Full Judgment
1. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners, who are working as Senior Purchase Officers in the 1st respondent's office at Hyderabad. The petitioners are Non-Engineering Graduates. They were originally appointed in the Purchase Department and promoted from time to time. The next promotion post to the petitioners is the Purchase Manager. The 1st respondent-Corporation has got a promotional policy. In case of Engineering Graduates the requirement to get promotion is five years' service as Senior Purchase Officer, whereas for the non-engineering graduate Senior Purchase Officers the requirement is five years' service plus Post Graduation Degree. Apart from the petitioners, who are non-engineering graduates, there are also Engineering Graduates, working in the Purchase Department. They were recruited directly to the post of the Purchase Officer (Trainees). The functions performed in the Purchaser Department by the Petitioners as well as the Engineering Graduates are one and the same. As such, there cannot be, according to the learned counsel, any differentiation between the same category of employees in the matter of promotion. Earlier also the 1st respondent-Corporation had a rule fixing seven years' experience to the Non-Engineering Graduates and five years' experience to the Engineering Graduates for promotion to the post of Senior Purchase Officer. That rule was challenged in this Court in W.P. No. 6265/82 as discriminatory. This Court by its judgment dated April 9, 1987 directed the 1st respondent-Corporation to promote the non-Engineering Graduates on par with the Engineering Graduates without insisting on the formality of putting in a minimum service of seven years' in the lower grade, and struck down that rule of the 1st respondent-Corporation. Further the petitioners were also directed to be given the benefit of promotion with retrospective effect from the date they became eligible for being promoted. The appeal filed by the Corporation was admitted but no stay was granted. Thus, the Non-Engineering Graduates were promoted without insisting on the formality of putting in seven years' service in the lower grade. Now, when the petitioners' further promotion to the post of Purchase Manager is due, the 1st respondent-Corporation has once again declined to promote them on the ground that they do not possess the qualification of Post Graduation, which according to the petitioners, is discriminatory, arbitrary and has no nexus to the nature of duties to be performed. The petitioners further submit that the said rule is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and is, therefore, liable to be struck down and consequently the petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to promote them as Purchaser Managers without insisting on the formality of Post Graduation Qualification.
2. The 1st respondent-Corporation filed a counter contending, inter alia, that it is open to the Corporation to prescribe educational qualifications for various posts, depending upon the exigencies and the requirements of the concerned posts. The requirement of the qualification, viz., Post-Graduation, for promotion to the post of Purchaser Manager from the post of Senior Purchase Officer is prescribed by the Corporation in the best interest of the Corporation to have able persons. Therefore, the same is not in violation of any rule or regulation. The petitioners cannot question the power of the Management in prescribing the Post Graduation qualification for promotion to the post of Purchase Manager. The qualification for the post of Purchase Manager is a degree in B.E., or its equivalent or any Post Graduation in any Non-Engineering Faculties. The Corporation deals in manufacture of highly technical equipment of sophisticated nature in electronic goods. So, the petitioners herein cannot compare themselves to be equivalent with the persons possessing B.E., degree or its equivalent qualification. The knowledge of Engineering Graduates about the subject and the goods manufactured by the 1st respondent-Corporation is superior than the knowledge of Non-Engineering Graduates. The judgment referred to in W.P. No. 6265/82 dated April 9, 1987 has no application to the facts of this case. This Court had only dealt with the length of the service for promotion by the Engineering Graduates and Non-Engineering Graduates in the earlier Writ Petition, whereas, the present case deals with the prescription of higher educational qualification for the next promotion. In another W.P. No. 15438/86 this Court upheld the Corporation's contention that the requirement of A.M.I.E., degree for promotion is quite proper. The Corporation, therefore, is perfectly justified in insisting on the Post Graduation qualification for Non-Engineering Graduates for purposes of promotion to the Post of Purchase Manager and that it is neither violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India nor arbitrary. Promotion is not a matter of fundamental right. No doubt, consideration for promotion is a right available to the petitioners, subject again to the satisfaction of the qualifications. Accordingly, the counter seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition.
3. A reply affidavit is filed by the petitioners stating therein that the allegations made in counter-affidavit which are not admitted, are not correct. There cannot be any classification between Engineering and Non-Engineering Graduates for promotion to the post of Purchase Manager from the post of Senior Purchase Officer. The facts in W.P. No. 15430/86 are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case the requirement of B.E./A.M.I.E. was upheld by the Court since those qualifications are directly related to the promotional posts of Senior Technical Officer. In the present case the insistence on Post Graduation Qualification has got no relevance. It is further stated that the 1st respondent-Corporation has been adopting different standards for different people in the matter of promotion to suit their convenience. It is stated that the 6th Petitioner, R. Bhaskaran, has been working from the beginning in the Purchase Department along with other petitioners and he is a Diploma Holder. He has been promoted as a Purchase Manager by order dt. October 14, 1991, after filing the Writ Petition. He is neither an Engineering Graduate nor has a Post Graduate qualification. Similarly some three or four persons also have been promoted, who are neither Engineering Graduates nor Post Graduates in non-engineering faculties. Thus, the Corporation itself is not following the said rule invariably and promoting the non-engineering graduates if it so chooses without insisting on Post Graduation qualification. Therefore, the impugned rule prescribing Post Graduation qualification for consideration for promotion to the post of Purchase Manager, is arbitrary, illegal and against the principle enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and is liable to be struck down.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that while allowing W.P. No. 6265/82 filed by the petitioner, this Court held that since the duties and services rendered by Engineering Graduates and Non-Engineering Graduates, who are directly appointed are alike, they are in no way different. It further held that the rule requiring seven years' service in the case of Non-Engineering Graduates to become eligible for promotion is discriminatory when the rule governing promotion for Engineering Graduates requires only five years' service. This Court also held that the petitioners, who are Non-Engineering Graduates, are eligible to get promotion as Senior Purchase Officers from their lower category, without insisting on seven years' service but merely on completion of five years' service. Thus, it is evident from the above judgment that the petitioners, who are non-engineering graduates, and other Engineering Graduates working as Senior Purchase Officers, are of one category and discharging the same duties. Therefore, the further qualification of Post Graduation for promotion to the post of Purchase Manager by Non-Engineering Graduates is discriminatory.
5. No doubt, the Management or Employer can have its own policy in matters of promotion and seeking promotion is not a fundamental right. That, however, does not mean that the promotional policy need not have any nexus to the post to which promotions are to be made. It is a well established principle that qualification, on which the employer insists, for consideration for promotion must have nexus to the post, to which the employee is to be promoted or the duties which he is going to discharge. In the present case, though the petitioners are non-Engineering Graduates, they are discharging similar duties equally with Engineering Graduates in the post of Senior Purchase Officer and also in the immediate lower category post. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners are, in any way, inferior in efficiency or in discharging duties as against the Engineering Graduates.
6. As already stated above, the employer can always prescribe the qualifications required for promotions. In the present case, Engineering Graduates and the Petitioners, who are Non-Engineering Graduates, are working as Purchase Officers since a long time and discharging the same duties. Further, the post, to which the petitioners and Engineering Graduates have to be promoted, does not require any further Engineering qualifications, nor does it say that to discharge the duties in the said post, only Engineering Graduates are eligible to be promoted. It is also to be noticed that by acquiring Post-Graduate qualification in any faculty, the petitioners, who are non-Engineering Graduates, are entitled to be considered for promotion. For example, the Post-Graduate qualification in Arabbi, Urdu or Telugu can by no stretch of imagination be said to have any nexus to the discharge of duties as Manager in the Purchase Department. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Post graduate qualification has any nexus to the duties to be discharged by the Purchase Manager, the next higher post.
7. The Supreme Court, in the State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa 1974 - I - LLJ - 121 while considering the requirement of Engineering Degree for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer from Asst. Engineer, held that the Degree in Engineering has no nexus to the post to which promotion is sought for by the Asst. Engineer. It is held (pp. 130-131) :
'But then Mr. Setalvad contends that if the nature of duties and responsibilities of the post of Executive Engineer has undergone no significant change, there would be no justification for restricting the field of choice to graduates. Talent and efficiency could be found in the ranks of diploma holders in an equal measure and it is urged that rather than display a mere fancy for graduates and restrict its choice, the State should have in the interest of an efficient service, laid the promotional chances open to both the ranks on the basis of talent, experience and efficiency.'
Further held 'Classification, however, is fraught with the danger that it may produce artificial inequalities ..... Classification therefore, must be truly founded on substantial differences which distinguished persons grouped together from thus left out of the group and such differential attributes must bear a just and rational relation to the object sought to be achieved.'
8. In Union of India v. Dr. (Mrs.) S. B. Kohli : [1973]3SCR117 it was held that the higher qualification of F.R.C.S. in Orthopedics was fixed for promotion to the post of Professor in Orthopaedics Surgery and the fixation of the said qualification was upheld by observing that it is not an unreasonable principle, because the same has got a nexus to the duties to be discharged.
9. In Sri. R. Sadasivan v. State of Kerala 1987 (2) Lab. I.C. 1143 the question that arose was, whether preference can be given to the degree-holder over diploma-holder. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it was held that the degree-holder can be preferred to the diploma holder as he has got higher qualification. The same view was taken in Sri D. S. Nakara v. Union of India 1983 - I - LLJ - 104.
10. In Sri. R. S. Dass v. Union of India AIR-
1987 S.C. 593, the Supreme Court was dealing with cases of promotion on the sole basis of merit and that has, therefore, no relevance to cases of prescription of qualifications for purpose of eligibility for promotion.
11. The same view was taken in State Bank of India v. Mohd. Mynuddin 1988 - I - LLJ - 142.
12. The above judgments of the Supreme Court lay down that the qualifications prescribed should have nexus to the duties to be discharged in the concerned post. In the present case, the qualification prescribed is Post Graduation in any faculty. The said prescription of Post-Graduate qualification to the post of Purchase Manager cannot be said to have any nexus to the duties to be performed in that post. On the other hand, the Engineering Graduates, who are discharging the same duties as those of the petitioners, are not required to possess any such qualification in Post Graduation. Thus, there is any amount of discrimination between the two. The rule is therefore not only discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, but is also arbitrary in its prescription.
13. The petitioners submit that some of the non-Engineering Graduates, viz., S. K. Tandon, B.Sc., Dilip Kumar, B.Sc., C. S. Rao, B.Sc., Chary, P. K. B. Mani, Misra, and T. N. Swamy, B.Sc., though not qualified in Post Graduation have been promoted as Managers. Thus, the respondents have themselves observed the rule in its violation while promoting the non-Engineering Graduates to the post of Purchase Manager. It is also clear as held supra that the requirement of Post Graduate qualification for promotion as Purchase Manager has no nexus to the duties to be discharged in the post of General Manager (Purchases) and the same is accordingly discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India besides being arbitrary.
14. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed by declaring the promotional policy insisting upon the qualification in Post Graduation in regard to non-Engineering Senior Purchase Officers for promotion to the post of Purchase Manager as arbitrary and discriminatory offending Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India besides suffering from the vice of nexus. The respondents are also directed to consider the cases of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Purchase Managers from the dates on which they became eligible and vacancies arose.
15. No order as to costs.