N. ABDUL BASHEER & ORS. ETC. ETC. versus K.K. KARUNAKARAN & ORS.

Citation: [1989] 3 S.C.R. 201 · Decided: 05-05-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK, SABYASACHI MUKHERJI, S. NATARAJAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

y 
: 
N. ABDUL BASHEER & ORS. ETC. ETC. 
v. 
K.K. KARUNAKARAN & ORS. 
MAY 5, 1989 
[R.S. PATHAK, CJ., SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND 
S. NATARAJAN, JJ.] 
Civil Services: Kera/a Excise & Prohibition Subordinate Service 
Rules, Special Rule 2-Promotion from post of Excise Prevention 
Officer to Second Grade Excise Inspector-Ratio 1:3 for graduates 
and non graduates-Prescription for-Held discriminatory and ultra 
•;tres. 
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 14 and 16-Service condi-
tions-Government should decide the consideration which underlie a 
poiicy that is formulated-Only when violative of Constitution-Courts 
A 
B 
c 
e111uled w s1rike down 1he rules. 
D 
The respondents, who were non-graduate Excise Preventive 
Officers in the Excise Department, had challenged in the High Court 
the amendment made to the original Special Rnle 2 of the Special Rules 
for the Kerala Excise and Prohibition Subordinate Service whereby the 
ratio of l :3 between graduates and non-graduates was introduced ln the 
E 
matter of promotion from the category of Excise Preventive Officers to 
that of Second Grade Excise Inspectors. They had contended that as 
graduates and non-graduates were both regarded as eligible for promo· 
lion to the post of Second Grade Excise Inspectors, no differentiation 
should have been made between them when prescribing a rule of quota 
for promotion. 
F 
The learned Single Judge allowed the writ and held that the 
amendment to Special Rule 2 was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the 
Constitution. The State of Kerala and the private appellants, who were 
graduate Excise Preventive Officers and were holding the post of 
Second Grade Excise Inspectors, filed appeals.· It was contended by 
G 
them before the Division Bench that (i) the preference shown to 
graduates in the matter of promotion represented the reoognition of 
graduation as a standard of merit which would promote administrative 
efficiency, and (ii) the amendment to Special Rule 2 was the result of a 
historical background which justified preferential treatment. It was 
pointed out that as graduates and non-graduates had all along been 
H 
201 
A 
B 
202 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] 3 S.C.R. 
treated differently in the matter of promotion to the post of Excise 
Inspector, the classification brought about by amending Special Rule 2 
could not be regarded as unreasonable. 
The Division Bench held that the amendment to Special Rule 2 of the 
h.erala Excise & Prohibition Subordinate Service Rules was ultra vires. 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court 
HELD: (IJ The history of the evolution of the Kerala Excise and 
Prohibition Subordinate Service has shown no uniformity either in 
approach or in object. The history has varied with the circumstances 
prevailing before and after the reorganisation of the State. The condi· 
C 
lions pertaining to the service, and respecting which the constitution of 
the service varied from time to time, showed fluctuations. A consistent 
or coherent policy in favour of graduates was absent. This is not a case 
where the cadre of officers was kept in two separate divisions. It was a 
single cadre, and they were all equal members of it. There is no 
evidence that graduate Preventive Officers enjoyed higher pay than 
D non-graduate Preventive Officers. [208E-G I 
Mohammad Shujat Ali & Ors. v. Union of India 11975] I SCR 
-'-'9 and Col. A.S. Iyer v. V. Balasubramanyam, [1980] I SCC 634. 
distinguished. 
E 
(2) The Conditions of employment and the incidents of service 
in the instant case, recognise no distinction between graduate and non· 
graduate Officers and for all material purposes they are effectively trea· 
ted as equivalent. The nature of the duties of Preventive Officers whether 
graduate or non-graduate was identical, and both were put to field work. 
:\on-graduate Preventive Officers were regarded as competent as graduate 
F Preventive Officers. There is no evidence of any special responsibility 
being vested in graduate Preventive Officers. [208H; 209A, El 
State of lammu & Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa, [1974] 1 SCR 
ii I; S.L. Sachdev v. Union of India, [1980] l S.C.R. 971, distinguished. 
G 
H.H. Shri Swamiji of Shri Admar Mutt v. Commissioner, Hindu 
/(eligious & Charitable Endowment Department, [1980] l SCR 368 and 
~( 
.11otor General Traders v. State ojAndhra Pradesh, [1984] l SCC 222. 
referred to. 
(3) Ordinarily, it is for the Government to decide upon the 
H considerations which, in its judgment, should u

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