SUBAIDA BEEVI S Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question to be considered in these Writ Petitions is whether the ratio of 1:1 fixed between diploma holders and certificate holders for promotion to the post of Head Computer in the computing branch of the Government Presses governed by the Government Press Subordinate Service Rules, 1976 is correct or not. Petitioner in O.P. No. 16867 of 1995 is a diploma holder in Printing Technology. Petitioners in O.P. Nos. 12952 and 17419 of 1995 are certificate holders. All petitioners were working in the same feeder category of Computing Supervisor. According to the special rules issued vide G.O.(P) No. 327/76/PD dated 22.9.1976, qualification of diploma in Printing Technology was prescribed as one of the essential qualifications for supervisory posts like General Foreman, Head Computer etc. Thereafter, there were several representations in order to minimise the hardships of the non diploma holders who were in service. Government, subsequently, amended the Special Rules with effect from 30.1.1978 as per G.O. (P) No. 100/80/H.Edn. dated 1.7.1980 by substituting the following Note:

(2.) The sole question to be considered is whether fixation of ratio of 1:1 for promotion to higher posts between diploma holders and certificate holders is constitutionally valid or not. In Daniel v. State of Kerala ( 1985 KLT 1057 ) and in the unreported decision in W.A. No.149 of 1990 dated 14.1.1992 (Ext. P4 in O.P. No.12952 of 1995) held that the ratio of 1:1 between diploma holders and certificate holders in the Government Press Subordinate Service for promotion is unconstitutional. In Daniels's case (supra) the Division Bench held that classification cannot be made on microscopic distinction and, therefore, the very same provisions alleged in this case was said to be unconstitutional. In Ravindran v. State of Kerala ( 1992 (1) KLT 524 ) a Division Bench of this Court held that the Note made by the amendment in 1980 providing a ratio of 1:1 for promotion between diploma holders and certificate holders is not discriminatory or violative of Art.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Court considered the decision in Daniel's case (supra). But, it was not followed. M. Jagannadha Rao, Chief Justice (as he then was) considered Daniel's case and observed as follows:

(3.) In Balakrishnan v. State of Kerala ( 1990 (1) KLT 66 ) a Division Bench of this Court considered various cases of the Supreme Court and held in a case relating to Engineering Service (Radio and Electrical Branches) Rules, 1967 that the ratio of 1:1 was provided between graduates and non graduates Assistant Engineers for further promotion after they had come into a common cadre. The Division Bench upheld the said ratio as the question is no more res integra in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of J & K v. T.N. Khosa (AIR 1974 SC 1). The matter was considered by the Apex Court in subsequent decisions also. After reviewing all the case law, the Supreme Court in Rajasthan State Electricity Board Accountants Association, Jaipur v. Rajasthan State Electricity Board and Another ( 1997 (3) SCC 103 ) held that educational qualification can be made for the basis of classification of employees. The Court also referred to the decisions in State of Mysore v. P. Narasing Rao ( AIR 1968 SC 349 ) and in V. Markendeya v. State of A.P. ( 1989 (3) SCC 191 ). In paragraph 9 of Rajasthan's case (supra), the Supreme Court held as follows: