TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (2) TMI 1277
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....referred by the direct recruits to the Andhra Pradesh State Educational Service who contend that the Tribunal and the High Court fell in error in declaring Note 6 to Rule 3 of the Rules in question to be unconstitutional. 2. The short question that falls for consideration and that was argued at considerable length before us by learned counsel for the parties is whether persons drawn from different sources and integrated into one class/cadre/category can be classified into separate categories for purposes of promotion on the basis of the source from which they were drawn. The question is, in our opinion, squarely covered by the decisions of this Court to which we shall presently refer but before we do so, we may briefly set out the factual backdrop in which controversy arises. 3. In exercise of the powers vested in it under Sections 78 and 99 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 and in suppression of the earlier rules, the Government of Andhra Pradesh framed what are known as "Andhra Pradesh Educational Service Rules". Rule 2 of the said Rules provides for the composition of the service which broadly speaking comprises four distinct classes of employees enumerated under t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Master Gr.I, Lecturer IASE/CTE/SCERT, Senior Lecturer DIET and Special Officer (O.S.) 6. Promotee Lecture IASE/CTE/SCERT, Senior Lecturer DIET and A.D. (NFE) 7. A.D., G.A.O, and A.P.O. 8. Direct recruit Dy.E.O./Gazetted Head Master Grade-I, Lecturer IASE/CTE/SCERT, Senior Lecturer DIET and Special Officer (OS) 9. Promotee Dy.E.O./Gazetted Head Master Gr.I and P.E.O. 10. Promotee Lecturer IASE/CTE/SCERT, Senior Lecturer DIET and A.D. (NFE) 11. Direct Recruit Dy.E.O./Gazetted Head Master Gr.I, Lecturer IASE/CTE/SCERT, Senior Lecturer DIET and Special Officer (O.S.) 12. Promotee Lecturer IASE/CTE/SCERT, Senior Lecturer DIET and A.D. (NFE)" 6. A careful reading of Rule 3 (supra) would show that for posts in Class II category (1) comprising District Educational Officer and Deputy Director, officers comprising categories 1 to 5, 8, 10, 11 and 12 of class III are eligible for appointment. This implies that vacancies in category 1 of class II shall be filled up in terms of the 12 point cycle stipulated in Note 6 (supra). A closer reading of Note 6 and the roster for appointment prescribed therein would indicate that appointm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ven when those for whom the classification was made were integrated into one class. He urged that the decision of this Court in Roshan Lal Tandon Vs. Union of India 1968 (1) SCR 185, reliance whereupon was placed by the Tribunal as also by the High Court in support of the view taken by them stood diluted to that extent implying thereby that the law declared in Roshan Lal Tandon's case (supra) could admit of exceptions, one of which based on higher qualifications was recognised in Triloki Nath's case (supra). Dr. Dhavan strenuously argued that this Court could recognise the need for correcting imbalance, if any, in the filling up of posts by persons drawn from different categories as yet another exception to the Rule stated in Roshan Lal Tandon's case (supra). He contended that the Government had reserved to itself the power to review the roster from time to time, which power of review would, according to Dr. Dhawan, enable the Government to ensure a fair distribution of vacancies among all those eligible for appointment against the same, but who came from difference sources. 8. Mr. A. Mariarputham, learned senior counsel appearing for the contesting respondents, on t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the post of Executive Engineers the same was unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Rules in that case provided for promotion of only such of the Assistant Engineers as possessed a bachelor's degree in engineering or qualification of A.M.I.E. and as had put in seven years of service in the J & K Engineering Service. The High Court had allowed the petitions of Diploma Holders and struck down the Rule as unconstitutional, holding that the Diploma Holders and the Degree Holders having been integrated into one category, no distinction or classification based on educational qualification could thereafter be made between them. In an appeal to this Court that view was reversed. This Court held that a classification must be truly founded on substantial differences that distinguish persons grouped together from those left out of the group and such differential attributes must bear a just and rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. Having said so, this Court observed: "33. Judged from this point of view, it seems to us impossible to accept the respondents' submission that the classification of Assistant Engineers into d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fferently, once the direct recruits and promotees are absorbed into one cadre, they form one class and they cannot be discriminated for the purpose of further promotion to the higher Grade `C'." In terms, this was just a different way of putting what had preceded." 12. In the light of the above pronouncements, the Tribunal and the High Court were, in our view, justified in holding that Note 6 to Rule 3 was unconstitutional inasmuch as the same classified officers eligible for appointment against class II category 1 posts depending upon whether they were direct recruits or promotees. Such a classification based on the birth mark that stood obliterated after integration of officers coming from different source into a common cadre/category would be wholly unjustified and discriminatory. 13. That leaves us with the question whether any imbalance among those eligible for appointment against class II category 1 posts coming from different sources and categories would itself justify a classification like the one made in Note 6. Our answer is in the negative. There is no gainsaying that classification must rest on a reasonable and intelligible basis and the same must bear a nexus....