly that persons with lesser and lower qualifications have moved up to the higher post whereas the petitioners who claim to be better suited and better qualified are still stagnate in the lower post. It is principally this anomaly that is sought to be corrected through the present group of petitions. I do not propose to deal with any of the individual aspects of the matter because it is only the principle that this Court is called upon to decide.

(2.) In defence of its action the board has put forward various pleas which I shall briefly summarise. In the first instance, the board submits that as far as the non-technical staff are concerned that it is very necessary for the board to provide promotional avenues to them. It is pointed out that many of these persons though lesser qualified technically, have been working in the lower posts for a large number of years and that they have acquired sufficient experience and expertise that is considered in the opinion of the board to be good enough or rather adequate substitute for higher technical qualifications and therefore, this category of employees should not be deprived of further promotions. Further more, it is submitted that as far as this class of employees, are concerned that their promotional avenues virtually conclude at the level of Junior Engineers and that the board was of the opinion that the rule of fairness did require that having regard to the experience gained by them over the years and the limited job functions of a Junior Engineer that it was safe and permissible to allow them to come up to this level even though it would not be permissible to give them any higher promotion thereafter. The second basic defence that has been pleaded on behalf of the board is that admittedly, the technical and non-technical staff cannot be equated in so far as one grade comes through direct recruitment, the second one through promotion, their experience and qualification are dissimilar and consequently even though they have emerged in a common cadre that the board felt that it was only fair to maintain segregation when it came to the seniority list. In sum and substance, the plea is one of reasonable and rational classification and it is contended that if the classification is validly done, then it does not offend the principle of equal treatment because the recipients of the transfers are unequals.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel who represent various petitioners at some length. I have also heard Mr. Subba Rao who represents the board, and on behalf of the promotees, I have heard the submissions canvassed by Mr. Joseph who represents some of them. I shall briefly summarise the heads of contentions put forward by respective learned counsel. In the first instance, on behalf of the petitioners it is contended that they are being discriminated against in so far as their right which flows from Article 14 of the Constitution namely, right to receive equal treatment is infringed upon and conversely that the action of the board constitutes discrimination. What is pointed out to me and about which there is no dispute is that regardless of the backgrounds of the various employees or the sources from which they have come into the common cadre that them, all rank equal in that pool to the extent that their job functions are identical and so are their salaries. It is therefore submitted, that a sub-classification is impermissible because such sub-classification works to the detriment of the petitioners. Reliance is sought to be placed on the decision in Mervyn Continho and Others v Collector of Customs, Bombay and Others , wherein the Supreme Court had occasion to deal with an identical situation relating to direct customs appraisers where the direct recruits and promotees were sought to be picked in the ratio of 1:1. The Supreme Court observe that this sub-distinction was not permissible while dealing with similarly situated employees. The principle with regard to the equality of opportunity in relation to promotions to the next higher post was upheld by the Supreme Court and conversely, what was laid down was that it was not permissible to curtail this opportunity to the extent of half by making a sub-classification in respect of another category.