SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.M. SIKRI, C.J.I., G.K. MITTER, K.S. HEGDE, A.N. GROVER AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.
Makhan Lal Waza and others, Petitioners
Versus
State of J. and K. and others, Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 108 of 1969, D/-23-2-1971.
Advocates appeared
Mr. A. K. Sen, Sr. Advocate (Mr. Naunit Lal, Advocate, with him), for Petitioners; M/s. C. K. Daphtari, and N. S. Bindra, Senior Advocates (Mr. R. N. Sachthey, Advocate, with them), for Respondents Nos. I and 2. Mr. O. C. Mathur, Advocate of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co. and Mr. P. B. Tewari, Advocate, for Respondents Nos. 7 to 9, 12, 13, 19 to 21, 27 to 29, 33, 34, 41, 46, 47, 49, 57 to 59, 63, 64 67, 68, 70, 110 to 113, 115, 117, 118, 121 to 124, 128, 130, 133, 134, 136. 142, 145, 146, 157, 164, 174, 182, 186~198 219. 232 to 236, 240, 245 to 250.
Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1956 – Rules 9 and 24 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32 - State policy of reserving 50% of vacancies - Service of Education Department of J & K – Promotion - Petitioners, who are 10 in number, are in service of Education Department of the State of Jammu & Kashmir. According to the petition, petitioner No. 1 joined service in 1952 as a teacher in the Government High School, Poonch. He had passed Bachelor of Teaching Examination and was given the grade of Rs. 80-8-200. This grade which was of a non-gazetted post was later revised sometimes before 1964 to Rs. 150-500. The gazetted post carried a grade of Rs. 300-600. Petitioner No. 2 entered service of the erstwhile State of Jammu & Kashmir in 1943 as teacher in the Government School - Held, Absence of any rules lawfully promulgated for employment of backward classes promotions could be made only in accordance with rule 25 and there can be no manner of doubt that there was absolute non-compliance with provisions of that rule. Promotions thus made of all respondent-teachers were illegal and unconstitutional being violative of Article 16 of the Constitution. They have therefore to be set aside. All the promotions made to higher posts or higher grade pursuant to communal policy would have to be revised and reconsidered and appropriate orders must be passed by respondents 1 and 2 with regard to them as also petitioners in accordance with law. The new rules stated to have been framed have not been shown to us and we wish to express no opinion on their applicability - Petition allowed.
Judgment
GROVER, J.: This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution illustrates how an attempt has been made to circumvent the law declared by this Court in Triloki Nath v State of Jammu and Kashmir, (1969) 1 SCR 103 = (AIR 1969 SC 1 ) by which the State policy of reserving 50% of the vacancies among the teachers in the employment of the respondent State for the Muslims of Kashmir and out of the remaining 50 per cent, 40 Per cent for the Jamvi Hindus and 10 per cent for others including Kashmiri Pandits was struck down as contrary to the constitutional guarantee under Art. 16.
2. The Petitioners, who are 10 in number, are in the service of the Education Department of the State of Jammu & Kashmir. According to the petition, petitioner No. 1 joined service in 1952 as a teacher in the Government High School, Poonch. He had passed the Bachelor of Teaching Examination and was given the grade of Rs. 80-8-200. This grade which was of a non-gazetted post was later revised sometimes before 1964 to Rs. 150-500. The gazetted post carried a grade of Rs. 300-600. Petitioner No. 2 entered service of the erstwhile State of Jammu & Kashmir in 1943 as teacher in the Government School. Tregham. He later on passed the examinations of Bachelor of Teaching and the Master of Arts and was selected in July 1968 for teaching in the Higher Secondary School. Petitioners 3 to 10 were trained graduates holding degrees of Bachelor of Education. Petitioners 3, 4, 6, 7, 9 and 10 had also passed the Master of Arts examination and with the exception of petitioner No. 10 were selected for teaching in Higher Secondary Schools in July 1968.
3. All the teachers and other officers of the Education Department of the State were governed by the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1956 which were promulgated on June 14, 1956. Rule 9 relates to first appointment to a service or class. According to rule 19 in making the appointment to a service or class reservation may be made in favour of any backward class which, in the opinion of the Government, is not adequately represented in the services. Rule 24 dealt with seniority. Rule 25 to the extent it is material reads:
"Promotions: (1) All promotion shall be made by the appointing authority.
(2)Promotions to a service or class or to a selection category or grade in such service or class shall be made on grounds of merit and ability and shall be subject to the passing of any test that Government may prescribe in this behalf seniority being considered only where the merit and ability are approximately equal.
(3) All other promotions shall be made in accordance with seniority and subject to any test or special qualifications prescribed by Government unless -
(a) the promotion of a member has been withheld as a penalty; or
(b)a member is given special promotion for conspicuous merit and ability."
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution were made applicable to the State of Jammu & Kashmir in 1954. Rule 19 is stated to have been abrogated in the year 1958. But in giving Promotions to the teachers in the gazetted cadre respondents I and 2 adopted the following basis, which will be called the communal policy hereafter :
(1) 50 per cent of the vacancies were filled from among the Muslims of the entire State.
(2) 40 per cent out of the remaining 50 per cent vacancies were filled by Jamvi Hindus (Hindus from the Jammu Province of the State, majority of whom are Dogras) and
(3) the remaining 10 per cent of the posts were given to others including Kashmiri Pandits.
This was purported to be done on the ground that Muslims of the entire State and the Hindus of Jammu Province constituted "backward classes" for the purpose of employment.
4. In December 1965 Triloki Nath and Shambu Nath, the present petitioners 2 and 4 filed a writ petition in this court. In all 81 respondents were impleaded which included the present respondents Nos. 38 to 107. In that petition it was alleged that the communal policy of prom
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.