STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR versus TRILOKI NATH KHOSA & ORS.

Citation: [1974] 1 S.C.R. 771 · Decided: 26-09-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 36 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
·A 
STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR 
V. 
TRILOKI NA TH Kl:(OSA & ORS. 
September 26, 1973 
[A. N. RAY, C.J., D. G. PAL~AR, Y. v. Cl!ANDRACHUD, 
771 
B 
P. N. BHAGWATI AND V. R. "KRISHNA IYER, JJ.] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 14, 16-Jam1nu and Kashmir Engineer· 
ing (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1910-Persons appointed 
directly 
ind by promotion integrated into common class of Assistant Engineers-If for 
purpose of promotion as Executive Engineers they could be classified on the 
bas!s of educational qualifications-.Classification if violatii•e of articles 14 and 
16. 
Under the Recruitment Rules of 1939, recruitment to the cadre of Assistant 
Engineers in the Jam mu and Kashmir Engineering Service was to be made by 
direct recruitment of degree holders in Civil Engineering or by transfer of 
degree or Diploma holders who have served as Supervisor for a period of not 
less than 5 years. The rules further provided that appointments by transfer 
(that is by promotion) to the cadre of Executive Engineers could be made only 
from the cadre of Assistant Engineers on the basi!l of merit, abifity and the 
previous record of the candidates. 
The Jammu and 
Kashmir Engineering 
(Gazetted) Service .Recruitment Rules, 1970, provided that recruitment to the 
post of Executive Engineers and above was to be made only by promotion. 
_o\nd, as regards promotion to the post of Executive Engineers, and to those 
only, it was provided that only those Assistant Engineers 
who possessed a 
degree in Engineering would be eligible for prcmotion. Diploma holders in 
Engineering, like the respondents, were thus rendered ineligible for promotion as 
Executive Engineers. The respondents challenged the constitutionality of the 
Rule. The classification, according to the appellants, was made ~ith a view to 
achieving administrative efficiency in the Engineering Service. The High Court, 
took the view that the impugned Rule was violative of articles 14 and 16 of 
the Constitution. 
In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the· State that it is 
always open to the Government to classify its employees so long as the ci.assi· 
fication is reasonable and has nexus with the object thereto; that if there are 
different sources of recruitment, the employees recruited from different sources 
can either be allowed different conditions of Services and so c'Jntinue to belong 
to different classes or the Government may integrate them into one class; that 
once the ernployees are integrated into one clau they cannot for the purposes of 
promotion, be classified again into two different classes on the basis of differences 
existing at the time of recruitment; but, after integration into one class, the 
employees can, in the matter of promotion be classified into different classes 
on th•J basis of any intelligible differentia as, for example, educational qualifi.· 
c~tions,_ which has a nexus with the object of the classification, namely, effi.-
c1encY'm the post of promotion. The respondents urged that the Rules of 1939 
did not.t make any distinction between diploma-holders ·and degree-holders; that 
the roles governing conditions of Serviee could not be changed retrospectively 
to classify employees on the basis of educational qualifications so as to deny 
promotion to the diploma-holders; that having regard to the fact that from 
1939 to 1970 holders of diploma and degree were treated alike, the onus lay 
heavily on the appellants to prove the necessity for differentiating between the 
two, which onus was not discharged on the record of the cases; that there was 
no nexus between the classification and the objects to be achieved thereby and 
in fact the classification defeated that object; that if chances of promotion were 
denied to a few within a class of equals, tliere was an inherc;:nt vice attaching 
to the classification and no question of reasonableness of the 
ne\11· yardstick 
could possibly arise; that the unreasonableness of the classification was patent 
from the fact that a degree qualification was considered as a pre-condition for 
the promotion to the posts of Executive Engineers but not to higher posts; and 
'i 
712 
>UPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1974] 1 S.C.R. 
that if persons recruited from different sources were integrated into one c:ass, 
they could .Jlot thereafter be classified so as to permit in favour of son1e of 
them a preferential treatment as against ethers. 
HELD : Though persons appointe

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