R RANGANATHAN Vs. GOVT OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present writ petition, we are concerned with the service in the Town and Country Planning Department of State Tamil Nadu. There were five categories as follows. (i) Architectural Assistant (Special); (ii) Planning Assistant (Special); (iii) Architectural Assistant; (iv) Planning Assistant; (v) Supervisor. The petitioners are in the category of Architectural assistant. All the categories are feeder posts to the post of Assistant Director. They formed a common channel for promotion. No classification for promotion was envisaged as between them on the basis of educational qualification as degree holders and non-degree holders. There was no ratio fixed inter se between them. There was an integrated seniority list and the post of Assistant Director was filled up taking note of the seniority in the integrated seniority list. The Third Pay Commission made some suggestions. The merging of all the five categories into a single group was recommended. There was a suggestion that personnel in possession of appropriate degree in the above group may be designated as Architectural cum-Planning Assistants and so far as diploma-holders and others are concerned, they be designated as Supervisors. The suggestions of the Third Pay Commission, when they went thus far, were implemented by subsequent actions by the State of Tamil Nadu and the petitioners have no grievance over the same. By G. O. Ms. No. 108, Housing and Urban Development, dated 28th January, 1980, these five categories were merged into a single category known as Architectural-planning Assistant (Degree holders) Supervisors (non-degree holders, including diploma holders and non-diploma holders ). The Third Pay Commission made a further suggestion as follows :

(2.) THE law on the question of discrimination and classification in matters like this is replete even at the level of pronouncements of the highest court in the land. In State of J. and K. v. T. N. Khosa [1974-IL. L. J. 121] on which much reliance was placed by Mr. P Chandrasekharan, learned Government Advocate, between 1939 and 1970 holders of degrees and diplomas were treated alike in the matter of promotion from the post of Assistant Engineer of that Executive Engineer. In 1970, rules were introduced providing that only those Assistant Engineers who possessed Bachelor's degree in Engineering, etc. , would be eligible for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer, Educational qualification criterion for classification was upheld on the facts of that case, where there was a total exclusion of those who are not holders of degree. Reasons were found by the Supreme Court for justifying this action. It was found that earlier there was dearth of Engineering Graduates and later there was a spurt in the availability of Engineering gradates and, in that context the Supreme Court held that the impact of changing pattern had to receive its due recognition. In the present case, we are not facing a total exclusion of non-degree holders.

(3.) IN Mohamed Shujat Ali v. Union of India [1976-II L. L. J. 115] the Supreme Court again dealt with a plea of discrimination between graduates and non-graduates in the matter of promotions from the post of Supervisor of Assistant Engineer in the services of the State of Andhra Pradesh. After adverting to its earlier pronouncement in the State of J. and K. v. T. N. Khosa (supra) the Supreme Court with regard to prescribing a ratio as amongst personnel, through of different educational qualification but found fit to be treated on par without any disparity, discountenanced that there could be a rule of promotion which, while conceding that non-graduate Supervisors are also fit to be promoted as Assistant Engineers, reserved a higher quota of vacancies for promotion for graduate Supervisors as against non-graduate supervisors, and the Supreme Court pointed out that such a rule would clearly be calculated to destroy the guarantee of equal opportunity. The following passage, occurring in para 30 of the judgment. [1976-II L. L. J. 115] is elucidative and needs extraction :