DISTT. REGISTRAR PALGHAT & ORS. versus M.B. KOYYAKUTI & ORS.

Citation: [1979] 3 S.C.R. 242 · Decided: 20-02-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. SARKARIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
242 
DISTT. REGISTRAR PALGHAT & ORS. 
v . 
.M. B. KOYY AKUTI & ORS. 
February 20, 1979 
[R. S. SARKARIA AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.] 
Kera/a State & Subordinate Service Rules, 1958-r. 28(b)(ii)-Scope o/-
Gover"!iment servo.nt appointed as lower dil·i.sion clerk relaxing minimum edu· 
cational qualification-No provision in rule prescribing minimum educationar-
' • 
qualificction for Promotion-Executii·e 01der prescribing qualifying -_test for 
• 
promotion-Validity of. 
The respondent, who originally belonged to the ~fadras Ministerial Service,.-
was allotted to the State of Kera1a as tar lower division clerk on the reorgani· 
sation of States. 
On the ground thai he belonged to a community which was 
educationally backward the State Government of ~ladras hppointed him . as a 
lower division clerk relaxing the requirements Of r. 29 of the Special Rules for 
l\.ladras Ministerial Service. which prescribed 
m1n1mum 
general 
educational 
qualification for appointment to service under the SttJ:te Government. 
I 
, 
In 1957 the State Government of Kerala is&ued an order providing: that, 
until common service rules were framed, every officer in the service of the· 
new State of Kerala would be bound by the 
service rules oi Travancore-
Cochin or l\.ladra!, to _which he belonged prior to November l, 1956. 
Thereafter in supersession of tJ.ll earlier rules the Kerala State and Subor-
. dinate Service Rule!, 1958 were ir3.med. Rule 1 of the General Rules in 
Part II stated that the ruleS in that part shall apply to all State and Subordin~te 
Services and the holders of all posts appointed before or after the date on 
which those. rules came into force. 
The Special 
Rules 
contemplated 
by-
r. 2(16) -of Part I had. hoWever. not been framed. 
Rule 28 (b) (ii) of Part Il provided that all promotion!~ or appointments· 
by transfer [other than those mentioned in cl. (i) of this rulel shall be made 
in accordance with the seniority, subject to the person's fitness for appolnt-
ment. 
In 1961, persons who did not possess the general minimum educational 
qualifications but were appointed as· lower division clerks, were allowed to-
sit for a qualifying test for promotion to upper division clerks. 
In the gradation list of officiating lower division clerks prepared, the res· 
pendent was shown at no. 1 place. Even so, when two vacancies of upper 
division clerks occurred, two persons junior to him in the gradation list were 
-Promoted ignoring the iespondent. 
In his writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution the 
respondent 
contended that the exemption granted to him removing the bar of educational 
qualification enured to him for all purposes, and therefore, promotions of 
two juniors, ignoring ·r.28(b)(ii) ·under which seniority was the basis for pro· 
motion, amounted to deriial of equal treatment guaranteed under Arts. 14 and 
16 of the Constitution. 
•
•
DISTT. REGISTRAR V. M. B. KOYYAKUTI 
243 
A single Judge of the High Court dismissed the petition on the ground 
A 
that the exemption granted was for the limited purpose Of enabling the resw 
pondent to be appointed and continued in the post of lower division clerk 
• 
but that it did not remove the bar of minimum qualification for promotion . 
On appeal the di.vision bench reversed the order of the single Judge, and 
directed the Government to promote him la'i1.d determine his rank in the cadre 
of upper division clerks. 
B 
On appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the 
appellant that 
(I) the Special Rules contemplated by r. 2 of Part I read with 
the 
State 
"' 
' Government's order of 1957, ·were the Special Rules contained in the Madras 
_... J....Ministerial Service Rules; (2) even if r. 28(b)(ii) was applirnble it was well 
within the power of the State Government to prescribe a test to judge 
the 
fitness of persons who were exempted from the minimum educational qualifica-
tions when appointed as lo,ver division clerks and (3) there was a reasonable 
basis for classifying those persons who did not possess the minimum educa-
tiontil qualification as a category apart from those '.\'ho possessed 
such a 
qualification. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : I (a) The Special Rules, for the purposes of Kerala Rules of 
1958, would be as defined in r. 2(16) of Part I. 
That definition contemplated 
that Special Rules \vould be framed by the Governor but no such rules bad 
been framed. [248 HJ 
(b) Jn the matter of promotion as 011 upper d

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