T M POTHEN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question which arises in this case is whether Ext. P2 order dated 16-3-1959 of the Government which says that diploma holders in Civil or Mechanical Engineering of the Travancore University are not eligible for promotion to the post of Executive Engineers from that of Assistant Engineers, but persons holding the Upper Subordinate Diploma of the College of Engineering, Guindy, would be eligible for such promotion is so unreasonable a classification as to be violative of Art.16 of the Constitution. The petitioner challenged Exts P1 and P2 orders of the Government dated 30-3-1962 and 16-3-1959, respectively, in so far as they provided for such a differential treatment. The petitioner, at the time of filing the petition, was an Assistant Engineer in the civil branch of the Kerala State Electricity Board. He holds the Diploma of the Travancore University in Civil Engineering. The petitioner says that persons holding Diplomas in Civil or Mechanical Engineering of the Travancore (now Kerala) University or Upper Subordinate Diploma of the College of Engineering, Guindy, have to grind their way from the bottom of the hierarchy of posts to the post of Assistant Engineers, unlike graduates who are directly appointed as Junior Engineers. He therefore contends that being like persons they ought to be treated alike for the purpose of promotion from the post of Assistant Engineer to that of Executive Engineer. What the Government has done by Ext. P2 is to treat like persons dissimilarly when promotions are considered to the post of Executive Engineers. According to him the diplomas of both the Travancore University and the College of Engineering, Guindy, are of equal standards. Holders of these Diplomas have slowly and patiently found their way from the bottom of the hierarchy to the position of Assistant Engineers. To introduce discrimination in favour of the Guindy Engineers at the time of promotion to the post of Executive Engineers is, according to the petitioner, a glaring discrimination which is violative of Art.16 of the Constitution. The writ petition was dismissed by judgment dated 20-12-1972. The learned Judge, after referring to the relevant portions of Ext. P2 order, observed that insistence on a superior qualification for a higher post which involved greater responsibilities and duties, while at the same time treating the superior and inferior qualifications alike for purposes of a lower post involving less responsibilities, would not by itself be discriminatory in character. The learned Judge relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in The State of Mysore and another v. P. Narasinga Rao ( AIR 1968 SC 349 ) and said as follows:

(2.) We shall read the relevant portions of Ext. P2:

(3.) In the light of the observations of the Supreme Court, we are of opinion that the classification made by the Government for the purpose of promotion to the post of Executive Engineers from among non graduates holding the post of Assistant Engineers is in the interest of administrative efficiency. Such classifications, as the learned Judge points out, cannot be characterised as discriminatory. With respect we agree with the views expressed by the learned Judge, and dismiss the appeal. We do not, however, wish to make any order as to costs.