Holding

The 1:1 promotion ratio based on SSLC qualification is reasonable and does not violate Article 16, so the impugned judgment is set aside.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined whether a rule prescribing a 1:1 ratio for promotion of Excise Guards to Excise Preventive Officer, based on possession of the Secondary School Leaving Certificate (SSLC), violated Article 16 of the Constitution. The Court reiterated that higher educational qualifications can be a permissible basis of classification, provided the restriction is reasonable and does not seriously jeopardise promotion prospects. It held that the 1:1 ratio merely postpones, not denies, promotion and therefore is reasonable. The earlier decision in Abdul Basheer v. K.K. Karunakaran was distinguished because the historical requirement for SSLC qualification in Kerala was clear. Consequently, the Kerala High Court’s judgment and the subsequent government orders were set aside and the appeals/writ petitions were allowed.

Issues considered

Whether a 1:1 promotion ratio based on SSLC qualification infringes Article 16 of the Constitution.
Whether educational qualification can be a valid basis for classification in service promotions.
Whether the ratio amounts to denial of promotion or merely postponement.
Whether the precedent set in Abdul Basheer v. K.K. Karunakaran applies to the present case.

Legislation cited

Subjects

Service lawPromotionEducational qualificationArticle 16EqualityRatioExciseKeralaConstitutional law

Judgment

A P.A. CHANDRAN AND ORS.
v
SOARD OF REVENUE (EXCISE) AND ORS.

OCTOBER 24, 1994

B [KULDIP SINGH, B.L. HANSARIA AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.]

Service Law-Promotion to post of Excise Preventive Officer from Ex-
cise Guards-/'rescription of ratio of 1:1 between those who possess Secondary
School Leaving Ce1tificate and those who did not possess this qualifica-
C tion-fVheOier constitutionally infinn---Held, No.

In this case, the point for determination was whether the prescrip-
tion of ratio of 1:1 for promotion to the post of Excise Preventive Officer
from Excise Guards as between those who possess the qualification of
S.S.L.C. (Secondary School Leaving Certificate) and those who did not
D possess that qualification, was constitutionally infirm. The Kerala High
Court having answered the question in the affirmative the State of Kerala
accepted the judgment and issued certain Government orders pursuant
thereto. Tbe$e appeals/writ petitions had been filed challenging the judg-
ment of Kerala High Court. The non-S.S.L.C. Excise Guards contended in
E snpport of !lie impugned judgment that the Supreme Court having held in
Abdul Basheer v. KK Kanmakaran, (1989] 3 SCR 201 that providing of
ratio of 1:3 for graduates and non-graduates for promotion from the posts
of Excise Preventive Officers to Second Grade Excise Inspectors was
discriminatory, the same had to be held regarding the ratio at hand.

F Another contention raised by the respondents was that after 7 years
of service experience, the non-S.S.L.C. Excise Guards came at par with
those Excise Guards who had S.S.L.C. as their educational qualiJication
and had rendered 3 years of service. It was submitted that the denial of
the posts of Excise Preventive Officers to those non S.S.L.C. Excise Guards
G who after serving 7 years had become eligible for promotion to the posts
of Excise Preventive Officers would be permissible.

Allowing the appeals/writ petitions, this Court

HELQ: 1.1. As to when educational qualification can form the basis
H of qualification was examined by the Supreme Court in T.R. Kothan-
702
P.A CHANDRAN v. BOARD OF REVNUE [HANSARIA, J.] 703

daraman v. Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, decided on A
13-9·1994. In that judgment, ratio of even 1:3 was upheld on the fact
situation of some cases. Here the ratio being 1:1, the same had to be
regarded as reasonable. (704-C, Fl

T.R. Kothandaraman v. Tamil Nadu Water Supply & Drainage Board,
(1994] Suppl. 4 SCR, relied on. B

1.2. What the laying down of ratio does is postponement of the
chances of promotion and the denial of promotion as such. By providing
the ratio of 1:1 the rule really gives the two categories equal opportunity,
though the effect is that some non S.S.L.C. Excise Guards, even if they are C
senior to S.S.L.C. Excise Guards, may get not promoted to the higher post
later, if the post to fall vacant be one meant for S.S.L.C. qualified Excise
Guards. The senior most non S.S.L.C. Excise Guards, would, in such an
eventuality, be promoted to the next vacany as that would be meant for
such an incumbent. Thus the chance of promotion of non-S.S.L.C. Excise
Guards gets only deferred and not denied. It is settled law.that promotion D
cannot be claimed with the aid of Article 16 inasmuch as no incumbent
has a right to be promoted and it is because of this a chance of promotion
has not been regarded as incompassed within the right visualised by
Article 16. (706-A-C]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6962 of E
1994 etc. etc.

From the Judgment and Order dated 24.7.87 of the Kerala High
Court in O.P. No. 1828 of 1981-G.

G. Viswanatha Iyer, P.P. Rao, Sundervardhan, G.L. Sanghi, C.
F
Seetharamiah, AS. Narnbiar, R.F. Nariman and P.S. Poti, N. Sudhakaran,
A. Jayaram, R. Sasiprabhu, O.V. Radhakrishnan, K.M.K. Nair, R.N. Kesh-
wani, Mrs. Shanta Vasudevan, P.K. Mahohar, E.M.S. Anam, T.T. Kun-
"\ . hikannan, Ms. Malini Poduval, V.J. Francis and C.V. Rappai for the
Appearing Parties. G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

HANSARIA, J. In these appeals, writ petitions and Special Leave
Petitions, in which we grant leave, the point for determination is whether
the prescription of ratio of 1: 1 for promotion to the post of Excise H
704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A Preventive Officer from Excise Guard as between those who possess the
qualification Of S.S.L.C. (Secondary School Leaving Certificate) and those
who do not possess this qualification, is constitutionally infirm. The Kerala
High Court having held so and the State of Kerala having accepted the
Judgment and having issued certain Government Orders pursuant thereto,
these appeals/writ petitions have been filed under Article 136 of the
B Constitution pf lµdia.

2. As tp when educational qualification can form the basis of clas-
sification in the matter like one at hand was examined recently in detail by
two of us (Kuldip Singh and Hansaria, JJ.) in Writ Petition (C) NO. 3736
C of 1982 and 4onnected matters (T.R. Kothandaraman v. Tamil Nadu Water
Supply & Drainage Board), judgment in which was rendered on 13th
September, 1994. The bench laid down following legal propositions in this
regard, after noting earlier important decisions on this point, in para 16
of the judgment : .

D "(1) Higher educational qualification is a permissible basis of
classification, acceptability of which will depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case.

(2) High educational qualification can be the basis not only for
E barring promotion, but also for restricting the scope of promotion.

(3) Restriction placed cannot however go to the extent of seriously
jeopardising the chances of promotion. To decide this, the extent
of restriction shall have also to be looked into to ascertain whether
it is reasonable. Reasons for this are being indicated later.'
F
3. In the aforesaid judgment, ratio of even 1:3 was upheld on the fact
- situation of some cases. Here the ratio being 1:1, the same has to be
regarded as reasonable. The learned counsel appearing for non-S.S.L.C.
Excise Guards, however, contend, in support of the impugned judgment, ·r
that this Cc;mrt having held in Abdul Basheer v. KK Karunakaran, [1989] 3
G SCR 201 that providing of ratio of 1:3 for graduates and non graduates for
promotion from the posts of Excise Preventive Officers to Second Grade
· Excise Inspectors is discriminatory, the same has to be held regarding the
ratio at hand.

H 4. As to the aforesaid contention we would state that in Abdul
PA CHANDRAN v. BOARD OFREVNUE [HANSARIA, J.] 705

Basheer's case this Court regarded the ratio in question as discriminatory A
as the history did not point out if the two categories of incumbents were
treated differently, as has been pointed out in para 7 of the judgment in
Kothandaraman (supra). The decision in Abdul Basheer's case cannot,
however, assist the non-S.S.L.C. Excise Guards because there are material
on record in the present cases to show that ever since the Kerala State was B
formed (1.11.1956), the Excise Preventive Officers were required to have
educational qualification similar to that of S.S.L.C. This would be apparent
from the fact that after the formation of the State, by issuing executive
orders it was prescribed that for promotion to the cadre of Excise preven·
live Officers the incumbents must have the minimum educational qualifica·
lion of E.S.L.C. or S.S.L.C. This had been done by G.O. dated 23.8.1957, C
a copy of which is at Annexure A-4 to the appeal arising out of SLP(C)
No. 12398 of 1987. Thereafter G.O. dated 14.8.1959 (Annexure A-5) was
issued in which also the minimum educational qualification for promotion
of Excise Guards to the cadre of Preventive Officer was mentioned as
E.S.L.C. or S.S.L.C. then came G.O. of 2.3.1965 (Annexure A-6) which D
provided the ratio of 1:1 between Excise Guards possessing S.S.L.C.
qualification with minimum service of 3 years and non-S.S.L.C. Excise
Guards with minimum service of 15 years. There is still another order dated
29.2.1968 as at Annexnre A-7 which is by and large to the same effect.
Thereafter came to be framed the statutory rules at hand named as Special
Rules for the Kerala Excise and Prohibition Subordinate Service, in which, E
while maintaining the ratio as earlier, the experience qualification was
reduced to 7 years in so far as non-S.S.L.C. Excise Guards are concerned.

5. This shows that historically the post of Excise Preventive Officer
was required to be manned by Excise Guards having the minimum F
qualification of S.S.L.C. It is because of this that Abdul Basheer's case
cannot be called in aid by the non-S.S.L.C. Excise Guards inasmuch as
there history did not point out to different treatment being given to the two
categories, whereas the position is different here.

\ . 6. We may deal with still another contention which has been ad· G
vanced by Shri Sanghi appearing for some of the respondents · the same
being that after 7 years of service experience, the non- S.S.L.C. Excise
Guards come at par with those Excise Guards who have S.S.L.C. as their
educational qualification and have rendered 3 years of service. According
to the learned counsel, the denial of the posts of Excise Preventive Officers H
706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A to those non•S.S.L.C. Excise Guards who after serving 7 years have become
eligible for l)romotion to the posts of Excise Preventive Officers would not
be permissi~le. We are not impressed with this submission because what
the laying down of ratio does is postponement of the chances of promotion
and not the denial of promotion as such. By providing the ratio of 1:1 the
rule really gives the two categories equal opportunity , though the effect
B is that some non-S.S.L.C. Excise Guards, even if they are senior lo S.S.L.C.
Excise Guards, may get promoted to the higher post later, if the post to
fall vacant be one meant for S.S.L.C. qualified Excise Guards. The senior
most non-S.S.L.C. Excise Guards would, in such an eventuality, be
promoted to the next vacancy as that would be meant for such an incum-
C bent. Thus the chance of promotion of non-S.S.L.C. Excise Guards gets
only deferred and not denied. It is a settled law that promotion cannot be
claimed with the aid of Article 16 inasmuch as no incumbent has a right
to be promoted and it is because of this a chance of promotion has not been
regarded as incompassed within the right visualised by Article 16.

D 7. Though a submission had been made that educational qualification
could not form the basis of classification in the Service before us, we cannot
concede, as, this was not even the case of non-S.S.L.C. Excise incumbents
before the High Court, and rightly so.

E 8. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned judgment as the
same is against the recent decision of this Cour.t in Kothandaraman's case.
The G.Os, issued by the State of Kerala pursuant to the High Court's
aforesaid j~dgment cannot also, therefore, stand and so these too are set
aside.

F 9. The appeals/writ petitions are allowed accordingly. In the facts and
circurnsta11ees of the case we make no order as to costs.

IA. Nos. 11-13 in CA. Nos. 1912-14/90.

G In view of the disposal of the appeals by the aforesaid judgment, no
order is n,ecessary in these applications, which stand disposed of. • I

A.G. Petitions disposed of.