CHANDAN BANERJEE & ORS. versus KRISHNA PROSAD GHOSH & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 11 S.C.R. 720 · Decided: 21-09-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
720
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 11 S.C.R.
[2021] 11 S.C.R. 720
720
CHANDAN BANERJEE & ORS.
v.
KRISHNA PROSAD GHOSH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5582 of 2021)
SEPTEMBER 21, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, VIKRAM NATH
AND HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]
Service Law: Promotion – Post of Assistant Engineer (AE) –
Promotion against supernumerary posts – Circular prescribing
separate conditions for diploma and degree holder Sub-Assistant
Engineers (SAEs) for supernumerary appointments as AEs – In
pursuance thereof, publication of gradation list of SAEs promoted
to the post of AE against the supernumerary posts – Writ petition by
the appellants-diploma-holder SAEs, challenging the circular and
gradation list – Allowed by the Single Judge holding that when
persons having different educational qualifications are subject to
a common recruitment process and are selected thereafter, a
subsequent classification in that cadre would be in violation of Arts
14 and 16 – However, the Division Bench of the High Court upheld
the validity of the circular and gradation list – On appeal, held:
The promotional policy of the Municipal Corporation for
supernumerary posts is not irrational or arbitrary or to the detriment
of diploma holder SAEs – While creating supernumerary posts, the
Municipal Corporation has not completely restricted the promotional
avenues of diploma-holder SAEs who stagnated in their service – It
has provided adequate opportunity, although on different terms and
conditions – In matters of public policy and public employment, the
legislature or its delegate must be given sufficient room to decide
the quality of individuals it seeks to employ as against different
positions – Circular indicates that the supernumerary posts were
created for removal of stagnation amongst SAEs, thus, the circular
and the gradation list do not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness
and discrimination – Order passed by the Division Bench upheld –
Calcutta Municipal Corporation Services (Common Cadres)
Regulations.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
721
 Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. While creating supernumerary posts, Kolkata
Municipal Corporation-KMC has not completely restricted the
promotional avenues of diploma-holder SAEs who have stagnated
in their service. It has provided adequate opportunity to them to
advance in their career, although on different terms and
conditions. Thus, the promotional policy of KMC for
supernumerary posts is not irrational or arbitrary or to the
detriment of diploma holder SAEs. In matters of public policy
and public employment, the legislature or its delegate must be
given sufficient room to decide the quality of individuals it seeks
to employ as against different positions. As long as these decisions
are not arbitrary, this Court must refrain from interfering in the
policy domain. Thus, the impugned circular and the subsequent
gradation list do not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness and
discrimination. The decision of the Division Bench of the High
Court is upheld. [Paras 42, 43][748-E-H; 749-A]
2. The principles as regards classification made for purpose
of promotion/selection of employees are as follows:
(i)
Classification between persons must not produce
artificial inequalities. The classification must be
founded on a reasonable basis and must bear nexus
to the object and purpose sought to be achieved to
pass the muster of Articles 14 and 16;
(ii)
Judicial review in matters of classification is limited
to a determination of whether the classification is
reasonable and bears a nexus to the object sought to
be achieved. Courts cannot indulge in a mathematical
evaluation of the basis of classification or replace the
wisdom of the legislature or its delegate with their
own;
(iii)
Generally speaking, educational qualification is a valid
ground for classification between persons of the same
class in matters of promotion and is not violative of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution;
CHANDAN BANERJEE v. KRISHNA PROSAD GHOSH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
722
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 11 S.C.R.
(iv)
Persons drawn from different sources and integrated
into a common class can be differentiated on grounds
of educational qualification for the purpose of
promotion, where this bears a nexus with the
efficiency required in the promotional post;
(v)
Educational qualification may be used for introducing
quotas for promotion for a certain class of persons;
or may even be used to restrict promotion entirely to
one class, to the exclusion of ot

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.