ivil Appeal Nos896 to 899 of 1988 and Civil Appeal No 3352 of 1988
From the Judgment and Order dated 291987 of the Delhi High Court in CWP No 21312082 of 1984 respectively
PG NO 257 G Ramaswami Additional Solicitor General RK Jain PP Rao MS Gujaral section Rangarajan AK Sanghi Mrs Madhu Kapur Arun Kr
Vijayesh Roy Sanjay Kr
Kaul Sardar Bahadur VB Saharaya RK Khanna Vishnu Mathur Ashok Aggarwal RN Keswani and RS Sodhi for the appearing parties
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATACHALIAH J
These four Civil Appeals by Special Leave and the Special Leave Petition arise out of and are directed against the common Judgment dated 291987 of the High Court of Delhi in CWP No 2132 and CWP No 2082 of 1984 in which the principal controversy was whether the Rules prescribing different conditions of eligibility for Diploma Holders and Graduates for promotion from the cadre of Junior Engineers to that of Assistant Engineers and from the cadre of Assistant Engineers to that of Executive Engineers in the Public Works Department of the Delhi Development Authority DDA is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and would therefore require to be declared void
The High Court in the writ petitions filed by the Diploma Holders has held that such differential treatment of Diploma Holders and Graduates by the prescription of different standards of service experience for purposes of eligibility for promotion to the higher cadres is unconstitutional
The DDA which is the appellant in Civil Appeals No898 of 1988 and No 899 of 1988 assails the correctness of the view taken by the High Court
Civil Appeals No 896 of 1988 and 897 of 1988 are by the Graduate Engineers who were respondents before the High Court and who are similarly aggrieved by the decision under appeal SLP 6181 of 1988 is by the DDA Graduate Engineers Association which seeks to espouse the cause of the Graduate Engineers
We grant Special Leave in SLP
All the five appeals are heard and disposed of by this common judgment
PG NO 258 CA899 of of 1988 and SLP 6181 arise out of CWP 2132 of of of 1988 arise out of CWP 2082 of 1984
The DDA by its resolution No 574 dated 13111963 adopted pro tanto the rules of the Central Public Works Department CPWD in regard to the mode of recruitment both by direct recruitment and by promotion to the posts of Asst
Engineers
The rules so adopted in substance stipulate and provide that 50 of the posts be filled by direct recruitment or by deputation and that the other 50 be filled up by promotion from the cadre of Junior Engineers
The cadre of Junior Engineers itself comprises of both Graduates in Engineering and Diploma Holders in Engineering
The two categories of officers in the cadre of Junior Engineers were provided with promotional opportunities to the post of Asst
Engineers in the equal ratio 5050 of the promotional posts
Half of it ie 25 was to be filled up by promotion of Graduate Engineers with three years  service experience as Junior Engineers the other 25 to be filled up from Diploma Holder Junior Engineers who were diploma holders who had 8 years  service experience as Junior Engineers
By resolution No 105 dated 1661971 the DDA similarly adopted the relevant rules in the CPWD in the matter of recruitment to the posts of Executive Engineers
The Executive Engineers  post in the DDA thus became purely promotional and Graduate Asst
Engineers with 8 years  service experience and diploma Asst
Engineers with 10 years  service experience were eligible for promotion
No inter se quota between the two class of officers was prescribed
The following table delineates the effect and purport of the rules adopted under resolution No 574 dated 13111963 and No 105 dated 1661971
The table also indicates the mode of initial recruitment to the cadre of Junior Engineers PG NO 259 EXECUTIVE ENGINEERS By promotion Asst
Engrs  Asst
Engrs  Degree  Diploma 8 years 10 years service service ASSISTANT ENGINEERS Graduates and Dimploma holders 50by promotion 50By Direct recruitment 25 25 Jr Enger
Degree Diploma 3 yrs
 8 years service service JUNIOR ENGINEERS Sectional Officers Direct recruitment Graduates in Diploma Engineering holders No prior with 2 experience years Prescribed experience In the years 1984 the Diploma Holder in the cadre of Junior Engineers and in he cadre of Asst
Engineers sought to assail by means of two writ petitions presented to the Delhi High Court the Constitutional validity of the prescriptions made by the rules in the matter of requirement of differential service experiences between the Graduates and Diploma Holders for promotion to the higher cadres viz of Asst
Engineers and Executive Engineers respectively
They also assailed the promotions of Graduate Engineers to the higher cadres made on the strength of the Rules
2132 of 1984 pertained to the resolution No 574 dated 13111963 adopting the relevant CPWD Rules prescribing 3 years  and 8 years  service experience for Graduates and Diploma Holders respectively and the discrimination thus brought about between them
CWP No 2082 of 1984 pertained to the contitutionality of the analogous provisions in the rules adopted by resolution No 105 dated 1661971
PG NO 260 The High Court heard these two petitions together and by its common judgment dated 291987 upheld the challenge and declared the different standards of service experience prescribed for Degree Holders and Diploma Holders in respect of both the cadres as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
The principal question that arises in these appeals is whether where as here recruitment to a particular cadre of posts is made from two different sources different conditions based on the differences in educational qualifications can be prescribed conditioning the eligibility for further promotion to a higher cadre in service
The High Court by the judgment now under appeal has held that such prescription of differential standards based even on the differences in technical educational qualifications is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution
In reaching such conclusions as it did on the point the High Court placed reliance on the pronouncement of this Court in Mohammad Shujat Ali vs UOI and Others1975 1 SCR 449 H C Sharma and Ors
vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors  and Punjab State Electricity BoardPatiala and Anr
vs Ravinder Kumar Sharma  Ors
1986 4 SCC 617 and TR Kapur and Others vs State of Haryana and Others  The High Court distinguished the decision of this Court in State of Jammu  Kashmir vs Triloki Nath Khosa  Ors l1974 1 SCR 771
The High Court drew a distinction between the situation where diploma holders were wholly excluded from eligibility for promotion to the higher cadre and the situation where while they were considered eligible for promotion however were subjected to more onerous and less advantageous conditions for such promotion
The High Court distinguished Triloki Nath Khosa s case observing 7
This was a case where diploma holders were found completely ineligible for promotion to the higher post for lack of essential educational qualification but the considerations may vary if they are found eligible for promotion to the higher post but still certain conditions are laid as distinct from degree holders before they become eligible for promotion
The question then would arise whether such distinction can be justified and is based on any rationality or not   PG NO 261 Answering this point in favour of the Diploma Holders the High Court held 
The moment the diploma holders and degree holders are considered to constitute one class for purposes of promotion there cannot be any differentiation between the two vis a vis the qualification for promotion
It could be that for reasons of efficiency in administration the authorities may lay down that diploma holders are not at all eligible for promotion to the higher post and such a bar can be upheld in view of the ratio laid down in the case of Triloki Nath Khosa but after the authorities considered them eligible for promotion there could be no rationale in their making any distinction between the degree holders and diploma holders for granting promotion to them to the higher post  Emphasis Supplied The point of distinction as apprehended by the High Court is that in the present case a Diploma ipso facto qualifies for promotion
The real question is whether this assumption is correct and whether the relevant Rules determine the eligibility for promotion on the basis of a Diploma or for that matter even a Degree Or whether the eligibility for promotion is determined not with reference merely to the educational attainments but on the basis of educational qualifications plus a measure of service experience stipulated differently for Graduates and Diploma Holders
Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the view that commended itself to the High Court is demonstrably erroneous and is opposed to principles which by now should be considered well settled
They submitted that the High Court fell into an obvious error in its view that in Shujat Ali s case    this Court had stuck down the service rule impugned in that case
Learned Counsel submitted that the fundamental distinction between the two sets of cases one of which Triloki Nath Khosa s case is represents and the other typified by Shujat Ali s case was lost sight of by the High Court and the error pervading the judgment is the result of overlooking this essential distinction between the two sets of cases
It was contended for the appellants that the present case was not one in which the Diploma Holders proprio vigore and without more were held eligible for promotion
If the effect and intent of the rules were such as to treat PG NO 262 Diploma as equivalent to a Degree for purposes of further promotion then the view of the High Court that having considered both class of officers equally eligible for promotion on the mere strength of their educational qualifications any further discrimination brought about by subjecting the Diploma Holders alone to a more onerous and less advantageous stipulation for such promotion would violate the constitutional pledge of equality might have some qualification
But in the present case counsel contended that is not the position
The educational qualification of a Diploma in engineering was not treated as equivalent to a Degree for purposes of determining eligibility
Nor the Degree itself was determinative of eligibility for promotion
The eligibility for promotion is it is urged based on a combination of factors which vary according as the basic educational qualification of the two classes of engineers that this distinction was germane to the requirements of higher technical and academic quality for the higher posts which involved expertise in structural design etc
Learned counsel submitted that even where recruitment to a particular cadre was made from different sources resulting in the formation of single a homogeneous cadre it was not impermissible to make a further classification amongst the members of such a cadre for purposes of further promotion based on the higher educational qualification of the candidates
Learned counsel for the respondent diploma holders while seeking to support the judgment of the High Court urged that this Court had more than once cautioned against undue accent in the matter of promotional opportunities on academic qualification alone which might lead to elitist preferences and tend to obscure the egalitarian principle and social justice
It was therefore contended that the effect of the distinction in the ultimate analysis is really an imperceptible extension or magnification of insubstantial factors sub verting the precious guarantee of equality
Sri Gujral learned Senior Counsel sought to impart to the situation a dimension of social justice and made an impassioned plea that to discriminate between Diploma Holders and Graduates who belong to the same cadre and hold inter changeable posts both in the present cadre and in the prospective promotional posts on the mere lack of some higher academic attainment is to place a high premium on those social and economic ills of the society which rendered the further academic pursuits for the economically disadvantaged difficult
A large number of authorities were cited on either side
We by first examine the cases relied upon by the High Court in support of its conclusion
The inherent distinction PG NO 263 between a person with a Degree and one who is merely a Diploma Holder is much too obvious
But the question that falls for consideration in the context such as the present one is whether the differences have a reasonable relation to the nature of the office to which the promotion is contemplated
The idea of equality in the matter of promotion can be predicated only when the candidates for promotion are drawn from the same source
If the differences in the qualification has a reasonable relation to the nature of duties and responsibilities that go with and are attendant upon the promotional post the more advantageous treatment of those who possess higher technical qualifications can be legitimised on the doctrine of classification
There may conceivably be cases where the differences in the educational qualifications may not be sufficient to give any preferential treatment to one class of candidates as against another
Whether the classification is reasonable or not must therefore necessarily depend upon facts of each case and the circumstances obtaining at the relevant time
When the state makes a classification between two sources unless the vice of the classification is writ large on the face of it the person assailing the classification must show that it is unreasonable and violative of Article 14
A wooden equality as between all classes of employees irrespective of all distinctions or qualifications or job requirements is neither constitutionally compelled nor practically meaningful
This Court in Central Railway vs
AVR Siddhanti  at 214 observed 
A wooden equality as between all classes of employees regardless of qualifications kind of jobs nature of responsibility and performance of the employees is not intended nor is it practicable if the administration is to run
Indeed the maintenance of such a classless and undiscerning equality  where in reality glaring inequalities and intelligible differentia exist will deprive the guarantee of its practical content
Broad classification based on reason executive pragmatism and experience having a direct relation with the achievement of efficiency in administration is permissible 
In T Devadasan vs The Union of India19644 SCR 680 at 689  690 this Court observed 
What is meant by equality in this Article is equality amongst equals
It does not provide for an absolute equality of treatment to all persons in utter disregard PG NO 264 in every conceivable circumstance of the differences such as age sex education and so on and so forth as may be found amongst people in general
Indeed while the aim of this Article is to ensure that invidious distinction or arbitrary discrimination shall not be made by the State between a citizen and a citizen who answer the same description and the differences which may obtain between them are of no relevance for the purpose of applying a particular law reasonable classification is permissible
It does not mean anything more
But then the process of classification is in itself productive of inequality and in that sense antithetical of equality
The process would be constitutionally valid if it recognises a pre existing inequality and acts in aid of amelioration of the effects of such pre existent inequality
But the process cannot in itself generate or aggravate the inequality
The process cannot merely blow up or magnify in substantial or microscopic differences on merely meretricious or plausible dif ferences
The over emphasis on the doctrine of classification or any anxious and sustained attempts to discover some basis for classification may gradually and imperceptibly deprive the article of its precious content and end in replacing Doctrine of equality by the doctrine of classification
The presumption of good faith in and of constitutionality of a classification cannot be pushed to the point of predicating some possible or hypothetical but undisclosed and unknown reason for a classification rendering the precious guarantee of equality a mere rope of sand
To overdo classification is to undo equality
The idea of similarity or dissimilarity of situations of persons to justify classification cannot rest on merely differentia which may by themselves be rational or logical but depends on whether the differences are relevant to the goals sought to be reached by the law which seeks to classify
The justification of the classification must needs therefore to be sought beyond the classification
All marks of distinction do not necessarily justify classification irrespective of the relevance or nexus to objects sought to be achieved by the law imposing the classification
In Mohd Sujat Ali s case the validity of a prescription of the rules of the State of Andhra Pradesh treating Graduate Engineers on the one hand and engineers with diploma or equivalent qualification on the other differently for purposes of promotion arose for consideration
Strictly speaking the High Court was not right in its under standing of the actual result of the PG NO 265 ease
The High Court in para 8 of the judgment observed The Supreme Court had then struck down this rule as violative of fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India  But it is to be noticed that the writ petitions were ultimately dismissed by this Court
There are of course certain observations which caution against too readily resorting to the expedience of classification
After referring to Triloki Nath Khosa s ease it was observed  But from these decisions it cannot be laid down as an invariable rule that whenever any classification is made on the basis of variant educational qualification
 such classification must be held to be valid irrespective of the nature and purpose of the classification or the quality and extent of the differences in the educational qualifications
It must be remembered that life has relations not capable always of division into inflexible compartments
The moulds expand and shrink
The test of reasonable classification has to be applied in each ease on its peculiar facts and circumstances    Emphasis Supplied This echoes what Vivian Bose J had earlier said in Bidi Supply Co vs Union of lndia  Article 14 sets out to my mind an attitude of minda way of life
rather than a precise rule of law   In a given case that it falls this side of the line or that and because of that decisions on the same point will vary as conditions vary one conclusion in one part of the country and another somewhere else one decision today and another tomorrow when the basis of society has altered and the structure of current social thinking is different
It is not the law that alters but the changing conditions of the times and Article t4 narrows down to a question of fact which must be determined by the highest Judges in the land as each ease arises  Shujat Ali s ease itself recognised the permissibility and validity of such classification if the nature of the PG NO 266 functions and duties attached to the promotional posts are such as to justify the classification in the interest of efficiency in public service but where both graduates and non graduates were regarded as equally fit and eligible for promotionthe denial of promotion to a person otherwise eligible and due for promotion on the basis of a quota was not justified
On this point it was observed by this Court in Shujat Ali s case  But where graduates and non graduates are both regarded as fit and therefore eligible for promotionit is difficult to see how consistently with the claim for equal opportunity any differentiation can be made between them by laying down a quota of promotion for each and giving preferential treatment to graduates over non graduates in the matter of fixation of such quota
The result of fixation of quota of promotion for each of the two categories of supervisors would be that when a vacancy arises in the post of Asst
Engineer which according to the quota is reserved for graduate supervisors a non graduate supervisor cannot be promoted to that vacancy even if he is senior to all other graduate supervisors and more suitable than they
His opportunity for promotion would be limited only to vacancies available for non graduate supervisors
That would clearly amount to denial of equal opportunity to him In the present appeals before us the Graduates and Diploma Holders were not treated equal in the mattes of eligibility for promotion
What is therefore assailed is not the aspect of the mere fixation of a quota as between the Diploma Holders and the Graduates in the promotional posts but the very prescription of different standards or conditions of eligibility
In Shujat Ali s case the infirmity of the differential treatment stemmed from the fundamental basis that at that point both Graduates and Diploma holders were equally eligible but the Rule operated to deny promotion to a Diploma holder on the basis of a quota
The observations in that case pertained to a stage which arose after the equality of eligibility for promotion between the two classes of persons had been recognised
But in the present appeals the different prescriptions for conditioning eligibility are themselves questioned which need to be decided on the basis whether the discrimination contemplated and brought about in the matter of promotional opportunities between graduates and non graduates based on the differences in the quality of their technical qualifications were relatable to and justified on the PG NO 267 basis of the requirements of the promotional posts
It is relevant to mention here that the different standards and Conditions for eligibility were prescribed with a view to injecting a higher technical quality in the promotions cadre based on the recommendations of a committee called Vaish Committee constituted for the purpose
HC Sharma s and Punjab State Electricity Board s cases were also matters where Graduates and Diploma holders were merged into and formed part of a homogenious cadre with equal eligibility for promotion and what fell for consideration was the validity of the further prescription of quotas between them
Here again no question of the validity of the different standards prescribed for the very eligibility for promotion fell for consideration
The present cases however are those where havig regard to the requirements of the promotional posts different conditions of eligibility for promotion on the differences based on the educational qualifications and service experience were prescribed
In State of Mysore vs Narasinga Rao1968 1 SCR 40 1 higher educational qualifications were considered relevant for fixation of higher pay scales
In Union of India vs Mrs SB Kohli the requirement of a post graduate specialisation in the particular discipline was considered not irrelevant and a classification based on such specialisation was upheld
Triloki Nath Khosa s case is more directly in point
There Graduate Engineers and Diploma Holders were in a common cadre of Asst
Engineers
But for purposes of further promotion to the higher cadre of Executive Engineers only the Graduate were held eligible
Diploma Holders were barred for promotion
Repelling the challenge to this provision made by the Diploma Holders this Court said The classification of Assistant Engineers into Degree holders and Diploma holders could not be held to rest on any unreal or unreasonable basis
The classification was made with a view to achieving administrative efficiency in the Engineering services
If this be the object the classification is clearly correlated to it for higher educational qualifications are at least presumption evidence of a higher mental equipment Classification on the basis of educational qualifictions made with a view to achieving administrative PG NO 268 efficiency cannot be said to rest on any fortuitous circumstances and one has always to bear in mind the facts and circumstances of the case in order to judge the validity of a classification Though persons appointed directly and by promotion were integrated into a common class of Assistant Engineers they could for purposes of promotion to then cadre of Executive Engineers be classified on the basis of educational qualifications the rule providing that graduates shall be eligible for such promotion to the exclusion of diploma holders does not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and must be upheld
 Emphasis Supplied In Triloki Nath s case diploma holders were not considered eligible for promotion to the higher post
Here in the present case the possession of a diploma by itself and without more does not confer eligibility
Diploma for purposes of promotion is not considered equivalent to the degree
This is the point of distinction in the situations in the two cases
If Diploma Holders of course on the justification of the job requirements and in the interest of maintaining a certain quality of technical expertise in the cadre could validly be excluded from the eligibility for promotion to the higher cadre it does not necessarily follow as an inevitable corollary that the choice of the recruitment policy is limited only two choices namely either to consider them eligible or not eligible
State consistent with the requirements of the promotional posts and in the interest of the efficiency of the service is not precluded from conferring eligibility on Diploma Holders conditioning it by other requirements which may as here include certain quantum of service experience
In the present case eligibility determination was made by a cumulative criterion of a certain educational qualification plus a particular quantum of service experience
It cannot in our opinion be said as postulated by the High Court that the choice of the State was either to recognise Diploma Holders as eligible for promotion or wholly exclude them as not eligible
If the educational qualification by itself was recognised as conferring eligibility for promotion then the super imposition of further conditions such as a particular period of service selectively on the Diploma Holders alone to their disadvantage might become discriminatory
This does not prevent the State from formulating a policy which prescribes as an essential part of the conditions for the vary eligibility that the candidate must have a particular qualification plus a stipulated quantum of service PG NO 269 experience
It is stated that on the basis of the Vaish Committee report the authorities considered the infusion of higher academic and technical quality in the personnel requirements in the relevant cadres of Engineering Services necessary
These are essentially matters of policy
Unless the provision is shown to be arbitrary capricious or to bring about grossly unfair results judicial policy should be one of judicial restraint
The prescriptions may be somewhat cumbersome or produce some hardship in their application in some individual cases but they can not be struck down as unreasonable capricious or arbitrary
The High Court in our opinion was not justified in striking down the Rules as violative of Articles 14 and 16
Accordingly all the Appeals are allowed the Judgment of the High Court dated 291987 set aside and the Civil Writ Petitions No 2 132 of 1984 and 2082 of 1984 in the High Court dismissed
However the parties are left to bear and pay their costs both here and below
APJ 
Appeals allowed


Summary:
In the ceiling proceedings under the Maharashtra Agricultural Land Ceiling on Holdings Act 1961 the petitioner alleged that there was no surplus land in the holding of his family Unit as certain lands had been leased out to various tenants and the same had been transferred to them under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Vidarbha Region Act 1958 and therefore the tenanted lands should be excluded from his total holdings as the orders of the Tenancy Authorities had become final and were binding on the Ceiling Authorities
Rejecting the claim of the petitioner the sub Divisional officer held that the orders passed by the Tenancy Courts conferring tenancy rights and issuing certificates in favour of the tenants were not justified and declared 5828 acres of land as surplus
This finding was maintained by the Revenue Tribunal
The challenge made by the petitioner before the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court also failed
In the special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution to this Court on behalf of the petitioner it was contended that in view of sub section
2 of section 100 of the Bombay Act the Tenancy Tahsildar had exclusive jurisdiction to decide the issue of tenancy and section 124 of the Bombay Act bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to deal with any question covered by section 100 and therefore determination of the question of tenancy by the Ceiling Authorities was without jurisdiction
Dismissing the Special Leave Petition this Court HELD l Land had been transferred to the various tenants under the Bombay Tenancy  Agriculture Vidarbha Region Act 1958 in the name of the respective tenants by the order of the Tenancy Tahsildar
272F PG NO 270 PG NO 271 2The Ceiling Authority had to determine the land holdings of the petitioner
274C 3Where a transfer is made by the land holder creating a tenancy whether the transfer was made bona fide or made in anticipation to defeat the provisions of the Ceiling Act is a question which falls for determination squarely by the Ceiling Authorities to give effect to or implement the Ceiling Act
274C D 4
Unless the Acts the Ceiling Act and the Tenancy Act with the intention of implementing various socio economic plans are read in a complementary manner the operation of the different Acts in the same field would create contradiction and would become impossible
It is therefore necessary to take a constructive attitude in interpreting provisions of these types and determine the main aim of the particular Act in question for adjudication before the Court
274E F 5
In the Ceiling Proceedings it has been held that the transfer to the tenant was not bona fide and was done in anticipation of the Ceiling Act
This Court finds no ground to interfere with the Order of the High Court
275A