FOOD CORPORATLON OF INDIA versus OM PRAKASH SHARMA AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] 3 S.C.R. 1193 · Decided: 14-08-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

FOOD CORPORA TlON OF INDIA 
A 
v. 
OM PRAKASH SHARMA AND ORS. 
AUGUST 14, 1998 
[S.C. AGRA WAL, M. SRINIVASAN AND A.P. MISRA, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law : 
Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation, 1971 : 
c 
Promotion-Criteria-Educational qualification-Classification-
Based on-Nature of work performed by graduates and non-graduates 
similar-Held: Permissible if there is nexus between educational qualification 
and higher efficiency in the promotional post-But, in the instant case the 
nature of work being similar, fixing of less service for graduates and more 
service for non-graduates for promotion, invalid-Food Corporation of India D 
(Sta.ff) (30th Amendment) Regulations, 1976-Food Corporation of India 
(Stafj) (43rd Amendment) Regulations, 1977-Food Corporntion of India 
Act, 1945-Constitution of India, I950, Arts. 14 and 16. 
Service Rules-Amendment of-Retrospective effect-Regulations E 
amended retrospectively fixing shorter length of service for graduates and 
longer length of service for non-graduates for promotion-Validity-Held : 
Impugned Amendments cannot operate retrospectively. 
The appellant-Corporation issued two amendments, namely, 30th and 
43th Amendments to the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971 F 
fixing three years of service for graduates and live years of service for non-
graduates for becoming eligible for promotion to the posts of Assistant 
Grade-l(AG I) and Assistant Grade-Il(AG II) with retrospective effect. The 
non-graduates filed writ petitions before the Kerala and the Andhra Pradesh 
High Courts challenging foe validity of the aforesaid amendments, which G 
were allowed. The Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the Corporation 
against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court was dismissed by 
this Court on the ground of delay. Similar writ were also filed before the 
Madras and Punjab & Haryana High Courts. The Corporation initially 
conceded before the Madras High Court to promote non-graduate writ 
H 
1193 
1194 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998] 3 S.C.R. 
A petitioners and also stated that the 43rd Amendment was withdrawn. But the 
said amendment was not withdrawn due to want of gazette notification. 
The appellant-Corporation in its order dated 13-7-1990 decided to 
implement the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the Southern 
Zone including the State of Kerala. However, the Corporation in its order 
B dated 26-11-1990 took note of the dismissal of its SLP by this Court, 
confirmed its decision to withdraw the 43rd Amendment and granted 
retrospective promotions to the post of AG-II to eligible persons. 
The Punjab & Haryana High Court allowed the writ petition of the non-
graduates. The Corporation filed the present SLP against that decision. Two 
C writ petition relating to the same controversy were also filed direct in this 
Court. 
This Court while considering the SLP and the two writ petitions 
noticed the above facts and the stand taken by the Corporation before the 
different High Courts. This Court also noticed that in the affidavit filed 
D before it the appellant-Corporation did not show that the nature of work of 
the post of AG-I or AG-II was such that it required higher efficiency expected 
only from graduates and not from non-graduates. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
E 
HELD : 1. It is by now well settled that educational qualification is a 
proper basis of classification for promotion. An analysis of the various 
rulings of this shows that the validity of classification has to be judged on 
the facts and circumstances of each case. No material has been placed by the 
Corporation to justify the 30th and 43rd Amendments to the Food Corporation 
F of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971 introducing a classification between 
graduates and non-graduates. The Corporation chose to accept the judgment 
of Andhra Pradesh High Court and implement the same on the basis of which 
it decided to withdraw the amendments and representations were made to that 
effect in the High Courts of Kerala and Madras. Even in the affidavits filed 
in this Court, the corporation has referred to the decision of withdrawal of 
G the amendments. In such circumstances it is held that the amendments to 
the Regulations making a differentiation between graduates and non-
graduates in the matter of promotion for the posts of AG-I and AG-II offend 
the equality clause and are, therefore, unconstitutional. 
[1206-G; 1209-E-G) 
H 
State of J & K v. Triloki Nath Khosa, [1974)

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