LexK.R. LAKSHMAN AND ORS. versus KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-, - ... - A K.R. LAKSHMAN AND ORS. v. KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. DECEMBER 12, 2000 B [G.B. PATTANAIK AND B.N. AGRA WAL, JJ.] Service Law Karnataka Electricity Board Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, C 1969 (as amended on 3.2.1982)--Constitution of India, 1950-Article 14- Promotion- To the post of Junior Engineer- Technically qualified direct recruits and non-technical promotees entitled to 35% quota for promotion - By amendment to the Regulation ratio of I: I provided between direct recruits and the promotees in respect of 35% quota in order to remove stagnation D Held, the amendment is not discriminatory, and hence not violative of Article 14- When a provision is challenged as violative of Article 14, it is necessary in the first place to ascertain the policy underlying the statute and the object intended to be achieved by it. As Per the Karnataka Electricity Board Recruitment and Promotion E Regulations, 1969, 35% of the posts of Junior Engineers could be filled up by promotion from the common cadre of operator/Overseer/Meter Reader/ Assistant Store Keeper. The Regulation was amended providing a ratio of I: l for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) in respect of the 35% quota, between technically qualified (Direct Recruit) and technically not F qualified (Promotees). The appellants who were technically qualified direct recruits to the post of Operator/Overseer/Meter Reader/ Assistant Store Keeper, challenged the amendment by way of a writ petition on the ground that the same is discriminatory and arbitrary and that there was no rational basis for providing a ratio between technically qualified and technically unqualified people. Single Judge allowed the writ petition. Appeal against the Ci same before Division Bench, was allowed. In appeal to this Court, appellants contended that providing a ratio for promotion for the unqualified promotees would not tantamount to a classification based on qualification; that the regulation is liable to be struck down, being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, because the amendment H 535 536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. A to the regulation is an act of hostile discrimination against the qualified direct recruits inasmuch as there is no rationale behind providing such a ratio, which jeopardises the chances of qualified people; and that unqualified people who are not ordinarily entitled to promotion to the post of Junior Engineer, were being shown favouritism by providing a channel of promotion to them. The respondents contended that when a rule making authority provided for a ratio B for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer in order to remove stagnation taking into account the experience of the unqualified promotees, the same cannot be struck down as violative of Article 14, unless it is positively shown that either it is ma/a fide or it really works out any hostile discrimination between the two category of employees. c Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: I.I. By providing a ratio of I :1 in the matter of promotion to the post of Junior Engineer between directly recruited technically qualified people and promotee technically not qualified people, there has been no violation of D Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 1544-B, q 1.2. It cannot be said that the direct recruit technically qualified personnel had been treated with hostile discrimination. Under the Regulation itself, both the technically qualified direct recruits and non-technical promotees were entitled to 35% quota in the cadre of Junior Engineer and E the amendment merely provided a ratio between them namely 1:1 and this amendment was brought about in the Regulation itself to ameliorate the stagnation of the unqualified promotees in the cadre. 1543-B, q F 1.3. It cannot be said that there has been a complete fusion in the combined cadre inasmuch as the Regulation did provide for promotion at different percentage for in service personnel possessing diploma qualification, then diploma holders from amongst the combined cadre namely Operator, Meter Reader, Overseer and Assistant Store Keeper and 5% by promotion of Mechanics with five years of Service. Thus, 60% of the posts in the cadre of Junior Engineers were meant to be filled up by different ratio from amongst G the persons in the so-called combined cadre and 35% quota which was available for promotion for such common cadre peopl
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.