KULDEEP KUMAR GUPTA AND ORS. versus HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 572 · Decided: 12-12-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
KULDEEP KUMAR GUPTA AND ORS. 
v. 
HIMACHAL PRADESH STA TE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 12, 2000 
B 
[G.B. PATTANAIK AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Service Law 
C 
Promotion-Junior Engineers to Assistant Engineers-Regulations 
providing quota for promotee unqualified Junior Engineers in preference to 
direct recruit qualified Junior Engineers-Constitutional validity of-Held, 
valid-Constitution of India, I 950-Article 14. 
Regulations providing quota for promotion on the basis of 
D qualifications-Held, not violative of Article 16(4)--Constitution of India-
Article 16(4). 
Respondent-Board framed a set of Regulations for recruitment and 
promotion to the post of Junior Engineers and Assistant Engineers under 
the provisions of the Electricity Supply Act. In Junior Engineer cadre, 95% 
E of vacancies are filled up by direct recruitment who are qualified diploma 
holders and 5% through promotion from lower category who are unqualified 
matriculates. For promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers, the Board 
amended the original promotion Regulations of 1973 from time to time 
providing for a ratio between direct recruits and promotees and further 
F providing a quota within the promotion quota for qualified and unqualified 
Junior Engineers. The Board also directe_d the preparation of seniority lists 
of the Junior Engineers on the basis of qualifications. The direct recruit 
qualified Junior Engineers filed applications before the Administrative 
Tribunal for quashing the quota rule provided in the Regulations as being 
arbitrary and irrational. The Tribunal dismissed the applications upholding 
G the validity of the Regulations providing for a different quota for promotion 
for the unqualified Junior Engineers. Hence the appeals by the direct recruit 
qualified Junior Engineers. 
The appellants contended that the Regulations providing for quota for 
H promotional post of Assistant Engineer among the qualified diploma holders 
572 
K K.GUPTA v. HI MAC HAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD 
573 
and unqualified matriculate Junior Engineers must be struck down as being A 
violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The appellants also contended 
that the direction for preparation of two seniority lists on the basis of 
qualifications for the purpose of promotion violates the equality clause under 
Article 16 of the Constitution. The appellants further contended that providing 
a quota in favour of unqualified Junior Engineers results in reservation, which B 
is not permissible under Article 16(4) of the Constitution. 
The respondent-Board contended that separate quotas were provided for 
promotion to qualified and unqualified Junior Engineers right from the 
inception of the Regulations in December 1973 and the quota was changed 
from time to time depending upon the cadre strength and chances of promotion C 
of unqualified Junior Engineers and so the Regulations cannot be struck down. 
The Regulations balance the equity amongst the qualified and unqualified 
Junior Engineers from the length of service to be put in as Junior Engineers 
before promotion and therefore such differential treatment does not violate 
Article 14 of the Constitution. The Board further contended that providing 
quota for promotion to the higher cadre only effectuates the guarantee of equal D 
opportunity enshrined in Article 16( l) and such a provision cannot be held to 
be a reservation as contemplated under Article 16(4) of the Constitution. The 
Board contended that fixing of quotas to ensure an efficient service is a matter 
of policy for the employer to decide and the Court cannot interfere unless the 
decision is arbitrary or irrational. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
E 
F 
HELD : l. Once a classification is permissible notwithstanding that the 
feeder category is one and when the said classification is challenged being 
discriminatory, then unless and until sufficient materials are produced and 
established that it is unjust on the face of it by the persons assailing the 
classification, the Court would be justified in coming to the conclusion that 
such plea of unlawful discrimination had no basis. There are no materials to 
sustain the plea of discrimination raised by the appellants who are direct 
recruit diploma holder Junior Engineers. The Regulations unequivocally show 
that right from the inception, quota has been provided for promotion in favour G 
of the unqualified promotee Junior Engineers, though the quota has b

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