RAKESHWAR VERMA Vs. INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition challenging the order of the Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench dated 3/11/2000. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:-

(2.) The Tribunal rejected the original application of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners were not subjected to any hostile discrimination inasmuch as the classification was based on educational qualifications, which was a rational criteria. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the petitioners have approached us by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution. We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. The classification on the basis of educational qualifications have been upheld by the Supreme Court in Rajasthan State Electricity Board Accountants Association, Jaipur, vs. Rajasthan Electricity Board and Another, JT 1997 (2)SC 342 wherein it was held as follows:- As per the decision of this Court, the position is well settled that educational qualifications can be made the basis of or classification of employees in State services in the matter of pay scales, promotions etc. Similarly in the matter of promotions, classification on the basis of educational qualifications so as to deny eligibility for promotions to a higher post to an employee possessing lesser qualifications or require longer experience for those possessing lesser qualifications has been upheld as valid by this court."

(3.) view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court it is not open to the petitioners to urge that the classification based on qualification is discriminatory and is not based on any rationale basis. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has invited our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in R.L.Bansal and others vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1993 SC 978. This decision has no application to the instant case. That was not a case where classification was made on the basis of educational qualification. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the circular has been made applicable to the petitioners with retrospective effect. We do not agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. The circular has been applied prospectively and no retrospectivity is involved. Accordingly the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.