M.N.VENKATACHALIAH - (1.)THESE four Civil Appeals by Special Leave and the Special Leave Petition arise out of and are directed against the common judgment dated 2-9-1987, of the High Court of Delhi in C.W.P. No. 2132 and C.W.P. No. 2082 of 1984 (reported in 1988 Lab IC 434) in which the principal controversy was whether the Rules prescribing different conditions of eligibility for Diploma Holders and Graduates for promotion from the cadre of Junior-Engineers to that of Assistant-Engineers and from the cadre of Assistant-Engineers to that of Executive-Engineers in the Public Works Department of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) is violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and would, therefore, require to be declared void.
The High Court, in the writ petitions filed by the Diploma-Holders, has held that such differential treatment of Diploma-Holders and Graduates by the prescription of different standards of service-experience for purposes of eligibility for promotion to the higher cadres is unconstitutional.

(2.)THE D.D.A. which is the appellant in Civil Appeals No. 898 of 1988 and No. 899 of 1988 assails the correctness of the view taken by the High Court. Civil Appeals 896 of 1988 and 897 of 1988 are by the Graduate-Engineers who were respondents before the High Court ,and who are, similarly, aggrieved by the decision under appeal. SLP 6181 of 1986 is by the "DDA Graduate Engineers Association" which seeks to espouse the cause of the Graduate-Engineers. We grant Special Leave in SLP. All the five appeals are heard and disposed of by this common judgment.
C. A. 899 of 1988, C.A. 896 of 1988 and SLP 6181 arise out of C.W.P. 2132 of 1984. C.A. 898 of 1988, C.A. 897 of 1988 arise out of C.W.P. 2082 of 1984.

The D.D.A. by its resolution No. 574 dated 13-11-1963 adopted, pronto, the rules Of the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) in regard to the mode of recruitment- both by direct recruitment and by promotion - to the posts of Asst. Engineers. The rules, so adopted, in substance, stipulate and provide that 50% of the posts be filled by direct recruitment or by deputation and that the other 50% be filled up by promotion from the cadre of Junior- Engineers. The cadre of Junior-Engineers itself comprises of both Graduates in Engineering and Diploma-Holders in Engineering. The two categories of officers in the cadre of Junior-Engineers were provided with promotional opportunities to the post of Asst. Engineers in the equal ratio (50% : 50%) of the promotional-posts. Half of it, i.e., 25% was to be filled up by promotion of Graduate Junior-Engineers with three years' service- experience as Junior-Engineers; the other 25% to be filled up from Diploma-Holder Junior-Engineers who were diploma holders who had 8 years' service-experience as Junior-Engineers.

By resolution No. 105 dated 16-6-1971 the DDA similarly adopted the relevant rules in the CPWD in the matter of recruitment to the posts of Executive-Engineers. The Executive-Engineers' post in the DDA thus became purely promotional and Graduate Asst. Engineers with 8 years' service-experience and diploma Asst. Engineers with 10 years' service- experience were eligible for promotion. No inter se quota between the two class of officers was prescribed.

The following table delineates the effect and purport of the rules adopted under resolution No. 574 dated 13-11-1963 and No. 105 dated 16-6-1971. The table also indicates the mode of initial recruitment to the cadre of Junior-Engineers : JUDGEMENT_116_SUPP1_1989Image1.jpg

In the year 1984 the Diploma-Holders in the cadre of Junior-Engineers and in the cadre of Asst. Engineers sought to assail, by means of two writ petitions presented to the Delhi High Court, the Constitutional validity of the prescriptions made by the rules in the matter of requirement of differential service-experiences between the Graduates and Diploma-Holders for promotion to the higher cadres viz, of Asst. Engineers and Executive-Engineers respectively. They also assailed the promotions of Graduate-Engineers to the higher cadres made on the strength of the Rules. C.W. 2132 of 1984 pertained to the resolution No. 574 dated 13-11-1963 adopting the relevant CPWD Rules prescribing 3 years' and 8 years' service experience for Graduates and Diploma-Holders respectively and the discrimination thus brought about between them. CWP No. 2082 of 1984 pertained to the constitutionality of the analogous provisions in the rules adopted by resolution No. 105 dated 16-6-1971.

The High Court heard these two petitions together and by its common judgment dated 2-8-1987 upheld the challenge and declared the different standards of service-experience prescribed for Degree-Holders and Diploma-Holders in respect of both the cadres as violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

(3.)THE principal question that arises in these appeals is whether, where, as here, recruitment to a particular cadre of posts is made, from two different sources, different conditions, based on the differences in educational qualifications, can be prescribed conditioning the eligibility for further promotion to a higher cadre in service.
THE High Court, by the judgment now under appeal, has held that such prescription of differential standards - based even on the differences in technical, educational qualifications is violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In reaching such conclusions as it did on the point, the High Court placed reliance on the pronouncements of this Court in Mohammad Shujat Ali v. U.O.I., (1975) 1 SCR 449 : (AIR 1974 SC 1631), H. C. Sharma v. Municipal Corpn. of Delhi, (1983) 3 SCR 372: (AIR 1983 SC 881) and Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala v. Ravinder Kumar Sharma, (1986) 4 SCC 617: (AIR 1987 SC 367) and T. R. Kapur v. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 415. THE High Court distinguished the decision of this Court in State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa, (1974) 1 SCR 771 : (AIR 1974 SC 1).

THE High Court drew a distinction between the situation where diploma-holders were wholly excluded from eligibility for promotion to the higher cadre and the situation where, while they were considered eligible for promotion, however, were subjected to more onerous and less advantageous conditions, for such promotion. THE High Court distinguished Triloki Nath Khosa case observing :

"7. This was a case where diploma-holders were found completely ineligible for promotion to the higher post for lack of essential educational qualification but the considerations may vary if they are found eligible for promotion to the higher post but still certain conditions are laid as distinct from degree-holders before they become eligible for promotion. THE question then would arise whether such distinction can be justified and is based on any rationality or not ... ..."

Answering this point in favour of the "Diploma-Holders" the High Court held :

"... ....THE moment the diploma- holders and degree-holders are considered to constitute one class for purposes of promotion there cannot be any differentiation between the two vis-a-vis the qualification for promotion. It could be that for reasons of efficiency in administration the authorities may lay down that diploma-holders are not at all eligible for promotion to the higher post and such a bar can be upheld in view of the ratio laid down in the case of Triloki Nath Khosa but after the authorities considered them eligible for promotion there could be no rationale in their making any distinction between the degree-holders and 'diploma-holders' for granting promotion to them to the higher post ... "

(Emphasis supplied)

THE point of distinction, as apprehended by the High Court, is that in the present case a Diploma, ipso- facto, qualifies for promotion. THE real question is whether this assumption is correct and whether the relevant Rules determine the eligibility for promotion on the basis of a Diploma, or for that matter even a Degree, or whether the eligibility for promotion is determined not with reference merely to the educational attainments but on the basis of educational qualifications plus a measure of service-experience, stipulated differently for Graduates and Diploma-Holders.

Learned counsel for the appellants, contended that the view that commended itself to the High Court is, demonstrably erroneous and is opposed to principles which by now, should be considered well settled. They submitted that the High Court fell into an obvious error in its view that in Shujat Ali's case (1975) 1 SCR 449 : (AIR 1974 SC 1631), this Court had struck down the service rule impugned in that case. Learned counsel submitted that the fundamental distinction between the two sets of cases, one of which Triloki Nath Khosa's case (AIR 1974 SC 1) is representative and the other typified by Shujat Ali's case, was lost sight o f by the High Court and the error pervading the judgment is the result of overlooking this essential distinction between the two sets of cases.

It was contended for the appellants that the present case was not one in which the Diploma-Holders, proprio-vigore, and without more, were held eligible for promotion. If the effect and intent of the rules were such as to treat Diploma as equivalent to a Degree for purposes of further promotion them the view of the High Court that having considered both class of officers equally eligible for promotion on the mere strength of their educational qualifications, any further discrimination brought about by subjecting the Diploma-Holders alone to a more onerous and less advantageous stipulation for such promotion would violate, the constitutional pledge of equality might have some justification. But in the present case, counsel contended, that is not the position. The educational qualification of a Diploma in engineering was not treated as equivalent to a Degree for purposes of determining eligibility. Nor the Degree itself was determinative of eligibility for promotion. The eligibility for promotion is, it is urged, based on a combination of factors which vary according as the basic educational qualification of the. two classes of engineers; that this distinction was germane to the requirements of higher technical and academic quality for the higher posts which involved expertise in structural-design etc. Learned counsel submitted that even where, recruitment to a particular cadre was made from different sources, resulting in the formation of single a homogeneous cadre, it was not impermissible to make a further classification amongst the members of such a cadre for purposes of further promotion based on the higher educational qualification of the candidates.

Learned counsel for the respondent diploma-holders, while seeking to support the judgment of the High Court urged that this Court had, more than once, cautioned against undue accent, in the matter of promotional opportunities, on academic qualification alone which might lead to elitist preferences and tend to obscure the egalitarian principle and social-justice. It was, therefore, contended that the effect of the distinction, in the ultimate analysis, is really an imperceptible extension or magnification of insubstantial factors subverting the precious guarantee of equality. Sri Gujral, learned Senior Counsel, sought to impart to the situation a dimension of social-justice and made an impassioned plea that to discriminate between Diploma-Holders and Graduates who belong to the same cadre and hold interchangeable posts, both in the present-cadre and in the prospective promotional posts, on the mere lack of some higher academic attainment is to place a high premium on those social and economic ills of the society which rendered the further academic pursuits for the economically disadvantaged difficult.