Summary
The Court invalidated the graduation requirement restricting Forest Guards’ participation in the limited departmental examination for promotion to Forester. In this scheme, the examination selected on merit from the common cadre and no graduate quota existed. Existing promotions were protected, while future examinations must admit all otherwise eligible Forest Guards.
Issues
- Whether restricting the departmental competitive examination to graduates violated equality and equal opportunity.
Provisions considered
- Rule7(2), as amended in2013, Forester, Forest Guard, Ranger-Surveyor, Surveyor, Head Clerk, Accountant and Clerk-cum-Typist (Recruitment) Rules,1987Graduation condition for participating in the limited departmental examination declared unconstitutional; minimum service eligibility remained. (¶¶ 3–5, 18)
Held
- Higher educational qualifications can support a valid classification where circumstances and higher-post duties justify it. The precedents did not establish unrestricted power to create subdivisions within a common promotional class. (¶ 7–15)
- Seventy-five per cent of Forester posts were filled by seniority-cum-fitness and25per cent by departmental merit examination. The latter was not a reserved graduate quota. Excluding otherwise eligible non-graduates prejudged merit and unreasonably divided the common Forest Guard cadre, violating Articles14 and16. (¶ 16–17)
- Rule7(2) was invalid only insofar as it required graduation. Promotions already made were unaffected; for further promotions, a fresh examination must permit all eligible Forest Guards to compete. (¶ 18–19)
Result
Appeal allowed; graduation restriction struck down, existing promotions protected and fresh departmental examinations directed for future promotions with all eligible Forest Guards permitted; no costs.