Promotion preference based on educational qualification upheld for non-graduate promotees, but not against graduate or postgraduate promotee Assistants.

Educational qualification may be used to classify employees for promotion only where the distinction has a rational nexus with the duties of the higher post. The SC upheld the Tamil Nadu rule amendment giving preference to directly recruited Assistants over non-graduate promotee Assistants for promotion as Deputy Tehsildar, finding that preference was not irrational or arbitrary for that group. However, the same preference could not be applied mechanically to promotee Assistants who were already graduates or postgraduates, because they stood on the same educational footing as direct recruits. The amendment was therefore sustained for non-graduate promotees but read down as inapplicable to graduate and postgraduate promotee Assistants.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amendment to the Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules, which gave preference to directly recruited Assistants over promotee Assistants for promotion as Deputy Tehsildar, was valid under Articles 14 and 16; and whether that preference could apply to promotee Assistants who were already graduates or postgraduates.

Analysis: Direct recruits and promotees had been integrated into one cadre of Assistants. While educational qualification could, in principle, be a basis for classification for further promotion, such classification had to bear a rational nexus with the duties of the promotional post and could not be applied mechanically to all promotees merely because they entered service by promotion. The distinction sought to be justified on the ground that direct recruits were graduates did not hold good as against promotee Assistants who had also acquired graduation or higher qualifications, because they stood on the same educational footing. For non-graduate promotees, the State's preference for direct recruits was not shown to be irrational or wholly arbitrary.

Conclusion: The amendment was upheld insofar as it preferred direct recruits over non-graduate promotee Assistants, but it was read down and held inapplicable to promotee Assistants who were graduates or postgraduates.

---