CHANDRAVATHI P.K. AND ORS. versus C.K. SAJI AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] 2 S.C.R. 331 · Decided: 12-02-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

\ 
A 
CHANDRA VA THI P.K. AND ORS. 
...-· 
v. 
C.K. SAJI AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 12, 2004 
B 
[V.N. KHARE, CJ., S.B. SINHA AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
c 
Constitution of India-Article 309-Kerala Public Health Engineering 
Service Rules-Rule 4-Kerala Engineering Service (General Branch) Service 
Rules-Rules 4(a) and 5-Emp/oyees acquiring degree qualifications while in 
service-Rules does not give weightage of service before acquiring the degree 
for purpose of seniority and promotion-Constitutional validity_ of-Held, the 
rules are constitutionally valid 
D 
The appellant-degree holders acquired their qualifications before 
joining the service whereas the respondent-diploma holders acquired their 
degree qualifications while in service. Under the State Service Rules, the 
period of service rendered before acquiring the degree qualifications would 
not be considered for the purpose of seniority and promotion in the quota 
E of the degree holders and hence the respondents were placed at the bottom 
of the seniority list for promotion. The respondents filed a Writ Petition 
before High Court challenging the relevant rule as violative of Article 14 
of the Constitution of India and hence ultra vires. The High Court quashed 
the relevant Rule as ultra vires and held that the respondents are entitled 
F 
to claim weightage in service rendered before acquiring the degree 
qualifications for the determination of the seniority and promotion. 
In appeal to this Court, the appellants, who were not parties before 
the High Court, contended that the Rules are not violative of Article 14 
of the Constitution of India; that they are senior to the diploma-holders 
G since they acquired 'their degree before joining service; and that there is 
no illegality in the Rules by placing the respondents at the bottom of the 
seniority list since they acquired their degree qualification while in service. 
.;. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
t 
H 
330 
II 
( 
CHANDRA V ATHI P.K. v. C.K. SAJI 
331 
HELD: 1.1. A bare perusal of State Service Rules show that the A 
• 
avenues for promotion for the degree-holders and the diploma-holders are 
separate. By reason of an amendment in the Rules, promotion were sought 
to be given to those diploma-holders, who acquired the degree, by way of 
accelerated promotions. Only upon acquiring a degree, the diploma-holder 
became eligible to exercise his option to be considered for promotion in B 
the stream of the officers belonging to degree-holders. The diploma-
holders, who acquired a higher qualification during service, had either to 
opt for promotion for the degree-holders quota or for diploma-holders 
quota. Once he opts for a promotion in the degree-holders quota, the rule 
of seniority would apply as he acquired the qualification therefor 
subsequently. (345-F, G) 
C 
1.2. The High Court failed to notice that the Rules clearly establishes 
that a diploma-holder, who subsequently acquired a degree qualification, 
would be eligible for promotion only in the event he fulfils the conditions 
precedent therefor and not otherwise. His case could be considered only 
after the cases of promotion of those who had been holding the degree D 
qualification. By reason of acquisition of higher qualification, the diploma-
holders would not become entitled to be considered for promotion as they 
in terms of the Rules were to be regarded junior most in the seniority list. 
As separate seniority lists were being maintained in respect of the degree-
holders, dipolma-holders and certificate-holders, once a diploma-holders E 
acquiring a qualification of a degree in engineering opts for being included 
in the stream of the degree-holders, he would have to be placed at the 
bottom of the relevant seniority list. [346-C-E, G) 
N. Suresh Nathan and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., [1992] Supp. 1 
SCC 584; MB. Joshi and Ors., etc. v. Satish Kumar Pandey and Ors. etc., p 
[1993] Supp. 2 SCC 419; Satpal Anti/ etc. v. Union of India and Anr., [1995) 
4 SCC 419; Satpal Anti/ etc. v. Union of India and Anr., [1955] 4 SCC 419; 
D. Stepen Joseph v. Union of Indian and Ors., [1997) 4 SCC 753; Anil Kumar 
Gupta and Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors., (2000] 1 SCC 
128; A.K Raghumani Singh and Ors. v. Gopa/ Chandra Nath and Ors., [2000] 
4 SCC 30 and Pramod K. Pankaj v. State of Bihar, (2002) 9 Scale 813, JT ( 
(2003) 9 SC, 333 referred to. 
2. It is well settled that the classification on the basis of educational

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