LexP.A. CHANDRAN AND ORS. versus BOARD OF REVENUE (EXCISE) AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A P.A. CHANDRAN AND ORS. v SOARD OF REVENUE (EXCISE) AND ORS. OCTOBER 24, 1994 B [KULDIP SINGH, B.L. HANSARIA AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] Service Law-Promotion to post of Excise Preventive Officer from Ex- cise Guards-/'rescription of ratio of 1:1 between those who possess Secondary School Leaving Ce1tificate and those who did not possess this qualifica- C tion-fVheOier constitutionally infinn---Held, No. In this case, the point for determination was whether the prescrip- tion of ratio of 1:1 for promotion to the post of Excise Preventive Officer from Excise Guards as between those who possess the qualification of S.S.L.C. (Secondary School Leaving Certificate) and those who did not D possess that qualification, was constitutionally infirm. The Kerala High Court having answered the question in the affirmative the State of Kerala accepted the judgment and issued certain Government orders pursuant thereto. Tbe$e appeals/writ petitions had been filed challenging the judg- ment of Kerala High Court. The non-S.S.L.C. Excise Guards contended in E snpport of !lie impugned judgment that the Supreme Court having held in Abdul Basheer v. KK Kanmakaran, (1989] 3 SCR 201 that providing of ratio of 1:3 for graduates and non-graduates for promotion from the posts of Excise Preventive Officers to Second Grade Excise Inspectors was discriminatory, the same had to be held regarding the ratio at hand. F Another contention raised by the respondents was that after 7 years of service experience, the non-S.S.L.C. Excise Guards came at par with those Excise Guards who had S.S.L.C. as their educational qualiJication and had rendered 3 years of service. It was submitted that the denial of the posts of Excise Preventive Officers to those non S.S.L.C. Excise Guards G who after serving 7 years had become eligible for promotion to the posts of Excise Preventive Officers would be permissible. Allowing the appeals/writ petitions, this Court HELQ: 1.1. As to when educational qualification can form the basis H of qualification was examined by the Supreme Court in T.R. Kothan- 702 "\ . P.A CHANDRAN v. BOARD OF REVNUE [HANSARIA, J.] 703 daraman v. Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, decided on A 13-9·1994. In that judgment, ratio of even 1:3 was upheld on the fact situation of some cases. Here the ratio being 1:1, the same had to be regarded as reasonable. (704-C, Fl T.R. Kothandaraman v. Tamil Nadu Water Supply & Drainage Board, (1994] Suppl. 4 SCR, relied on. 1.2. What the laying down of ratio does is postponement of the chances of promotion and the denial of promotion as such. By providing B the ratio of 1:1 the rule really gives the two categories equal opportunity, though the effect is that some non S.S.L.C. Excise Guards, even if they are C senior to S.S.L.C. Excise Guards, may get not promoted to the higher post later, if the post to fall vacant be one meant for S.S.L.C. qualified Excise Guards. The senior most non S.S.L.C. Excise Guards, would, in such an eventuality, be promoted to the next vacany as that would be meant for such an incumbent. Thus the chance of promotion of non-S.S.L.C. Excise Guards gets only deferred and not denied. It is settled law.that promotion D cannot be claimed with the aid of Article 16 inasmuch as no incumbent has a right to be promoted and it is because of this a chance of promotion has not been regarded as incompassed within the right visualised by Article 16. (706-A-C] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6962 of E 1994 etc. etc. From the Judgment and Order dated 24.7.87 of the Kerala High Court in O.P. No. 1828 of 1981-G. G. Viswanatha Iyer, P.P. Rao, Sundervardhan, G.L. Sanghi, C. Seetharamiah, AS. Narnbiar, R.F. Nariman and P.S. Poti, N. Sudhakaran, A. Jayaram, R. Sasiprabhu, O.V. Radhakrishnan, K.M.K. Nair, R.N. Kesh- wani, Mrs. Shanta Vasudevan, P.K. Mahohar, E.M.S. Anam, T.T. Kun- hikannan, Ms. Malini Poduval, V.J. Francis and C.V. Rappai for the Appearing Parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HANSARIA, J. In these appeals, writ petitions and Special Leave Petitions, in which we grant leave, the point for determination is whether F G the prescription of ratio of 1: 1 for promotion to the post of Excise H 704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. A Preventive Officer from Excise Guard as between those who possess the qualification Of S.S.L.C. (Secondary School Leaving Certificate) and those who do
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.