Supreme Court: Prescription of a higher education as a qualification for promotion, not unconstitutional

Supreme Court: Prescription of a higher education as a qualification for promotion, not unconstitutional

The Supreme Court has reiterated that the prescription of a higher educational qualification as a qualification for promotion to a post cannot be held to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution.

A bench of the Supreme Court headed by the Chief Justice S.A. Bobde and consisting of Justices A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian was hearing an appeal from a judgment that was passed by the Jammu and Kashmir High Court quashing an Administrative Order of the Chief Justice prescribing certain qualifications for promotion to the post of Head Assistant.

The Court relied upon the case of T.R. Kothandaraman vs. Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board (1994) 6 SCC 282, where the legal position in this regard was summarised as follows: (i) Higher educational qualification is a permissible basis of classification, acceptability of which will depend on the facts and circumstances; (ii) Higher educational qualification can be the basis not only for barring promotion, but also for restricting the scope of promotion; (iii) restriction placed cannot however go to the extent of seriously jeopardising the chances of promotion.

The Court observed that, "As pointed out in T.R.Kothandaraman (supra), the Court shall have to be conscious about the need for maintaining efficiency in service, while judging the validity of the classification. Though the High Court took note of these decisions, the High Court fell into an error in thinking that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court could not establish the necessity for higher qualification for the efficient discharge of the functions of higher posts. It is apparent from the facts and circumstances of the case that the non graduates have had opportunities to qualify themselves, which they have also done. Therefore, the prescription of graduation as a qualification for promotion to the post of Head Assistant cannot be held as violative of Articles 14 and 16."

The Court concluded that in view of the fact that the contesting respondents have been working in the post of Head Assistants for quite some time and have also acquired the necessary qualifications, they need not be reverted at this stage. Further, the Court held that the seniority of the contesting respondents will be decided not on the basis of the date of their promotion but on the basis of the date of their acquiring the qualification while occupying the promoted posts.