UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ETC. versus R. IYYASWAMY AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 16 · Decided: 09-09-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ETC. 
v. 
R. IYYASWAMY AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 9, I997 
B 
[S.C. AGRAWAL ANDG.T. NANAVATI, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Assistant Engineers (Akashwani and Doordarshan Group 'B' Posts) 
C Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 1985-Rule 2(i) (a) and (b)-Promotion to 
the post of Assistant Engineer-25% promotion quota by Departmental 
Selection Committee-Validity of-Held, no distinction between degree and 
diploma holders at the subordinate level-Constitute Single undivided cadre-
Treated equally in the matter of pay, duties and responsibilities-Unequals 
D are not made equals-Amendment Rules held valid 
E 
Constitution of India 1950 : Articles 14 and 16-Assistant Engineers 
(Akashwani and Doordarshan Group 'B' Posts) Recruitment (Amendment) 
Rules, 1985,-Rule 2(i) (a)-25% promotion quota-Held, not discriminat~ry 
or arbitrary. 
In All India Radio and Doordarshan the channel of promotion in the 
Engineering Section was from the post of Engineering Assistant to the post 
of Senior Engineering Assistant and then to the post of Assistant Engineer 
(Gazetted). Under the Rules 60% posts of Engineering Assistants were 
reserved for departmental Engineering Assistants who were degree holders 
p and 40% posts were filled up by direct recruitment by UPSC. In the year 
1.985, Assistant Engineer (Akashwani and Doordarshan Group 'B' Posts) 
Recruitment Rules were amended. Rule 2(i)(b) of the amendment Rules 
provided for filling of 75% of the posts in the promotion quota by selection 
on the basis of departmental competitive examination. By Rule 2(i)(a) the 
remaining 25% quota was filled up through selection by departmental 
G promotion Committee. Both degree holders and diploma holders were 
considered for promotion on the basis of their seniority. The Amendment Rules 
were challenged by the respondent as no distinction between degree holders 
and diploma holders was made in the Rules. The Tribunal partly allowing the 
appeal held that rule 2(i) (a) relating to 25% promotion quota was bad, 
H discriminatory and violative of Constitution. Hence the present appeals by the 
. 
16 
... 
-
U.0.1 v. R. IYY AS,WAMY 
17 
Union oflndia and two of the employees. 
The contention of the appellants was that decision of the Tribunal was 
wrong because it was based upon an incorrect premise that degree and diploma 
holdei-S enter the cadre of Engineering Assistants through different channeis 
A 
at which stage the minimum qualifications for them are different It was also 
contended that decision of the Tribunal was inconsistent with the decision of B 
this Court in N. Abdul Basheer v. K.K. Karunakoran, (1989] Supp. 2 SCC 
. 344. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : U. Rule 2(i) (a) of the Assistant Engineers (Akashwani and C 
Doorda..Shan Group 'B' posts) Recruitment (Amendment) Rules 1985 is valid. 
By adopting the new policy contained in Rules 2(i)(a) and (b) of the Amendment" 
Rules, the Government appears to have made an attempt to balance the 
advantages arising out of merit and experience based on long service. The 
policy underlying Rule 2(i)(a) and (b) therefore, cannot be regarded either as 
discriminatory or arbitrary. It is also not correct to say that by providing for 
promotion by selection by Departmental Promotion Committee against the 
25%' promotion quota the Court has made unequals equal. 
. 
[22-G-H; 23-A; 24-A] 
N. Abdul Basheer '" K.K. Karunbkaran, [1989) Supp. 2 SCC 344, 
relied on. 
1.2. The Tribunal was wrong in proceeding on the basis that the degree 
holders and diploma holders enter the cadre of Engineering Assistant through 
different channels and that on the stage of entry, the requisite qualifications 
D' 
E 
are also different. Minimum qualification for direc.t recruitment as F 
Engineering Assistant is diploma in Engineering or B.Sc. degree with Physics 
as the main subject. All those who .are recruited as Engineering Assistant 
constituted one single cadre. There is no difference' as regards their pay or 
other emoluments on the ground that they are degree-holders or diploma 
holders. The nature of duties and responsibilities of diploma holders is not 
different from those of degree holders. Thus no distinction is recognised G 
between graduates and diploma holders at the level of Engineering Assistants 
and they all are considered as equals. (21-G~H; 22-A-B) 
. 
' 
2; Just because certain percentage of th~ posts of Assistant Engineers 
were reserved for graduate Engineers in the past did not create 

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