Krishan Kumar vs Central Administrative Tribunal

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J.—The petitioner was appointed as Laboratory Assistant in the Chemistry Section of the Bureau of Police Research and Development. The petitioner earned his promotion to the post of Scientific Assistant, thereafter next promotion post is the Senior Scientific Assistant. In terms of the Bureau of Police Research and Development (Central Forensic Science Laboratories, Class I and Class II posts) Recruitment Rules, 1974 (for short ''the Rules''), 1/3rd of the posts of said Senior Scientific Assistants are to be filled-in by way of promotion amongst the Scientific Assistants. The essential qualifications, however, described is a degree of science. The petitioner does not possess this essential qualification.

The grievance made by the petitioner is on account of the challenge laid to the validity of Note I of Clause 9 of the said Rules, incorporated by an amendment made on 16.09.1991. In terms of this amendment, Scientific Assistants, who did not possess the essential qualification of degree of Science, are getting an option for promotion, if they have been involved in photography work. Thus, in essence, as per the amendment, the essential qualification is sought to be relaxed on the basis of work experience in a particular field. This, according to the petitioner, is invalid.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner should also be entitled to an opportunity of promotion without the essential degree in science, even if, no photography work has been done. It is his submission that such kind of rule amounts to creation of a class within a class and relies upon the observations of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in State of Mysore Vs. M.H. Krishna Murthy and Others, , to the following effect:

The question which remains for consideration by us is the one relating to the validity of a division into two classes of members of the same service, belonging to the same cadres, for purposes of a difference to be made in their promotional chances. Learned Counsel for the State has sought to justify this difference in promotional chances by a reference to differences in the historical backgrounds and to the practice of making the distinction in promotional chances. The Mysore High Court had very rightly observed that neither a fortuitous artificial division in the past nor the unconstitutional practice of making an unjustifiable discrimination in promotional chances of Government servants belonging to what was really a single category, without any reference either to merit or seniority, or educational qualifications, could justify the differences in promotional chances.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the promotional avenue is being given to a single category without any reference either to merit or seniority or educational qualifications.

We are of the view that the petitioner cannot claim any right to promotion on account of his ineligibility arising from not having obtained degree in science, which is an essential qualification. Thus, the petitioner cannot claim parity for relaxation. However, the next question which arises is whether such a relaxation can at all be granted as it is the case of the petitioner that if he is not to be granted promotion then someone else, on the basis of experience and photography cannot be granted promotion. He submits that someone was promoted on account of this amendment.

Firstly, the petitioner has not made any such person promoted under the said category as a party. The relief in such a case would be disqualification of that person from promotion and not that petitioner is liable to be promoted. Secondly, what is sought to be done is really to give weightage to a particular nature of work experience for the purposes of relaxation, which in the wisdom of the respondent-authorities who have made the rule, ought to be so granted for promotion to the post of a Senior Assistant. The absence of the science degree would be made up by reason of such work experience. In fact, on one hand, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to urge that there is really no such photography work being done and thus no one would be eligible, while, on the other hand, he submits that someone has been promoted. The plea of lack of posts for somebody with photography experience is not a matter in issue but whether relaxation of an essential qualification in promotion can be shown on equalisation of certain nature of work experience to satisfy the requirements of the respondents. This would, naturally, have to be determined on the basis of what is the nature of experience of photography and whether such an experience was at all obtained. We are not further proceeding in this direction because there is complete absence of material placed by the petitioner before us in this behalf as to against whom the allegation is being made of promotion, who was sought to be promoted on account of the amended rules, what work had he done and how he did not possess the experience in photography.

We are, thus, of the view that it is not a fit case for exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Dismissed.