Top
Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
Top Stories

Prescription Of Higher Educational Qualification As A Qualification For Promotion Is Not Unconstitutional: Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
18 Jan 2021 2:05 PM GMT
Prescription Of Higher Educational Qualification As A Qualification For Promotion Is Not Unconstitutional: Supreme Court
x

The prescription of a Higher educational qualification as a qualification for promotion to a post cannot be held as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has reiterated.The bench headed by the Chief Justice of India SA Bobde observed thus while setting aside a Judgment of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court which quashed an administrative Order of the ...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
599+GST
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

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

The bench headed by the Chief Justice of India SA Bobde observed thus while setting aside a Judgment of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court which quashed  an administrative Order of the Chief Justice prescribing certain qualifications for promotion to the post of Head Assistant.

One of the reasons for quashing given by the High Court was that all persons working as Senior Assistants constituted a homogenous group and hence there cannot be any differentiation among them on the basis of educational qualifications. Before the Apex Court, the aggrieved parties contended that a classification is permissible on the basis of educational qualifications, even within a homogenous group, for the purpose of promotion to a higher post.

To answer this, the bench, also comprising of Justices AS Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian, referred to a 1968 Constitution Bench Judgment viz. State of Mysore & Anr. vs. P. Narasinga Rao  AIR 1968 SC 349, in which it was observed that Article 16(1) does not bar a reasonable classification of employees or reasonable test for their selection. The court further noted that in Jammu & Kashmir vs. Triloki Nath Khosa (1974) 1 SCC 19, it was held that the Rule providing for graduates to be eligible for promotion to the exclusion of diploma holders is not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Further referring to T.R. Kothandaraman vs. Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board (1994) 6 SCC 282, the bench observed:

"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."

While allowing the appeal, the bench further observed:

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.


CASE: ASHOK KUMAR vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [CIVIL APPEAL NOs.5189­ & 5192 0F 2017] 
CORAM: CJI SA BOBDE, Justices AS Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian
CITATION: LL 2021 SC 23

Click here to Read/Download Judgment

Read Judgment



Next Story
Share it