KULDEEP KUMAR GUPTA AND ORS.versusHIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS.

A               KULDEEP KUMAR GUPTA AND ORS.
                              v.
      HIMACHAL PRADESH STA TE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS.

                               DECEMBER 12, 2000

B                [G.B. PATTANAIK AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.]


          Service Law

C         Promotion-Junior Engineers to Assistant Engineers-Regulations
    providing quota for promotee unqualified Junior Engineers in preference to
    direct recruit qualified Junior Engineers-Constitutional validity of-Held,
    valid-Constitution of India, I 950-Article 14.

          Regulations providing quota for promotion on the basis of
D qualifications-Held, not violative of Article 16(4)--Constitution of India-
    Article 16(4).

           Respondent-Board framed a set of Regulations for recruitment and
    promotion to the post of Junior Engineers and Assistant Engineers under
    the provisions of the Electricity Supply Act. In Junior Engineer cadre, 95%
E   of vacancies are filled up by direct recruitment who are qualified diploma
    holders and 5% through promotion from lower category who are unqualified
    matriculates. For promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers, the Board
    amended the original promotion Regulations of 1973 from time to time
    providing for a ratio between direct recruits and promotees and further
F   providing a quota within the promotion quota for qualified and unqualified
    Junior Engineers. The Board also directe_d the preparation of seniority lists
    of the Junior Engineers on the basis of qualifications. The direct recruit
    qualified Junior Engineers filed applications before the Administrative
    Tribunal for quashing the quota rule provided in the Regulations as being
    arbitrary and irrational. The Tribunal dismissed the applications upholding
G   the validity of the Regulations providing for a different quota for promotion
    for the unqualified Junior Engineers. Hence the appeals by the direct recruit
    qualified Junior Engineers.

        The appellants contended that the Regulations providing for quota for
H   promotional post of Assistant Engineer among the qualified diploma holders
                                        572
          K K.GUPTA v. HI MAC HAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD           573
and unqualified matriculate Junior Engineers must be struck down as being           A
violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The appellants also contended
that the direction for preparation of two seniority lists on the basis of
qualifications for the purpose of promotion violates the equality clause under
Article 16 of the Constitution. The appellants further contended that providing
a quota in favour of unqualified Junior Engineers results in reservation, which     B
is not permissible under Article 16(4) of the Constitution.

      The respondent-Board contended that separate quotas were provided for
promotion to qualified and unqualified Junior Engineers right from the
inception of the Regulations in December 1973 and the quota was changed
from time to time depending upon the cadre strength and chances of promotion        C
of unqualified Junior Engineers and so the Regulations cannot be struck down.
The Regulations balance the equity amongst the qualified and unqualified
Junior Engineers from the length of service to be put in as Junior Engineers
before promotion and therefore such differential treatment does not violate
Article 14 of the Constitution. The Board further contended that providing
quota for promotion to the higher cadre only effectuates the guarantee of equal     D
opportunity enshrined in Article 16( l) and such a provision cannot be held to
be a reservation as contemplated under Article 16(4) of the Constitution. The
Board contended that fixing of quotas to ensure an efficient service is a matter
of policy for the employer to decide and the Court cannot interfere unless the
decision is arbitrary or irrational.
                                                                                    E
      Dismissing the appeals, the Court

        HELD : l. Once a classification is permissible notwithstanding that the
 feeder category is one and when the said classification is challenged being
discriminatory, then unless and until sufficient materials are produced and
established that it is unjust on the face of it by the persons assailing the        F
classification, the Court would be justified in coming to the conclusion that
such plea of unlawful discrimination had no basis. There are no materials to
sustain the plea of discrimination raised by the appellants who are direct
recruit diploma holder Junior Engineers. The Regulations unequivocally show
that right from the inception, quota has been provided for promotion in favour      G
of the unqualified promotee Junior Engineers, though the quota has been
changed from time to time and while providing such quota, the longer
experience as Junior Engineers has been the basis for being eligible for
promotion. Providing such a quota in the service history right from inception
is also a germane consideration for the Court, while considering the question
of alleged discriminations. That apart when the feeder category itself is filled    H
    574                       SUPREME COl:RT REPORTS (2000] SUPP. S S.C.R.

A   up by direct recruit diploma holders and promotee unqualified matriculates
    and if no quota is provided for such unqualified matriculates in the promotional
    cadre of Assistant Engineer, then they may stagnate at that stage which will
    not be in the interest of administration. If the rule making authority on
    consideration of such stagnation, provides a quota for such unqualified
B   promotee Junior Engineers, the same cannot be held to be violative of any
    constitutional mandate. Therefore, there can be a separate consideration for
    the promotee unqualified matriculate Junior Engineers in the matter .of
    promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers and the impugned Regulation
    providing a quota for them cannot be held to be violative of Article 14 of the
    Constitution. (581-B, C, D, E, F, GJ
c         Tri/oki Nath Khosa, (1974( 1SCC19 and Murugesan, (199312 SCC
    340, relied on

          Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India, 11968) I SCR 185 and Mervyn
    Coutindo, 11966) 3 SCC 600 and Mohd. Shujat Ali, (1975) 5 SCC 76,
D   distinguished.

         S.N. Deshpande v. Mahari.ishtra l.D. Corpn., 119931Supp.2 SCC 194;
    Punjab State Electricity Board, 1198614 SCC 617 and Abdul Basheer, 119891
    Supp. 2 SCC 344, referred to.

E           2. Article 16 of the Constitution deals with equality of opportunity in
     matters ol'public employment and Article 16(4) enables the State from making
    any provision for reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any
    backward class of citizens which in the opinion of the State is not adequately
    represented in the services under the State. Providing a quota is not new in
    the service jurisprudence and whenever the feeder category itself consists of
F   different category of persons and when they are considered for any promotion,
    the employer fixes a quota for each category so that the promotional cadre
    would be equi-balanced and at the same time each category of persons in feeder
    category would get the opportunity of being considered for promotion. This is
    also in a sense in the larger interest of the administration when it is the
G   employer, who is best suited to decide the percentage of posts in the
    promotional cadre, which can be earmarked for different category of persons.
    This provision actually effectuates he constitutional mandate engrafted in
    Article 16(1 ), as it would offer equality of opportunity in matters relating to
    employment and it would not be the monopoly of a specified category of persons
    iR' the feeder category to get promotions. Therefore, there is no infraction of
H   Article 16(4) of the Constitution while providing a quota in promotional cadre,
K K GUPTA 1 HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD [PATTANAIK. J)575


which does not tantamount to reservation. 1581-H; 582-A-EI                         A
        Indira Sawhney v. Union of India, I 19921 Supp. 3 SCC 217, referred to.

      3. If the rule making authority considers that the stagnation at the stage
of Junior Engineers for unqualified matriculates is not conducive for
administration and provides the promotional avenue for them by a quota in          B
the promotional cadre and the service history itself indicates that such
provision has been made right from the inception, then there is no
constitutional infraction which needs to be interfered by the Court. There is
no bar for providing a quota in the promotional post, even in favour of
unqualified matriculate Junior Engineers. 1583-B, q
                                                                                   c
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 12446-47 of
1996.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 29.9.95 of the Administrative
Tribunal, Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in 0.A. Nos. 276/87 and 226 of 1989.          D
       Gopal Subramanium, V.A. Bobde, R. Mohan, Sr. Advs., Ms. C.K. Sucharita,
K.K. Lahiri. Ezaj Maqbool, B.K. Mishra, Ms. Aparna Jha, Ms. Safali Shukla,
Naresh K. Sharma. T. Raja, V.G. Pragasam, K.B. Sounder Rajan, A. Mariarputham,
Ms. Aruna Mathur. M.A. Chinnasamy and V. Krishnamurthy for the appearing
parties.                                                                           E
        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

       PATTANAIK, J. These appeals are directed against the order of the
 Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, disposing ofO.A. No. 276/87 with
O.A. No.226 of 1989. The applicants before the tribunal were Junior Engineers,     F
working in Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board. The dispute centres
round the question as to whether it is permissible for the employer to frame
Regulations, providing a separate quota of promotional avenues for the less
qualified junior Engineers in preference to the claim of the qualified diploma
holder Junior Engineers. The feeder category for promotion to the post of          G
Assistant Engineer is Junior Engineer. In the cadre of Junior Engineer, 95%
of the vacancies are filled up by direct recruitment of persons, who are
diploma holders and only 5% is by promotion from amongst the lower category,
who are usually matriculates with LT.I. certificate. So far as the promotion to
the post of Assistant Engineers is concerned, the Board has been amending
the promotion Regulation from time to time, providing for a ratio between the      H
    576                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A    direct recruits and promotees and again, further providing a quota within the
     promotion quota, to be filled up by Junior Engineers( qualified) and Junior
     Engineers(unqualified). The original Regulation of the year 1973 has been
     amended from time to time in 1979, 1983 and 1986 and under the 1986
     Regulations, 46% of the posts in the cadre of Assistant Engineer was available
B    in promotion quota and out of the same, 28% were to be filled up by Junior
     Engineers (qualified), 8% by Junior Engineers(unqualified), 6% from amongst
    those who have passed Section A and B examination of the Institute of
     Engineers(service) and 4% from Draftsman. It may thus be noticed that from
    the inception of the service, a specified percentage of quota has been made
    available in the promotional cadre of Assistant Engineer for the unqualified
C   Junior Engineers notwithstanding the fact that Junior Engineers form one
    cadre. In December, 1987, the direct recruits qualified Junior Engineers filed
    application before the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, praying for
    quashing of the quota rule vis-a-vis them and the unqualified Junior Engineers,
    essentially on the ground that there has been a total integration of both
    categories of Junior Engineers and they discharge identical functions, their
D   duties being interchangeable and inter-transferable and from the fused cadre,
    it is not permissible to provide a different quota for promotion to the higher
    post and the said provision must be held to be arbitrary and irrational and
    as such is liable to be struck down. The Board took a decision to prepare
    separate seniority list of the Junior Engineers, which is the feeder category
E   for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. The separate seniority list
    in the cadre of Junior Engineer, one for diploma holder Junior Engineers and
    another for unqualified Junior Engineers was prepared in November, 1989. As
    by preparation of such seniority list, the original application filed by the direct
    recruit qualified Junior Engineers before the tribunal became infructuous, they
    approached this Court in Special Leave Petition No. I 072/89. A petition under
F   Article 32 was also filed, which was registered as Writ Petition No. 91189,
    challenging the self-same issue of preparation of two seniority lists.
    Notwithstanding the filing of Special Leave Petition in this Court, a separate
    application was filed before the tribunal also, which stood registered as
    O.A.No. 226/89, challenging the issue of separate seniority lists. The Special
G   Leave Petition filed in this Court stood disposed of by order dated 5.10.1993
    with the directions that pending applications before the Administrative tribunal
    should be disposed of within six months. The tribunal ultimately disposed of
    the applications filed before it by order dated 29. 9 .1995. Out of the three
    members of the tribunal, the majority judgment upheld the validity of the -
    Regulations, providing for a different quota for promotion in respect of the
H   unqualified Junior Engineers inter alia on the ground that it is permissible
K.K UI :p I 1\ 1 111\L\OIAL PRADE;>H STA I"- Ll.FCTRICITY BOARD !PATTANAIK. J   1577

for the employer to provide for promotion on the basis of educational                  A
qualification and the Junior Engineers who are matriculates and LT.I. qualified
from a different class, than the direct recruit diploma holder Junior Engineers,
who are otherwise called qualified Junior Engineers and this position has
been maintained right from the inception of the service and the Regulation
providing such a position cannot be held to be arbitrary or discriminatory.
The minority view was that of Vice Chairman, Shri M.G. Chitkara, who came
                                                                                       B
to the conclusion that there has been a complete fusion between qualified and
unqualified Junior Engineers and after such fusion, it is not legally permissible
to provide a different quota for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer.
The applications before the tribunal having been dismissed in view of the
majority judgment, the present appeals have been filed by the direct recruits          C
qualified Junior Engineers.
          Mr. Gopal Subramanium, the learned senior counsel, appearing for the
appellants, contended with vehemence that the Junior Engineers, having
 formed a cadre, people from two different sources being brought to the cadre
 namely the direct recruit qualified diploma holders and the promotee matriculate      D
 I. T. l. certificate persons, there cannot be any further differentiation amongst
them, providing for quota for promotional post and the Regulation providing
 such quota must be struck down as violative of Article 14 and 16 of the
Constitution. In support of this contention, the learned senior counsel relied
 upon Rmhan Lal Tandon, ( 1968] I SCR 185: Mervyn Cuutindo, [ 1966] 3 SCC
600 and Mohd. Shujat Ali, [ 1975] 5 SCC 76. Mr. Subramanium also further               E
contended that in the cadre of Junior Engineer, which is the feeder cadre for
promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer, a common seniority list having
been drawn up, the employer cannot only for the purpose of promotion, direct
preparation of two seniority lists and such a direction violates the equality
clause, engrafted in Article 16 of the Constitution. The learned counsel also          F
urged that except in cases where constitution itself provides for a reservation
in favour of a specified group of people, as provided in Article 16(4 ), then:
cannot be a reservation by any other mode and providing a quota in favour
of unqualified Junior Engineers, tantamounts to reservation in their favour,
which is not constitutionally permissible. According to the learned counsel,
prescribing a quota in the promotional cadre itself is discriminatory and the          G
decision of this Court in Murugesan, [ 1993 J 2 SCC 340, will have no application
to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
      Mr. V.A. Bobde, the learned senior counsel, appearing for the Board-
respondent, on the other hand contended that right from the inception of the
Regulations in December, 1973, the diploma holder direct recruits and the              H
    578                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000[ SliPP. 5 S CR.

A   unqualified matriculate Junior Engineers have been treated differently and
    there has all along been a specified percentage of posts in the cadre of
    Assistant Engineer, made available to such qualified matriculate Junior
    Engineers, though such quota has been increased from time to time, depending
    upon the cadre strength and chances of promotion of such unqualified Junior
B   Engineers and this being the position, the said Regulation cannot be struck
    down. According to Mr. Bobde, the Regulation, itself by suitable provisions
    balances the equity amongst the qualified diploma holder Junior Engineers
    and unqualified matriculate Junior Engineers, inasmuch as for a diploma
     holder Junior Engineer, mere seven years of service as Junior Engineer is
     sufficient for consideration of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer.
C   whereas in case of unqualified matriculate Junior Engineers, it is twelve and
     fifteen years of service, that is necessary. The Rule making authority have
     specified this condition notwithstanding the fact that all of them have been
    working as Junior Engineers. According to Mr. Bobde, the Regulation itself
    considers the diploma holder qualified Junior Engineers and matriculate
    unqualified Junior Engineers differently, obviously depending upon their
D   respective qualification and such a differential treatment is permissible and
    does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution, as has been held by this Court
     in Murugesan, [1993] 2 SCC 340 as well as in the case of SN Deshpande v.
    Maharashtra 1.0. Corpn., [1993] (Supp.) 2 SCC 194. Mr. Bobde also urged
    that the direction to have two seniority lists is obviously dependant upon the
E   provisions of separate quota for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer,
    depending upon their basic qualification and the object of such direction is
    to have competition amongst equals and this is permissible under the
    Constitution. According to Mr. Bobde, providing quota for different category
    of persons available in the feeder cadre for promotion to the higher cadre only
    effectuates the guarantee of equal opportunity, enshrined in Article 16(1) and
F   such a provision cannot be held to be reservation, as contemplated under
    Article 16(4). The learned counsel urged that the employer is duty bound to
    see that stagnation at a particular stage is avoided, if possible, which is
    conducive for the Administration and with that point in view, fixing of quotas
    to ensure an efficient service is a matter of policy for the employer to decide
G   and unkss the decision is arbitrary or irrational. cannot be interfered with by
    the Court, and therefore the majority judgment of the tribunal is unassailable.

          Before we examine the correctness of the rival submissions, it would be
    appropriate for us to notice that under the provisions of Electricity (Supply)
    Act, a set of Regulation have been framed called the Himachal Pradesh State
H   Electricity Board Regulation (relating to Recruitment and Promotion to the
K 1-.. lil PTA, .. Hl~AC'llAl. PRADESH STATl' U.ECTRICITY BOARD [PATTANAIK,J;579


post of Junior Engineer) and this Reguiation has been amended from time to          A
time but such amendments are only in altering the percentage 'ilf posts
available to different category of people. The Himachal Pradesh State Electricity
Board has farmed the Regulations in exercise of power conferred under Section
79(c) and Section 15 of the Electricity (Supply) Act called the Recruitment and
Promotion Regulations for the posts of Assistant Engineers and above and            B
the said regulations also have ali along provided a definite percentage of
posts, meant for unqualified Junior Engineers having a specified years of
regular e.ervice. Thus right from inception of the Board, a quota has been fixed
in the cadre of Assistant Eng,neer for the unqualified matriculate Junior
Engineers. The aforesaid history in the formation of service of Engineers
under the electricity Board should be borne in mind while deciding the              C
question of law raised in ·these appeals.

       From the facts asserted and the contentions raised in these appeals,
following questions really arise for our consideration:

        I.   The feeder cadre of Junior Engineers, having been filled up from       D
             two recruitment sources, one by qualified diploma holders by
             way of direct recruitment and the other by unqualified matriculate
             LT.I. Certificate holders by promotion, can there be a separate
             consideration for them in the matter of promotion to the post of
             Assistant Engineer and whether such separate consideration
             violates any constitutional mandate 0                                  E
        2.   Providing a quota in the promotional cadre, whether can be said
             to be a reservation within the meaning of Article 16(4) and as
             such can it be held to be violative of Article 16(4) of the
             Constitution?
                                                                                    F
             Administrative efficiency being the consideration, though it may
             be permissible to have a specified percentage of posts in the
             promotional quota on the basis of educational qualification, as
             held in Murugesun, can it be held to be violative of Articles 14
             and 16, when such a quota is meant for unqualified persons in
             the feeder category?                                             G
       So far as the first question is concerned, it is no doubt true that in
earlier decisions of this Court in Roshun Lui Tundun, [ 1968] I SCR 185 and
Mervyn Cuutindu, [ 1966] 3 SCC 600, this Court has held that once the direct
recruits and promotees were absorbed in one cadre, they form one class and
they could not be discriminated ag,,inst, for the purpose of further promotion      H
     580                      SUPREME COliR I REPORTS [200UJ SlIPP. 5 S.C.R.

A to the higher grade. But this view has not been found favour with in the later
   Consiitution Bench decision in Tri/oki Nath Khusa, [I 974 J I SCC 19. It has
   been laid down in the aforesaid case that even where direct recruits and
   promotees are integrated into a common class, they could, for the purpose
   of promotion to the higher cadre be classified on the basis of educational
B qualification. It was held by this Court in Triluki Nath that classification in
   matters of promotion with academic or technical qualification as basis is a
   matter for legislative determination and such a classification is permissible
   unless it is found to be unjust on the face of it and the onus lies upon the
   party attacking the classification to show by pleadings the necessary material
   before the Court that the said classification is unreasonable and violative of
C Article 16. It is in that context the Court further observed that discrimination
   is the essence of classification and does violence to the constitutional guarantee
   of equality only if it rests on an unreasonable basis and that being the
   position, it would be for the party assailing such classification to establish
  that the classification is unreasonable and bears no rational nexus with its
   purported object. In the absence of furnishing necessary particulars, it must
D be construed that the plea of unlawful discrimination had no basis. In Tri/oki
  Nath, a word of caution has been indicated that the right to classify is hedged
  in with salient restraints. Classification must be truly founded on substantial
  differences which distinguish person grouped together from those left out of
  the group and such differential attributes must bear a just and rational relation
E to the object sought to be achieved and judicial scrutiny extend only to the
  consideration whether the classification rests on a reasonable basis and
  whether it bears nexus with the object in view. It cannot extend to embarking
  upon a nice or mathematical evaluation on the basis of classification. In
   Triluki Nath, the court held that Roshan Lat's case is no authority for the
  proposition that there cannot be a classification for the purpose of promotion
F on a basis other than the one that they were drawn from different sources.
  Tri/oki Nath, thus distinguishes both the earlier decision in Mervyn Coutindo
  and Rohan Lal Tandon. Trilokinath has been followed in Murugesan , where
  this Court held that it would be open for the rule making authority, having
  regard to the efficiency of the administration and otl:er relevant circumstances
G to restrict the chance of promotion of the less qua! ified people in the feeder
  category. In Murugnan, the Court upheld the quota in the :natter of promotion
  in favour of graduate engineers. It may be noticed that in Murugesan. the
  Court over-ruled the earlier decision in the Punjab Stare f,/ectricity Board.
  [1986] 4 SCC 617 distinguished in Abdul Basheer 's case, [ 1989] Supp. 2 SCC
  344. The contention of Mr. Subramanium, is no doubt that there can be a
H classification in favour of the qualified people having regard to the efficiency
        K.K Ul P!/\ v. HIMACHAL PRAIH:Sll STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD [PATTANAIK, J \581

\   ,   of the administration but a classification in the manner of providing a quota          A
        for unqualified people cannot be held to be in the interest of administration
j
        and, therefore, cannot be sustained on the principles of Murugesan. We are
        unable to accept this contention of the learned counsel for the appellants.
        Once a classification is permissible notwithstanding that the feeder category
        is one, when the said classification is challenged being discriminatory, then          B
        unless and until sufficient materials are produced and it is established that
        it is ilnjust on the face of it by the persons assailing the classification, the
        Court would be justified in coming to the conclusion that such plea of
        unlawful discrimination had no basis, as was observed in Triluki Na1h.
        Adjudged from the aforesaid stand point when the pleadings in the case in
        hand are examined, we do not find any materials to sustain the plea of                 C
        discrimination raised by the appellants, who are direct recruits diploma holder
        Junior Engineers. In the case in hand, the Regulations from time to time on
        being examined, unequivocally show that right from the inception, quota has
        been provided for promotion in favour of the unqualified promotee Junior
        Engineers, though the quota has been changed from time to time and while
        providing such quota, the longer experience as Junior Engineer has been the            D
        basis for being eligible for promotion. Providing such a quota in the service
        history right from inception is also a germane consideration for the Court,
        while considering the question of alleged discrimination. That apart when the
         feeder category itself is filled up by direct recruit diploma holders and prom,0tee
        unqualified matriculates and if no quota is provided for such unqualified              E
        matriculates in the promotional cadre of Assistant Engineer then they may
        stagnate at that stage which will not be in the interest of administration. If
        the rule making authority on consideration of such stagnation, provides a
        quota for such unqualified promotee Junior Engineers, the same cannot be
        held to be violative of any constitutional mandate and on the other hand
        would come within the ratio of Murugesan. In our considered opinion, therefore,        F
        there can be a separak consideration for the promotee unqualified matriculate
        Junior Engineers in the matter of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer
        and the impugned Regulation providing a quota for them cannot be held to
        be violative of Article 14.
                                                                                               G
              So far as the second question is concerned, we are unable to persuade
        ourselves to agree with the submission of Mr. Subramanium that providing
        a quota tantamounts to reservation. Article 16 deals with equality of
        opportunity in matters of public employment and Article 16(4) enables the
        State from making any provision for reservCition of appointments or posts in
        favour of any backward class of citizens which in the opinion of the State is          H
    582                       SUPREME COCRT REPORTS (20001 SLIPP. 5 S.C.R.

A   not adequately represented in the services under the State: This Court in
    Indira Sawhney 's case has held that no such reservation is permissible in the
    promotional posts and to get over the said decision Article l6(4A) has been
    inserted by the Constitution (Seventy seventh Amendment) Act. But we fail
    to understand as to how providing a quota for a specified category of
B   personnel in the promotional post can be held to be a reservation within the
    ambit of Article 16(4 ). Providing a quota is not new in the service jurisprudence
    and whenever the feeder category itself consists of different category of
    persons and when they are considered for any promotion, the employer fixes
    a quota for each category so that the promotional cadre would be equi-
    balanced and at the same time each category of persor:s in feeder cate~o11
C   would get the opportunity of being considered for promotion. This is also in
    a sense in the larger interest of the administration when it is the employer,
    who is best suited to decide the percentage of posts in the promotional cadre,
    which can be earmarked for different category of persons. In other words this
    provision actually effectuates the constitutional mandate engrafted in Article
    16( I), as it would offer equality of opportunity in the matters relating to
D   employment and it would not be the monopoly of a specified category of
    persons in the feeder category to get promotions. We, therefore, do not find
    any infraction of the Constitutional provision engrafted in Article 16(4) while
    providing a quota in promotional cadre, as in our view it does not tantamount
    to reservation.
E
           So far as the third question is concerned, if it is permissible to have a
    specified percentage of posts on the basis of educational qualification, as has
    been held by this Court in Murugesan, we really fail to understand, as to why
    employer or the rule making authority would be debarred to allot a specific
    percentage in favour of unqualified matriculate promotee Junior Engineers.
F   The Regulation provides that out of 46% of promotional quota in the cadre
    of Assistant Engineer. 28% will be available for qualified diploma holder
    Junior Engineers and 8% would be for unqualified matriculate Junior Engineers,
    6% meant for A and B passed and 4% for draftsman. According to
    Mr. Subramanium the quota available for A and Band Draftsman could come
G   within the ambit of the decision of this Court '.n Triloki .Vath or Murugesan,
    but not the respondents-unqualified matriculate Junior Engineers in whose
    favour 8% quota has been fixed. We are unable to accept this contention of
    the learned counsel. lt may be noticed at this stage that so far as the
    unqualified Junior Engineers are concerned those of them who possess l.T.l.
    qualification must have twelve years of service in the grade for being eligible
H   for prumotion to the Assistant Engineers and those who are merely matriculates
K K (il :p I.\ v. HI 'vtACHAL PRADESH STA H. ELECTRICITY HOARD [PA TT ANAIK. J J 583


and without LT.I. qualification, must have fifteen years of service in the grade       A
for being eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. These
unqualified Junior Engineers have been brought to the cadre of Junior
Engineers by promotion and in most cases they can maximum aspire to retire
as Assistant Engineers. If the rule making authority considers that the
stagnation at the stage of Junior Engineer will not be conducive for
administration and provides the promotional avenue for them, by providing              B
a quota in the promotional 'cadre and the service history itself indicates that
such provision has been made right from the inception, we see really no
constitutional infraction therein, so as to be interfered with by this Court We,
therefore, do not find any substance in submission of Mr. Subramanium on
this score and in our considered opinion there is no bar for providing a quota         C
in the promotional post, even in favour of unqualified matriculate Junior
Engineers.

       In the aforesaid premises, these appeals fail and are dismissed.

B.S.                                                          Appeals dismissed.       D