ROOP CHAND ADLAKHA AND ORS. versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS.

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 253 · Decided: 26-09-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

ROOP CHAND ADLAKHA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 26, 1988 
[RANGANATH MISRA, AND M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950--Articles 14 and 16-Services-
Appointment and promotion-State entitled to prescribe that a candi-
date should have a particular qualification plus a stipulated quantum of 
service experience. 
Civil Services-D.D.A.-Engineering Cadre Promotion of C 
Junior Engineers to Assistant Engineers and Assistant Engineers tu 
Executive Engineers-Different conditions of eligibility for Diploma-
Holder and Graduates-Prescription of-Whether violative of Articles 
14and 16. 
D 
The Rules of .the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) 
adopted by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) stipulate and pro-
vide that 50% of the posts of Assistant Engineers in DDA be filed-up by 
promotion from the cadre of Junior Engineers comprising of both 
Graduates in Engineering and Diploma-Holders in Engineering in the 
equal ratio (50%:50%) of the promotional posts. Half of it, i.e. 25% 
E 
were to be filled up by promotion of Graduate Junior-Engineers with 
threeJears' service experience as Junior-Engineers; the other 25% to be 
filled up from Diploma-Holder Junior-Engineers, who had 8 years' 
service experience as Junior-Engineers. Th• Rules further provide that 
the Executive Engineers' post in DDA were purely promotio.nal and 
Graduate Assistant Engineers with 8 years' service-experience and 
F 
Diploma-Holder Assistant Engineers with 10 years' service-experience 
were eligible for promotion. No inter se quota between the two class of 
officers; was prescribed. 
The Diploma-Holders in the Cadres of Junior Engineers and 
Assistant Engineers filed separate writ petitions in the High Court 
G 
assailing the constitutional validity of the prescriptions made by the 
rules in the matter of requirement of differential service-experiences 
between the Graduates and the Diploma-Holders for promotion to the 
higher caders of Assistant Engineers and Executive Engineers respec-
tively. They also assailed the promotion of Graduate Engineers to the 
higher cadres made on the strength of the Rules. 
H 
253 
254 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
The High Court allowed the writ petitions and declared the diffe-
'rent standards of service-experience prescribed for Degree-Holders and 
Diploma-Holders in respect of both the cadres as violafive of Articles 14 
and 16 of the Constitution . 
. In the appeal to this Court, on behalf of appellants it was con-
8 
tended; (I) that the view taken by the High Court is demonstrably 
erroneous and opposed to well settled principles; (2) that the High 
Court took an erroneous view that in Shujat Ali's case (1975 (I) SCR 
449) this Court struck down the service rule impugned in that case; (3) 
that the fundamental distinction between Trlloki Nath Khosa's, case [1974) 
I SCR 771 and Shujat Ali's case was lost sight of by the High Court; (4) 
that the present case was not one in which the Diploma-Holders, 
C proprio vigore and without more, were held eligible for promotion. The 
educational qualification of a Diploma in engineering was not treated as 
equivalent to a Degree for purposes of determining eligibility. Nor the 
Degree itself was determinative of eligibility for promotion. The eligibi-
lity of promotion is based on a combination of factors which vary 
D according to the basic educational qualification of the two classes of 
engineers; (5) that this distinction was germane to the requirements of 
higher technical and academic quality for the higher posts which 
involved expertise in structural design. etc. and (6) that even where 
recruitment to a particular cadre was made from different sources, 
resulting in the formation of a single homogeneous cadre it was not 
E impermissible to make a further classification amongst the members of 
such a cadre for purposes of further promotion based on the higher 
educational qualification of the candidates. 
On behalf of the respondent Diploma-Holders it was contended 
(I) that this Court had, more than once, cautioned against undue 
F accent, in the matter of promotional opportunities, on academic-
qualification alone which might lead to elitist perferences and tend to 
obscure the egalitarian principle and social justice; (2) that the effect of 
the distinction is really an imperceptible extension or magnification of 
insubstantial factors subverting the precious guarantee of equality and 

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