2000 (12) TMI 914 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court upholds Karnataka Electricity Board promotion ratio, not discriminatory

K.R. LAKSHMAN & ORS. Versus KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS.

K.R. LAKSHMAN & ORS. Versus KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS. - 2001 AIR 595, 2000 (5) Suppl. SCR 535, 2001 (1) SCC 442, 2001 (1) JT 196, 2000 (8) SCALE ... Issues Involved:1. Validity of the amendment to the Karnataka Electricity Board Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, 1969.2. Whether the ratio of 1:1 for promotion between technically qualified direct recruits and technically unqualified promotees is discriminatory.3. Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the amendment to the Karnataka Electricity Board Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, 1969:The appellants, who are technically qualified direct recruits, challenged the amendment made on 3.2.1982, which provided a ratio of 1:1 for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) between technically qualified direct recruits and technically unqualified promotees. The learned Single Judge accepted the contention of the appellants and allowed the writ petitions, holding that the amendment was discriminatory. However, the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court set aside the judgment of the Single Judge, relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in P. Murugeshan vs. State of Tamil Nadu and S. N. Deshpande vs. Maharashtra I.D. Corporation.2. Whether the ratio of 1:1 for promotion between technically qualified direct recruits and technically unqualified promotees is discriminatory:The appellants argued that the ratio was arbitrary and discriminatory, as it favored unqualified promotees over qualified direct recruits, thus violating Article 14 of the Constitution. They contended that the amendment was an act of hostile discrimination against qualified direct recruits, jeopardizing their chances of promotion. The respondents, on the other hand, argued that the ratio was necessary to avoid stagnation and was based on relevant considerations such as experience and the smooth functioning of the Board.The Supreme Court examined whether the classification was based on rational distinctions relevant to the subject matter. It was noted that the combined cadre of Operator-Overseer-Meter Reader-Assistant Store Keeper included both direct recruits with ITI certificates and promotees with qualifications up to the 10th standard. The amendment aimed to balance qualifications and experience, providing a ratio to address the stagnation of unqualified promotees.3. Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India:The Court reiterated that Article 14 guarantees similarity of treatment, not identical treatment, and permits reasonable classification. The classification must be based on intelligible differentia and have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. The Court found that the classification between technically qualified and unqualified personnel for promotion to Junior Engineer was rational and based on relevant considerations.The Court referred to previous judgments, including Trilokinath and Murugesan, which upheld similar classifications based on qualifications and experience. The Court distinguished the cases relied upon by the learned Single Judge and held that the principle in Murugesan applied to the present case. The amendment was intended to address stagnation and balance qualifications and experience, and thus, it did not violate Article 14.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the amendment providing a ratio of 1:1 for promotion between technically qualified direct recruits and technically unqualified promotees was not discriminatory and did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. The Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court was justified in setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.