LexRAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD ACCOUNTANTS ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR versus RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD ....; ACCOUNTANTS ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR v. RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR. B FEBRUARY 4, 1997 [S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.) i;: Service Law : c Rajasthan State Electricity Board Officers (Recrnitment, Promotion & Seniority) Regulations, 1974 : Schedule, Entry 19. Promotion-Eligibility of-Educational qualifications-Classification based on-Constitutional validity of-Held : It was pennissible to make D classification based on educational qualifications-ft was also pennissible to prescribe longer length of service for those not possessing prescribed educ a- - Jo. tional qualification~Entry 19 had nexus with object sought to be achieved--Constitution of India 1950-Articles 14 and 16. Entry 10 of the Schedule to the Rajasthan State Electricity Board E Officers (Recruitment, Promotion & Seniority) Regulations, 1974 related to promotion to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer/Assistant Audit Officer/Assistant Revenue Officer in the State Electricity Board. The said Entry 19 prescribed that 75% of the vacancies to be filled by promotion on merit basis from Accountants with at least 7 years' service and 25% of the vacancies to be filed by promotion on merit basis out of the Accountants F possessing an Intermediate of Cost and Works from the Institute of Cost and Works Accountants (ICWA), Calcutta with 5 years' experience as Accountant in the Board or graduate holding diploma in Cost and Works (DCWA) from a University with 5 years' experience as Accountant in the Board. G The appellants filed a writ petition before the High Court challeng· ing the aforesaid Entry 19 on the ground that it was violative of Articles >r- 14 and 16 of the constitution, which was dismissal. Hence this appeal. On behalf of the appellants it was contended that reservation of 25% H vacancies for Accountants possessing Cost and Works qualification and 868 .• RAJ. STAIBELECTRICITYBD.ACCOUNTANTS ASSCN. v. RAJ. STAIB ELECTRICTYBD. 869 prescription of longer length of service for those who did not possess the said qualification was violative of Articles 14 and. 16 of the Constitution, and that ICWA/DCWA qualification was not compulsory for a person to be appointed to the post of Accounts Officer/ Audit Officer/Revenue Officer and that a person who did not possess the said qualification was also eligible. Dismissing the Appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. It is well settled that educational qualifications can be made the basis for classification of employees in State service in the matter A- B of pay scales, promotion, etc. Provisions for giving higher pay scale to C employees possessing higher qualifications have been held valid. Similarly in the matter of promotion, classification on the basis of educational qualifications so as to deny eligibility for promotion to a higher post to a11 employee possessing lesser qualification or require longer experience for those possessing lesser qualifications has been held valid. [875-F-G] State of Mysore & Anr. v. P. Narasing Rao, [1968] 1 SCC 407 and V. Markendeya & Ors. v. State of A.P. & Ors., [1989] 3 SCC 191, relied on. D 1.2. The decision in Mohammad Shujat Ali gives recognition to the principle that difference in educational qualifications can be made up by E longer experience. This principle was given effect to in the various provisions which came up for consideration before this Court wherei1:1 longer experience was prescribed for employees possessing lesser qualifications as compared to employees·possessing higher qualifications for the purposes of promotion to higher post and such provisions were held valid. The decision in Mohammad Shujat Ali and the subsequent F decisions in Ravinder Kumar Shanna and Abdul Basheer do not detract from the law laid down in Triloki Nath Khosa, Roop Chand Adlakha, P. Murugesan, Shamkant Narayan Deshpande, Nageshwar Prasad and T.R. Kothandaraman, wherein provisions prescribing higher experience on the basis of difference in educational qualifications for eligibility for promo- G tion and prescribing a quota based on qualification in the matter of promotion to higher post have beeli upheld. [882-D-E, 884-F-G] 1.3. Entry 19 of the Schedule to the Rajas than State Electricity Board Officer (Recruitment, Promotion & Seniority) Regulations, 1974 insofar as it prescribes longer service of seven years for Accountants who do not H 870 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.