RAVAL ICHCHHASHANKER MAHASHANKAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these Special Civil Applications question the vires of Rule 2(a) of the Senior Food Inspector (Food and Drugs Control Administration) Recruitment Rules 1987 as offending Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. According to Mr. J. V. Desai the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the petitions the eligibility criteria prescribed under Rule 2(a) for the purpose of promoting to the senior Food Inspector grade offends Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution since persons working as Food Inspectors must get equal opportunity for promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit or merit-cum-seniority. This Rule 2(a) of the Senior Food Inspector (Food and DruBs Control Administration) Recruitment Rules 1987 reads as follows:

(2.) Mr. J. V. Desai also cited the decision in the case of Roshan Lal v. Union of India reported in AIR 1967 SC 1889. In that case before the impugned notification was issued there was only one Rule of promotion for both the departmental promotees and the direct recruits and that Rule was seniority-cum-suitability and there was no Rule of promotion separately made for application to the direct recruits. As a consequence of the impugned notification a discriminatory treatment was made in favour of the existing apprentice Train Examiners who have already been absorbed in Grade `D by 31/03/1966 because the notification provided that this group of Apprentice Train Examiners should first be accommodated en bloc in Grade `C upto 80 per cent of vacancies reserved for them without undergoing any selection. In those circumstances the Supreme Court held that the impugned notification violates the guarantee under Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The reason was that once direct recruits and promotees are absorbed in one cadre they from one class and they could not be discriminated against for the purpose of further promotion to the higher Grade `C. In that case it was not disputed that before the impugned notification was issued there was only one Rule of promotion for both the departmental promotees and the direct recruits and that Rule was seniority-cum-suitability. In those circumstances the Supreme Court held that the impugned notification in that case was discriminatory and offends Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

(3.) In the decision in the case of State of J. & K. v. T. N. Khosa reported in AIR 1974 SC 1 persons appointed directly and by promotion were integrated into a common class of Assistant Engineers. Rule 12 provided that graduates among the Assistant Engineers shall be eligible for promotion to the cadre of Executive Engineers to the exclusion of diploma-holders. This Rule was a statutory rule. Its constitutional validity was challenged on the ground that it violated Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court in those circumstances repelled this contention with the reasoning that the classification of Assistant Engineers into degree-holders and diploma-holders could not be held to rest on any unreal or unreasonable basis and that the classification was made with a view to achieving administrative efficiency in the Engineering Services