REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6583-6584 0F 2008

(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 3498-3499 of 2005)

T. VENKATESWARULU —APPELLANT

VERSUS

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TIRUMALA

TIRUPATHI DEVASTHANAMS & ORS.

—RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

D.K. JAIN, J.:

Special leave granted.

2.These appeals are directed against a common judgment and

order dated 8

th

July, 2004 passed by the High Court of

Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Cross Writ

Appeals No.767 and 846 of 2000. By the impugned

judgment, the Division Bench while reversing the decision

of the learned Single Judge has held that the appellant is

eligible for conversion as Assistant Executive Engineer only

with effect from 26

th

October, 1989 and not from an anterior

date when he passed the qualifying graduate examination

i.e. 28

th

August, 1983.

3.To understand the controversy involved, a few material facts

may be stated, which are as under:

The appellant, a diploma holder, who was initially

sponsored by the Employment Exchange for the post of

“Supervisor”, was considered and appointed as a

“Draughtsman Grade-I” in Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams

(for short ‘TTD’) on 3

rd

August, 1977. The post of

Draughtsman Grade-I was considered to be lower to the post

of “Supervisor”. On 17

th

March, 1978, by G.O. 563, the State

of Andhra Pradesh provided some promotional opportunities

to the Supervisors. It was ordered that Supervisors who

acquire engineering graduate qualification may be promoted

2

temporarily to the post of Junior Engineers. The TTD Rules,

1978 came into force on 2

nd

August, 1978. Under these Rules,

the only method of recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer

was by direct recruitment and, therefore, under the 1978

Rules, there was no provision for promotion of Supervisors as

Junior Engineers. It was only by virtue of G.O. 563,

Supervisors, who had acquired BE qualification could be

promoted as a Junior Engineer. By G.O. No.173 dated 8

th

April, 1981, the post of Junior Engineer was re-designated as

Assistant Executive Engineer and the post of Supervisor was

re-designated as Assistant Engineer.

4.The appellant acquired BE Degree on 28

th

August, 1983.

Aggrieved by the denial of the same benefit as was extended

to the Supervisors, the appellant filed a writ petition in the

High Court. By judgment dated 22

nd

August, 1986, TTD

was directed to consider the appellant’s case for promotion

as Junior Engineer, re-designated as Assistant Executive

Engineer, if he was otherwise eligible according to the rules.

3

5.Pursuant to and in furtherance of the said direction by the

High Court, the appellant made a representation to the

authorities concerned, which was rejected on 19

th

April,

1987 for the reason that he was found to be not eligible for

promotion as Assistant Executive Engineer under the TTD

Service Rules, 1978. The appellant challenged the said

order by filing another writ petition, which was again

disposed of on 30

th

March, 1990, with a direction to the TTD

Management to consider the appellant’s case taking into

consideration the promotional channels set out for Category

5 employees in the engineering department, meaning

thereby the appellant was to be considered for promotion on

the basis of the rules existing as on the date of the order. It

may be noted that on 24

th

October, 1989, TTD Employees

Service Rules, 1989 (for short ‘the 1989 Rules’) had come

into force. Pursuant to the said direction, the case of the

appellant was considered under 1989 Rules and he was

appointed, on conversion, as an Assistant Executive

Engineer with effect from 26

th

October, 1989, i.e. the date

4

with effect wherefrom the 1989 Rules were enforced vide

G.O. Ms. No.1060.

6.Still being dissatisfied with the treatment meted out to him,

the appellant preferred yet another writ petition in the High

Court. The grievance of the appellant before the High

Court, sans unnecessary details, was that:– (i) he was

entitled to appointment by conversion as Assistant

Executive Engineer from the date next to the last date of his

qualifying degree examination viz. 28

th

August, 1983, (ii)

persons similarly situated like him had been appointed by

transfer as Assistant Executive Engineers and were

accorded the benefit of such promotion with effect from the

date on which the Management of TTD by Resolution

adopted G.O. Ms. No.563 dated 17

th

March, 1978 (order of

the Government granting promotional benefits in the

category of Assistant Executive Engineers to graduate

qualified Supervisors) and, therefore, the action of the

Management in not extending a similar benefit to the

appellant amounts to hostile discrimination, violative of

5

Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution and (iii) on

representation by the Supervisors, the TTD Management

had granted benefit in the promotional post of Assistant

Executive Engineer to them with effect from the date of their

acquiring graduate qualification in Engineering, which

benefit has been denied to him.

7.Refuting the allegations made by the appellant, the TTD

Management stated that the benefit of conversion under

G.O. Ms. No. 563 dated 17

th

March, 1978, was granted by

the State Government only to the category of graduate

Supervisors for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive

Engineers and not to Draughtsman Grade-I, which benefit

continued to be available only to the Supervisors till a

provision was made in the 1989 Rules vide G.O. Ms.

No.1060 dated 24

th

October, 1989, creating a channel of

promotion for Draughtsman Grade-I also to the category of

Assistant Executive Engineers on acquisition of graduate

qualification. It was, thus, pleaded that it was on account

of the said amendment that the appellant became eligible

6

for the said promotion with effect from 26

th

October, 1989

and was given promotion accordingly and that the two

cadres of “Supervisors” and “Draughtsman Grade-I” being

distinct, no element of discrimination was involved in not

extending the same benefit to the two cadres.

8.On consideration of the material on record, the learned

Single Judge finally concluded as under:

“It is admitted by the TTD that though the

Supervisors who were given the benefit initially from

the date of resolution of the Board adopting the

orders of the Government, they were subsequently

given the benefit with effect from the date of their

acquisition of graduate qualification. In so far as

the petitioner is concerned, it is stated that the

Government has been addressed to clarify whether

the case of the petitioner could also be considered

for appointment as an Assistant Executive Engineer

with effect from 29.08.1983, the date on which he

acquired the graduate qualification. At the same

time, it is averred that the petitioner is not eligible

for conversion as Assistant Executive Engineer with

retrospective effect from 29.08.1983. Genuine

reasons are not advanced by the respondent in

support of this contention. In the circumstances

above, this court is of the considered view that the

respondent TTD is obligated to consider the case of

the petitioner for extension of the benefit of

conversion to the category of Assistant Executive

Engineer with effect from the date next to the date

he acquired graduate qualification on par with

similarly situated persons who were extended the

7

said benefit viz. Supervisors who had acquired

graduate qualification. Draughtsman Grade-I are

entitled to the benefits of conversion consequent on

acquisition of graduate qualification, and they

should be treated similar to the category of

supervisors who have been extended the said

benefit. The TTD being amenable to public law and

Constitutional processes is obligated to treat these

two classes of Supervisors and Draughtsman

Grade-I similarly in the matter of extending the

benefit i.e. the date from which the conversion is to

be accorded viz. the date next to the date of

acquisition of graduate qualification.”

9.Accordingly, the learned Single Judge directed the TTD

Management to consider the case of the appellant for

promotion as Assistant Executive Engineer with effect from

29

th

August, 1983, the date on which he had acquired the

graduate qualification, within four months.

10.Being aggrieved by the decision and direction of the

learned Single Judge, the TTD Management preferred an

intra- court appeal to the Division Bench. As noted

hereinabove, the Division Bench reversed the decision of

the learned Single Judge and consequently dismissed the

writ petition. It appears that the appellant filed an

application before the High Court seeking review of

8

judgment dated 8

th

July, 2004 but it was also dismissed on

1

st

October, 2004. The appellant, feeling aggrieved by the

judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court,

is before us in these appeals.

11.We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

12.Mr. L. Nageswara Rao, learned senior counsel appearing on

behalf of the appellant submitted that the pay scales of the

“Draughtsman Grade-I” and “Supervisor” being one and the

same, the incumbents in the said post were to be treated

equally and, therefore, the appellant was also entitled to the

benefits extended to the Supervisors under Government

Orders, issued from time to time. It was urged that on his

acquiring BE Degree, the appellant was eligible for

promotion to the post of Junior Engineer by conversion in

terms of G.O. 563 dated 17

th

March, 1978 and then for re-

designation under G.O.173 dated 8

th

April, 1981, as in the

case of Supervisors. It was argued that the appellant was

praying for parity in rank with the Supervisors and not

equality with them.

9

13.Per contra, Mr. K. Rajendra Chowdhary, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the TTD Management, supporting

the view taken by the Division Bench, submitted that

neither prior to the enforcement of 1989 Rules nor

thereafter the posts of Supervisors and Draughtsman

Grade-I were equivalent posts and/or there was any

functional or pay scale parity. It was only by virtue of

G.O.1060 dated 24

th

October, 1989, that the employees in

the cadre of Draughtsman Grade-I, with BE Degree, became

eligible for recruitment to the post of Assistant Executive

Engineers. It was, thus, submitted that in the absence of

any rules, regulations or Government Orders in that behalf,

the appellant could not be appointed as Junior Engineer

(now Assistant Executive Engineer) prior to 24

th

October,

1989. Learned counsel asserted that the cadres of

Draughtsman Grade-I and Supervisor being different, the

appellant could not claim any parity with the Supervisors

prior to 26

th

October, 1989, when they were placed at par

with the Supervisors only as a feeder cadre for recruitment

to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. Relying on the

10

decision of this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.

Vs. K.S. Muralidhar & Ors.

1

, learned counsel argued that

the crucial date for all intents and purposes is to be

reckoned on the basis of the actual date of appointment

and not on the date of acquiring the degree qualification.

14.Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the rival

submissions, in our view, there is no scope for interference

with the reasoning and the conclusion reached by the

Division Bench. It is evident from the afore-extracted order

of the learned Single Judge that he accepted the stand of

the appellant to the effect that the Draughtsman Grade-I

was at par with the Supervisor and, therefore, could not be

treated differently. According to the learned Judge, being

amenable to public law and constitutional processes, TTD

was obligated to treat the two classes of Supervisors and

Draughtsmen Grade-I similarly in the matter of extending

the benefit of conversion consequent to the acquisition of

graduation qualification by the Draughtsman Grade-I, as in

the case of Supervisors. We feel that in the light of the

1

(1992) 2 SCC 241

11

factual position as emerging from the material on record,

the learned Single Judge fell into an error in accepting the

plea of discrimination, for which there was no factual basis.

15.Since the plea of parity of Draughtsmen Grade-I with the

Supervisors had to be examined on the touchstone of

Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, the burden was

upon the appellant to establish discrimination by placing on

record cogent materials. For this purpose, the crucial factor

to be established is not only the functional parity of the two

cadres, but also the mode of recruitment, qualification and

the responsibilities attached to the two offices. All this

information is necessary to analyse the rationale behind the

State action in giving different treatment to two classes of

its employees and then determine whether or not an

invidious discrimination has been practised.

16.In the instant case, there is not even a whisper in the

pleadings on that aspect. On the contrary, it is pointed out

by the Division Bench that initially the scale of pay of

Draughtsman Grade-I was lower to the scale of pay of

12

Supervisor. The scale of pay of Supervisor was 430-20-

650-25-800 whereas the scale of pay of Draughtsman

Grade-I was 400-18-590-20-715. The revised pay scale of

the Supervisor was 700-1200 and Draughtsman Grade-I

was 650-1100. In 1986 when pay scales were revised, the

scale of pay for the post of Draughtsman Grade-I and

Supervisor (Assistant Engineer) were made equal i.e. 1300-

60-1930-70-2630. Thus, the Division Bench found that the

two posts did not carry the same scale of pay initially.

Moreover, indubitably all the aforenoted Government

Orders, starting 17

th

March, 1978, giving certain benefits to

graduate Supervisors did not refer to Draughtsman Grade-I.

Even the decision taken by the TTD on 16

th

March, 1981,

adopting G.O. Ms. No.563 dated 17

th

March, 1978, did not

refer to the Draughtsman Grade-I and applied only to the

Supervisors working in the TTD

(civil/electrical/mechanical) who had acquired graduate

qualification in engineering for appointment by transfer as

Junior Engineers in TTD. No one from the cadre of

Draughtsman raised any demand for extending similar

13

benefit to them. It has also been noted by the Division

Bench that it was the policy of the Government to appoint

only Supervisors in Public Works (Irrigation Department),

who had acquired graduate qualification as Junior

Engineers. Under these circumstances, the Division Bench

found it difficult and in our opinion rightly, to accept the

submission of the appellant that being at par with the

Supervisors, he was entitled to all the benefits under the

Government Orders available to the graduate Supervisors.

17.It is well settled that equation of posts and determination

of pay scales is the primary function of the executive and

not the judiciary and, therefore, ordinarily courts do not

enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left

to expert bodies as several factors have to be kept in view

while evolving a pay structure. Being a complex matter, the

court will interfere only if there is cogent material on record

to come to a firm conclusion that a grave error has crept in

such an exercise and court's interference is absolutely

necessary to undo the injustice being caused. (See:

14

Secretary, Finance Department & Ors. Vs. West Bengal

Registration Service Association & Ors.

2

)

18.In Devi Prasad & Ors. Vs. Government of Andhra

Pradesh & Ors.

3

, a Government order was questioned on

the ground of unreasonableness in the matter of giving

weightage for promotion between two categories of servants

inducted from different sources on the ground that the

weightage rule was violative of Article 14 of the

Constitution. Rejecting the challenge, this Court had said

that ultimately it is a matter of Government policy to decide

what weightage should be given as between two categories

of Government servants rendering somewhat similar kind of

service. There may be that one group would suffer from

hardship consequent to this rule and the weightage

conferred thereby. But mere hardship without anything

arbitrary in the rule does not cal1 for judicial intervention,

especially when it flows out of a policy which is not basically

illegal.

2

1993 Supp (1) SCC 153

3

1980 Supp SCC 206

15

19.From a resume of facts set out hereinabove, it clearly

emerges that prior to 1989 the cadre of Draughtsman

Grade-I was treated as a distinct class inasmuch as they

even did not figure in the feeder cadre for recruitment to the

post of Assistant Executive Engineer. It was only on 24

th

October, 1989, by virtue of G.O. Ms. No.1660, a channel of

promotion of Draughtsman Grade-I to the category of

Assistant Executive Engineer, on acquisition of graduate

qualification was created. Though it does appear that the

appellant had been pursuing his remedy for promotion as

Assistant Executive Engineer under the TTD Service Rules,

1978 but he always got limited relief to the extent that

direction was issued by the High Court for consideration of

his case, in terms of the rules existing at that relevant time.

Evidently, when his writ petition was disposed of on 30

th

March, 1990 with a direction to the TTD Management to

consider his case on the basis of the rules, which were in

force at that relevant point of time, he felt satisfied and did

not challenge the said order further.

16

20.For all these reasons, we do not see any infirmity in the

decision of the Division Bench warranting our interference

in the exercise of discretionary and equitable jurisdiction

under Article 136 of the Constitution. In our judgment, the

appeals have no substance and, therefore, deserve to be

dismissed.

21.For the reasons aforesaid, the appeals must fail and are

accordingly dismissed. There will, however, be no order as

to costs.

…………………………………J.

(C.K. THAKKER)

…………………………………J.

(D.K. JAIN)

NEW DELHI;

NOVEMBER 7, 2008.

17