JEEWAN LAL SINORA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the instant writ petitions, petitioners seek quashing of the impugned order dated 20-8-1999 (Annex. 12); directing respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion after granting them relaxation in experience and declaring Column No. 6 of serial No. 2 of the Schedule appended to the Rajasthan Technical Training Service Rules, 1975 (for short, "the Rules, 1975") ultra vires to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Since identical questions of facts and law are involved in these four writ petitions, they are being decided by this common order taking SBCWP No. 3184/1999 as the leading case.

(2.) PETITIONERS are possessing the qualification of Diploma in Engineering trade. They were initially appointed on the post of Superintendent I. T. I. and thereafter promoted to the post of Assistant Director. They were promoted on ad hoc/temporary basis to the post of Deputy Director vide order dated 17-2-1997 whereas respondent No. 4 was promoted to this post vide order dated 1-12- 1997 but vide impugned order 20-8-1999 (Annex. 12), they have been reverted to the post of Assistant Director without assigning any reasons. Their grievance is that respondent No. 4 is junior to them but still he has been promoted on the post of Deputy Director by giving relaxation in experience clause whereas such relaxation has not been provided to the petitioners. They have also assailed the criteria requiring ten years experience for the Diploma-holders and five years experience for Degree-holders on the ground that at the most the distinction can be drawn on the basis of qualification between the Degree-holders and Diploma- holders but not on the basis of experience because experience acquired by degree-holders and diploma-holders on the post in question is equal in amount and no distinction can be drawn with respect to experience for the purpose of further promotion. They made representations to respondents for mitigating their grievance but to no avail. Hence these writ petitions.

(3.) VIDE impugned notification dated 1-9-1988, five years experience for Degree-holders and ten years experience for Diploma-holders is required for promotion from the post of Assistant Director to the post of Deputy Director and it is a statutory provision. In State of Mysore & Anr. vs. P. Narasinga Rao (3), a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Article 14 does not forbid reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation. The Apex Court further held as under:- " When an impugned order or statutory provision is assailed on the ground that it contravenes Article 14, its validity can be sustained if two tests are satisfied. The first test is that the classification on which it is founded must be based on intelligibel differentia which distinguishes persons or things grouped together from others left out of the group; and the second test is that the differentia in question must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by the rule or statutory provision in question. Article 16 is only an instance of the application of the general rule of equality laid down in Article 14 and it should be construed as such. Hence, there is no denial of equality of opportunity unless the person who complains of discrimination is equally situated with the person or persons who are alleged to have been favoured; Article 16 (1) does not bar a reasonable classification of employees or reasonable tests for their selection. The provisions of Article 14 or Article 16 do not exclude the laying down of selective tests, nor do they preclude the Government from laying down qualifications for the post in question. Such qualifications need not be only technical but they can also be general qualifications relating to the suitability of the candidate for public service as such. "