T.R. KOTHANDARAMAN ETC. ETC. versus TAMIL NADU WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BD. AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 513 · Decided: 13-09-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

T.R. KOTHANDARAMAN ETC. ETC. 
v. 
TAMIL NADU WATER SUPPLY AND. DRAINAGE BD. 
AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 
(KULDIP SINGH AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
Service Law : Promotion-Eligibility--Classification on the basis of 
higher educational qualification-Fixing of ratio between such groups with 
A 
B 
different qualificatiom-Validity of 
· 
C 
Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board Service Regulations, 
1972/Special Rules for the Tamil Nudu Agriculture Engineering Service/Tamil 
Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulation : 
Regulation 19(2)(b)!Rule 2(b)--Regulation fixing ratio for promo- D 
tion-Classification for purposes of promotion-Engineering Degree Holders 
and Diploma Holders-Ratio fixed giving preference to Engineering Degree 
holders-Whether violative of Art. 16 of the Constitution of India. 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Art. 16-Engineering Services-Promotion-Eligibility for-Classifica-
tion into Degree holders and diploma holders-Ratio--Fixation of-Prefer-
ence to Engineering Degree Holders-Whether violative of 
E 
These writ petitions and Appeals relate to the right to be considered F 
for promotion, especially when such right is barred or restricted on the 
basis of educational qualifications. The diploma holders challenged the 
preference given to the degree holders. 
The Engineering Diploma Holders in Tamil Nadu Water Supply and 
Drainage Board challenged the proviso to Regulation 19(2)(b) of the G 
Board's Service Regulations 1972 as being violative of Article 16 of the 
Constitution. The said proviso permitted diploma holders Assistant En· 
gineers to become eligible for promotion as Executive Engineer only if they 
have exceptional merit in work; otherwise making them ineligible for such 
promotion. 
H 
513 
A 
B 
514 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
The diploma holders in the Tamil Nadu Agricultal Engineering 
Service challenged Rule 2(b) of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu 
Agricultural Engineering Service as being violative of Art. 16 of the Con-
stitution of India. The said rule prescribed the ratio of 3:2 for direct 
recruits (degree holders) and promotees (diploma holders) for promotion 
to the post of Executive Engineer. 
The Engineeri~g diploma ·holders Association in TamO N'du 
Electricity Board challenged the decision of the Board's Service Regulation 
• '-
fixing the ratio of.3:1 for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer 
(Electrical) between the Graduate Junior Engineer (Electrical) and the 
C 
diploma holder Supervisors (Electrical Gr.I). The Association challenged 
the Board's decision as being violative of Art. 16 of the Constiution. 
Dismissing the matters, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. Higher educational qualification is a permissible basis 
D of classification, acceptability of which will depend on the facts and cir-
cumstances of each case. 
E 
1.2. Higher educational qualification can be the basis not only for 
barring promotion, but also for restricting the scope of promotion. [523-BI 
1.3. Restriction placed cannot however go to the extent of seriously 
jeopardising the chances of promotion. To decide this, the extent of restric-
tion shall have also to be looked into to ascertain whether it is reasonable. 
[523-C] 
F 
2. As regards the proviso to Reg0lation 19(2)(b) of Tamil Nadu 
Water Supply and Drainage Board Service Regulations 1972, it permits 
diploma-holders Assistant Engineers to become eligible for promotion to. 
the pos~ of Executive Engineer only if they were to have "exceptional merit" 
in work; otherwise a diploma-holder is not eligible for such promotion. The 
G challenge to this proviso ~as to fail because diploma-holders being educa-
tionally less qualified than d~e-h<1lders can be made non-eligible for 
promotion 'to higher post. The proviso really takes out the rigour by 
permitting the diploma-holders to be considered for promotion in case 
they were to show exceptional merit in their work. The proviso being thus 
favourable to the diploma-holders has really to be welcomed by them, 
H instead of inviting their wrath. [523-G-H, 524-A-B] 
K01HANDARAMAN v. WATER SUPPLY & DRAINAGE BD. 
515 
3.1. Rule 2(b) of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Engineering A 
Service prescribes the ratio of 3:2 for direct recruits and promotees - the 
former being begree holders and the latter diploma holders. Higher educa-
tional qualification has relevance in so far as the holding of higher promo-
tional post is concerned, in view of the nature of the f

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