Case Title:
M.S. RAMESH & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS
Date of Order:
11th January 2024
Bench:
Justice J.K. Maheswari, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
Parties:
Appellants: M.S. Ramesh & Ors.
Respondents: State Of Karnataka & Ors.
Important Provisions
Article 14: The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.
Subject:
The present appeals are based on a similar impugned ruling that the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka (Bengaluru Bench) made in response to several Writ Petitions on June 19, 2012. This decree contested the previous ruling made on October 24, 2008, by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (henceforth referred to as the "Tribunal").
Facts
In response to a ruling issued by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka (Bengaluru Bench) on June 19, 2012, appeals were lodged. The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (referred to as the "Tribunal") had previously issued a ruling on October 24, 2008, which was subsequently confirmed by this ruling.
The "Karnataka Employment Training Service (Craftsman & Apprenticeship Training) (Recruitment) Rules, 1998" (referred to as the "1998 Rules") have been declared invalid by the Tribunal in certain sections. In particular, the provisions that pertain to the promotion of employees with a degree in Engineering and three years of experience in the cadre of Training Officers and lower cadres through transfer have been nullified.
The aforementioned promotion was applicable to the positions of Assistant Directors, Assistant Apprenticeship Advisors, Vice Principals, and Principals Grade-II, which are known as "promotional categories." The 1998 Rules mandated that qualified individuals must be transferred to occupy 33 1/3% of the total vacancies for these promotional positions.
The "Karnataka Employment & Training Service (Craftsman & Apprenticeship Training) (Recruitment) Rules, 1985" (hereinafter referred to as the "1985 Rules") governed the promotions prior to the implementation of the 1998 Rules.
The 1998 Rules replaced the 1985 Rules, introducing modifications that sparked controversy, particularly the reclassification of certain positions, such as Group Instructors, as Training Officers. In addition, the 1998 Rules mandated that personnel in the newly established classification of Training Officers and below were eligible for advancement, provided that they possessed an Engineering degree.
The respondents disputed the constitutionality of these clauses in their capacity as Training Officers under the 1998 Rules. Their argument was that the new regulations would have a negative impact on their seniority, as they would enable personnel with an Engineering degree and three years of experience, who were at a lower rank than the responders, to be promptly promoted to the promotional positions. They asserted that this would enable their subordinates to surpass them in rank, despite their extended tenure.
Appellant’s Argument
The appellants, which included the State Government and the workers who benefited from the 1998 Rules, argued that the regulations were indeed justified in their implementation.
They asserted that the service's expedited advancement was validated by the increased technical proficiency of Engineering graduates. The appellants stated that the goal of this promotion scheme was to improve the efficacy and effectiveness of the service by ensuring that technically qualified experts held crucial positions.
Furthermore, they held that categorizing based on educational qualifications was legally permitted since it was intended to accomplish a legitimate goal of enhancing service delivery.
In addition, the appellants argued that the 1998 Rules did not completely forbid the promotion of diploma holders. Instead, they argued that the Rules simply established a fresh route for progress, acknowledging the exceptional qualifications of Engineering graduates.
They argued that this approach aligned with the Supreme Court's rulings in the Triloki Nath Khosa case, which allowed for categorization based on academic qualifications
Respondent’s Argument
The respondents claimed that the 1998 Rules, which permitted professionals in the Junior Training Officers and Assistant Training Officers categories to advance to higher salary levels upon only the basis of their engineering degree, were unfair . They also claimed that it violated their rights as stipulated in Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution.
The argument was that this provision resulted in a situation in which individuals in lower ranks, who had significantly less experience, could be promptly promoted to the position of Principal Grade-II, circumventing the necessary intermediary levels.
In addition, the respondents reported that the implementation of these regulations had a negative impact on their chances of advancement. This was due to the fact that the percentage of job openings that were to be filled by promotion decreased from 50% in accordance with the 1985 Rules to 33 1/3% pursuant to the 1998 Rules.
The decrease, they claimed, unfairly diminished their opportunities for professional advancement. The authors also contended that the categorization based on school credentials, which allowed Engineering graduates to circumvent more experienced and senior staff, was capricious and lacked a rational connection with the objective of maintaining service efficiency.
Court’s Analysis
The court at the onset analysed the Tribunal's October 24, 2008 decision which founded the 1998 Rules' provisions, which permitted people to move from lower levels purely on the basis of their Engineering degrees, to be arbitrary and prejudiced.
The Tribunal found that this strategy resulted in less experienced workers being promoted over their superiors, which violated the values of impartiality and equality guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The Tribunal's verdict was upheld by the High Court in its June 19, 2012 ruling. The Court noted that the 1998 Rules introduced an irregularity by allowing personnel to advance directly from lower ranks without being required to serve in the immediate hierarchy.
As a result, the Court observed that this resulted in a situation in which certain employees were promoted twice or three times, which was deemed both unjustifiable and unreasonable.
The Court emphasized that, although educational credentials may serve as a basis for categorization, they are insufficient to override the established seniority and stratification within the service.
The High Court, in accordance with the 1998 Rules, observed that the respondents, who had served in the relevant cadres for extended periods, were adversely affected by the decrease in the proportion of vacancies available for promotion from 50% to 33 1/3%.
The Court held that the expedited promotion of subordinate officers, which was exclusively based on their educational qualifications, was not logically related to the objective of ensuring the efficacy of the service.
Therefore, the Court concluded that the aforementioned clauses were in violation of the constitution and upheld the Tribunal's decision to invalidate them.
