2021 Supreme(SC) 21

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.A. BOBDE, CJI., A.S. BOPANNA, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.
Ashok Kumar And Others Etc. Etc. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Jammu And Kashmir And Others - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos.5189-5192 of 2017 with Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 392-395 of 2019 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5189-5192 of 2017
Decided On : 18-01-2021

IMPORTANT POINT
(1) CCA Rules, 1956 will have only limited application to employees of High Court.
(2) Promotion--Higher educational qualification is a permissible basis of classification acceptability of which will depend on facts and circumstances. Higher educational qualification can be basis not only for barring promotion but also for restricting scope of promotion.
(3) Prescription of graduation as a qualification for promotion to post of Head Assistant cannot be held as violative of Articles 14 and 16.

Headnote:

(A) Jammu & Kashmir High Court Staff (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1968 – Rule 6 – Promotion to Post of Head Assistant – Power of Chief Justice clearly flowed out of Rule 6 of Jammu & Kashmir High Court Staff (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1968 – These Rules were issued by High Court in exercise of power conferred by Section 108(2) of Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir – These Rules had approval of Governor also – Contention of respondents that office order issued by Chief Justice was ultra vires, is completely untenable – CCA Rules, 1956 will have only limited application to employees of High Court – These Rules, by themselves, do not stipulate qualifications required for appointment to any particular post in High Court – When Rule making power is vested with High Court (subject to approval of Governor) and when Chief Justice is specifically empowered to prescribe qualifications and method of recruitment, CCA Rules which are general in nature cannot be replicated. (Paras 25, 26 and 29)

(B) Service Law – Promotion – Post of Head Assistant – Prescription of qualification with power of relaxation – If authority conferred with power to relax, chooses to regulate manner of exercise of his own power, same cannot be assailed as arbitrary – Order dated 24.10.2008 did not at all impact promotions gained by persons upto 24.10.2008 – Entitlement of unqualified candidates to seek promotion to post of Head Assistant after 24.10.2008, is what was impacted by Order of Chief Justice – High Court erred in thinking that impugned action of Chief Justice violated Article 14 by creating a distinction between graduates and non-graduates among same category of persons who constituted a homogenous class – Higher educational qualification is a permissible basis of classification acceptability of which will depend on facts and circumstances – Higher educational qualification can be basis not only for barring promotion but also for restricting scope of promotion – Restriction placed cannot however go to extent of seriously jeopardising chances of promotion – Court shall have to be conscious about need for maintaining efficiency in service, while judging validity of classification – Non-graduates have had opportunities to qualify themselves which they have also done – Prescription of graduation as a qualification for promotion to post of Head Assistant cannot be held as violative of Articles 14 and 16 – Judgment of Division Bench of High Court set aside – However, in view of fact that contesting respondents have been working in post of Head Assistants for quite some time and have also acquired necessary qualifications, they need not be reverted at this stage – But, seniority of contesting respondents will be decided not on the basis of date of their promotion but on the basis of date of their acquiring qualification while occupying promoted posts. [Jammu & Kashmir High Court Staff (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1968 – Rule 6] (Paras 30, 31, 32, 34, 35 and 36)

Facts of the Case:

Challenging a common order passed in a batch of Letters Patent Appeals confirming the Judgment of Single Judge, quashing an administrative Order of the Chief Justice prescribing certain qualifications for promotion to the post of Head Assistant along with a power of relaxation, persons who were fully qualified as per the rules at the time of appointment, have come up with the above Civil Appeals.

Findings of Court:

High Court was wrong in thinking that Note2 of the Order of the Chief Justice curtailed or restricted the power of relaxation available with him. If the authority conferred with the power to relax, chooses to regulate the manner of exercise of his own power, same cannot be assailed as arbitrary. The notification dated 25.04.1987 prescribed for the first time, graduation as a necessary qualification. This is why, the Chief Justice chose by his Order, to limit his own power of relaxation to cases where appointments were made before the cut off date.

Result : Appeal allowed