LexSHAMKANT NARAYAN DESHPANDE versus MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
' - .. ' 1 SHAMKANT NARAYAN DESHPANDE v. MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND ANR. OCTOBER 21, 1992 [P.B. SAWANT AND G.N RAY, JJ.J Civil Services : Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 : Section 64-Resolution passed in 1988-Promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer-Resolution reserving 75% of posts to Engineering graduates and 25% to diploma holders-Validity of Constitution of India, 1950 : Articles 14, Z<r-Promotion--Officers holding the same post-Clas· sification on tht: basis of qualificalion-U'hether violative of A B c D The petitioner, a diploma holder in Engineering, was Executive Engineer in the Respondent·Corporation. He would have been promoted E as Superintending Engineer, but for a Resolution passed in 1988 making 75% or the posts or Superintending Engineers available to Executive En· gineers holding Engineering degrees and 25% to Executive Engineers "ith diploma in Engineering. Respondent No. 2 who was junior to Petitioner but had Engineering degree was promoted as Superintending Engineer. The petitioner challenged the promotion or Respondent No. 2 before the F High Court by way or a Writ Petition. The High Court having dismissed the same, the petitioner preFerred the present Special Leave Petition. On behalr or the petitioner, it was contended that since there was a common seniority list of Executive Engineers, any classification on the G basis of educational qualification was discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 or the Constitution; and that in the absence or any statutory rule or regulation, a mere resolution could not effect such discrimination. Dismissing the petition, this Court, 95 H 96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A HELD : 1.1. It is now well settled that for the purposes of promotion, B c a valid classification can be made among the members holding the same post on the basis of their qualifications. Such a classification is permis- sible and does not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. [99-A-B] 1.2. It is for the authorities if they so desire, taking into considera- tion the nature of work, the requisite qualification for the work, and the necessity for making a classification, to prescribe quotas on the basis of educational qualifications. [99-D] State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa & Ors., [1974] 1 SCR 771, followed. H.C. Shanna & Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors., [1983] 3 SCR 372, referred to. 2.2. In the instant case, admittedly neither the practice followed till D 1988, nor the resolution passed by the respondent Corporation in 1988 was a regnlation passed in accordance with Section 64 of the Act. However, it is well settled that in the absence of a rule or regnlation, the authority can prescribe service conditions by executive instructions and this is what was done till the year 1988 and i,; also sought to be done since 1988 by the resolution under challenge. [100 A, BJ E F G Mysore State Road Transpon Corporation v. Gopinath Gundachar Char, [1968] 1 SCR 767 and V. Balasubramaniam and Others v. Tamil Nadu Housing Board and Others, [1987] 4 SCC 738, relied on. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4748 of 1991. From the Judgment and Order dated 21.1.91 of the Bombay Higb Court in W.P. No. 3481 of 1990. N.B. Shetye, P.M. Pradhan and AM. Khanwilkar for the Petitioner. Dushyant Dave, Beliram Vakil, Abrar Ali, Ajit Yogi, Gajender Lal, Mukul Gupta and Ms. Sonia Khan for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by H SAWANT, J. The petitioner is a diploma-holder in Engineering and I' I l J ' SHAMKANT DESHPANDE v. IND. DEV. CORPN. [SA WANT, J.] 97 holds the post of Executive Engineer in the respondent-Corporation. Till A 1974, the promotional post of the Superintending Engineer was available both for diploma-holders and degree-holders according to merit-cum- seniority. This was so according to the practice followed by the Corpora- tion without making any rules or regulations in that behalf. In 1974, the Corporation made regulations by passing a resolution and continued the same practice. Admittedly, the regulations were not made under Section 64 of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'] under which the respondent-Corporation was created. Thereafter in 1988, the Corporation passed a resolution, for the first time, making 75 per cen
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.