SYED ANWAR Vs. EMPLOYEES OF ANDHRA PRADESH DAIRY DEV CO OP FEDERATION LTD
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
EMPLOYEES OF THE ANDHRA PRADESH, D.D.C.F.LTD., INDIAN DAIRY DIPLOMA HOLDERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION, REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT V.RAJAN BABU
Click here to view full judgement.
Sivaraman Nair, J. -
(1.)The question involved in this Writ Appeal is as to whether the prescription of a ratio of 1:3 between diplomates and graduates for promotion to the post of Managers, Grade-I in the A.P. Dairy Development Co-operative Federation is discriminatory and therefore violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The appellants are graduate officers who want to sustain the ratio whereas me 1st respondent is an association of diploma-holders in service, who succeeded in the Writ Petition assailing the ratio. We will refer to the parties as they appeared in Writ Petition No. 12548/85 which the learned single Judge has allowed.
(2.)Petitioner represented non-graduate employees of Dairy Development Co-operative Federation Limited (Indian Dairy Diploma-holders Welfare Association). Respondents 2 to 5 were graduate employees of the same Federation. The service rules provided for the ratio of 1:3 between Diploma- holders and graduates for promotion as Grade-I officers. The main contention urged by petitioner was that preference in favour of graduates, only because of their educational qualifications is unreasonable and therefore discriminatory. Petitioner submitted further that their longer service and seniori ty in the feeder category were ignored in giving preference to juniors forpromotion for the only reason of their higher educational attainments. Reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohammad Shujat Ali vs. Union of India P.N. Kohli vs. Union of India and Punjab State Electricity Board vs. Ravinder Kumar in support of the submission that preference based entirely on educational qualifications and in providing a quota for graduates was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
(3.)Respondents contended that the distinction between graduates and Diploma-holders in the feeder category was not introduced for the first time, but was present in the service rules since their inception. They submitted further that there was no fusion of graduates and diploma-holders into a common category at any time, because separate seniority lists were being maintained in the feeder category. It was however admitted that the posts were inter-changeable and had common scales of salary. Respondents had urged before the learned single Judge that the decision in Mohammad Shujat AW, P.N. Kohli or Punjab State Electricity Board would apply only to cases where discrimination was practiced by providing a quota for the first time making an invidious distinction between persons included in a common stream and were equally qualified and eligible for promotion. They submitted that differential treatment of persons coming from different sources having different birthmarks should not be held to be discriminatory or violative of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India.,
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.