- (1.) The petitioner was appointed as Laboratory Assistant in the Chemistry Section of the Bureau of Police Research and Development. The petitioner earned his promotion to the post of Scientific Assistant, thereafter next promotion post is the Senior Scientific Assistant. In terms of the Bureau of Police Research and Development (Central Forensic Science Laboratories, Class I and Class II posts) Recruitment Rules, 1974 (for short 'the Rules'), 1/3rd of the posts of said Senior Scientific Assistants are to be filled-in by way of promotion amongst the Scientific Assistants. The essential qualifications, however, described is a degree of science. The petitioner does not possess this essential qualification.
(2.) The grievance made by the petitioner is on account of the challenge laid to the validity of Note I of Clause 9 of the said Rules, incorporated by an amendment made on 16.09.1991. In terms of this amendment, Scientific Assistants, who did not possess the essential qualification of degree of Science, are getting an option for promotion, if they have been involved in photography work. Thus, in essence, as per the amendment, the essential qualification is sought to be relaxed on the basis of work experience in a particular field. This, according to the petitioner, is invalid.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner should also be entitled to an opportunity of promotion without the essential degree in science, even if, no photography work has been done. It is his submission that such kind of rule amounts to creation of a class within a class and relies upon the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Mysore v. Krishna Murthy & others, 1973 AIR(SC) 1146, to the following effect: The question which remains for consideration by us is the one relating to the validity of a division into two classes of members of the same service, belonging to the same cadres, for purposes of a difference to be made in their promotional chances. Learned Counsel for the State has sought to justify this difference in promotional chances by a reference to differences in the historical backgrounds and to the practice of making the distinction in promotional chances. The Mysore High Court had very rightly observed that neither a fortuitous artificial division in the past nor the unconstitutional practice of making an unjustifiable discrimination in promotional chances of Government servants belonging to what was really a single category, without any reference either to merit or seniority, or educational qualifications, could justify the differences in promotional chances.;