BABU LAL GAUR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police on 6. 1. 1954. Though he was recorded as Sub-Inspector of Police, he worked as Prosecuting Sub-Inspector for most of the time between 1954 to 1974.

(2.) IN 1975, the Rajasthan Prosecution State and Subordinate Service (INitial Constitution and Emergency Recruitment) Rules, 1975 were promulgated for encadring the Prosecuting INspector and Prosecuting Sub-INspectors in the service. This became necessary on account of the New Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner was screened and was treated as Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade II substantively from 1. 4. 1974 under the new Rules. Thereafter the Rajasthan Prosecution Service Rules, 1978 were promulgated providing for promotion to Assistant Public Prosecutor Gr. I from Grade II. The qualifications are prescribed in Column-2. This qualification requires degree of Law from the University established by Law in INdia.

(3.) IN Triloki Nath's case (supra) the Supreme Court held as under: "the classification of Assistant Engineers into Degree holders and Diploma holders could not be held to rest on any unreal or unreasonable basis. The Classification was made with a view to achieving administrative efficiency in the Engineeing services. If this be the object, the classification is clearly corrolated to it for higher educational qualifications are at least presumptive evidnence of a higher mental equipment. " It has been further held by the Supreme Court as under ; "classification in service rule founded on educational qualification for promotion to the post of an Executive Engineer Presumption of Constitutionality Burden of proof to justify the classification. "unless the classification is unjust on the face of it, the burden is on the petitioners to set out facts necessary to sustain the plea of discrimination and to adduce cogent and convincing evidence to prove those facts, for there is a presumption that every factor which is relevant or material has been taken into account in formulating the classification. Thus, it is no part of the respondents' (State's) burden to justify the classification or to establish its constitutionality. Formal education may not always produce excellence but a classification founded on variant educational qualifications is, for purposes of promotion to the post of an Executive Engineer, to say the least, not unjust on the face of it and the onus therefore, cannot shift from where it originally lay. "