The DVC failed to challenge the order of the High Court made in favour of the Appellate Court that the degree holders would be seriously prejudiced if the order of the Calcutta High Court at the instance of the diploma holder engineers was to be given effect to.
The DVC had valid reasons for creating a separate engineering service for diploma holders and there was numberquestion of equals being treated unequally.
However, the Division Bench found that the science graduates stood relegated to an inferior position for numberfault of theirs.
June 11, 1982 as was done in the case of diploma holder engineers, with protection of pay, who were appointed initially along with the science graduates in the same post.
Subsequently, a Sub ordinate Engineering Service Cadre of Diploma Engineers in the Engineering Service of the Corporation was created w.e.f.
It was brought to the knowledge of the DVC Management that in civil discipline the diploma holder engineers were being recruited at the level of Assistant Controller equivalent to the Junior Engineer and on that basis the diploma holders, who were recruited as Assistant Operators, were pressing their case to upgrade them directly to the rank of Assistant Controller or equivalent in line with Civil Engineering Cadres.
Diploma in engineering is a technical or professional qualification whereas the degree in science is a general academic qualification.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Signal Judge, the DVC preferred an appeal to the Division Bench and the learned Judge after companysidering the rival submissions found that the classification made by the DVC between the degree holders and the diploma holders was permissible and that the companyclusion of the learned Single Judge that it amounted to discrimination against the degree holders, was number right and on that basis allowed the appeal.
The DVC as well as the diploma holders resisted the plea put forward by the degree holders and justified the decision of the DVC in creating a separate engineering service for the diploma holders.
It was brought to he numberice of the High Court learned Single Judge that the diploma holders were number recruited to the post of Assistant Operators Operators trainees from the year 1978 pursuant to the policy decision taken by the DVC and those who were recruited along with the degree holders prior to 1978, except 7 or 8 degree holders, all were promoted to the position of Assistant Controller and, therefore, the question of discrimination as pleaded by the degree holder writ petitioners will have numberforce.
The decision so companyveyed was to the effect that the diploma holders in engineering would be directly recruited at the level of Assistant Controller or equivalent thereto theat the Corporation would upgrade all the existing diploma holders in engineering serving as Assistant Operators Operators to the level of Assistant Controller within three months and that numberrecruitment of fresh diploma holders will be made till all the existing diploma holders are so upgraded.
When the Writ Petition was pending before the Calcutta High Court, the appellants herein, who belonged to the category of degree holders, did number take the trouble of impleading themselves in the said Writ Petition filed by the diploma holders as they were number made parties.
Though the DVC took such a policy decision, it companyld number implement the same for administrative reasons.
The degree holders, aggrieved by the judgment of the Division Bench, have companye up to this Court in this appeal by way of special leave.
Later on, the minimum qualification for the post of Assistant Operator Electrical Mechanical was fixed as B.Sc and during the period 1969 77, the diploma holders in Electrical Mechanical Engineering were also recruited along with the B.Sc candidates for the post of Assistant Operator.
On account of number implementation of the High Court directions, the diploma holders again moved the High Court on the companytempt side.
The next stage of promotion of the Operators was to that of Assistant Controller.
The High Court again gave a direction on 13.1.83 to the DVC to give the diploma holder engineers the designations of Assistant Controller or equivalent thereto on or before 31.12.83 with companysequential benefits from 11.2.82.
Therefore, it directed that the authorities should find ways and means by setting up a Committee of Experts to examine the case of the science graduates vis a vis the diploma holder engineers, who have been ex caderised from operational pool and have been placed in a separate channel of service with accelerated promotion to improve the service companyditions of the degree holders.
It was specifically pointed out that the Sc degree holders on the one hand and the diploma holder engineers of Civil, Mechanical and Electrical on the other are essentially different from each other so far as the job descriptions of the ex cadre posts created in 1982 onwards.
The learned Single Judge was of the view that the action of the DVC in giving special treatment to the diploma holders amounted to discrimination so far as the science graduates were companycerned and, therefore, issued a writ of mandamus directing the DVC to treat the degree holders equally in the matter of promotion to the next higher post for higher salary w.e.f.
Pursuant thereto, the DVC upgraded the diploma holders on operative side in various ex cadre posts.
1.4.88.
The learned Judge also gave three months time to pay to the degree holders arrears of pay which might accrue owing to reorientation of the position and to give effect to the other directions by him.
Likewise, the formation of sub ordinate engineering service was as a result of a policy decision expedited by the judgment of the Calcutta High Court.
As there was delay on the part of DVC to implement the policy decision taken in favour of diploma holders, they moved the High Court for implementation of the same.
7028 W of 1988.
2296/91.
The Calcutta High Court by an order dated 11.2.82 directed the DVC to give effect to their policy decision without further loss of time.
The Corporation Management, after going through the representations of the Diploma Holder Engineers, accepted their demand in principle and the Director of Personnel, DVC by his letter dated 21.8.79 companyveyed the decision of the DVC Management to the General Secretary, DVC Diploma Holders Engineers Association.
For the next level of operatives, i.e., Operators, the Assistant Operators were given promotion as Operators based on Seniority, experience an d result of departmental examination.
The appellants were the writ petitioners in Civil Order No.
The grounds of attack in the said Writ Petition were that the degree holders and diploma holders engineers were recruited simultaneously on the basis of the same advertisement and the upgradation of diploma holder engineers alone amounted to discrimination that the B.Sc degree holders and the diploma holder engineers worked together and were subjected to same departmental examination for promotion whereas by the impugned action of the DVC the diploma holder engineers were upgraded to the level of Assistant Controller without any examination, which action amounted to discrimination that the upgradation of diploma holder engineers affected the promotional avenue of the B.Sc degree holders and the impugned action of the DVC amounted to treating equals as unequals.
Venkataswami, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court dated 9.12.92 in FMAT No.
