Back
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.
Ab. Rashid Masoodi & Ors. -Appellant
Versus
State Of J&K & Ors. -Resopndent
SWP No. 2681 of 2011 & CMP No. 4450 of 2011, SWP No. 2344 of 2011 & CMP No. 3891 of 2011, SWP No. 489 of 2010 & CMP No. 739 of 2010, SWP No. 501 of 2012 & CMP No. 758 of 2012
Decided On : 30-08-2013
QUALIFICATION - PROMOTION - CLASSIFICATION - HIGH COURT STAFF - [ARTICLE 14, 16 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA] - Order No. 579 dated 24.10.2008 issued by the High Court laying down Graduation as the minimum qualification for promotion to various posts in the cadre of service above the post of Junior Assistant is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The classification introduced by the order between Graduates and Matriculates as also between Matriculates and Matriculates is unreasonable and hit by the mandates of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as there is no differentia, muchless intelligible differentia, flowing from the impugned order which could justify the classification between similarly placed employees of the High Court, constituting one homogeneous group. The impugned order has no rationale nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who were initially appointed as Orderlies, were promoted as Junior Assistants and then as Senior Assistants. They were denied promotion to the post of Head Assistants due to an order issued by the High Court which prescribed Graduation as the minimum qualification for promotion to various posts in the cadre of service above the post of Junior Assistant. The petitioners challenged the vires of the order, contending that it was arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of their fundamental rights.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the classification introduced by the order between Graduates and Matriculates as also between Matriculates and Matriculates is unreasonable and hit by the mandates of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as there is no differentia, muchless intelligible differentia, flowing from the impugned order which could justify the classification between similarly placed employees of the High Court, constituting one homogeneous group. The impugned order has no rationale nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
Issues: 1. Whether the classification introduced by Order No. 579 dated 24.10.2008 between Graduates and Matriculates as also between Matriculates and Matriculates is reasonable and justified? 2. Whether the impugned order has any rationale nexus with the object sought to be achieved?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the following principles of law in reaching its decision: 1. Classification is constitutionally permissible, but it must be based on an intelligible differentia and have a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. 2. The classification introduced by the impugned order is unreasonable and arbitrary as there is no differentia between Graduates and Matriculates and between Matriculates and Matriculates who are similarly placed employees of the High Court. 3. The impugned order has no rationale nexus with the object sought to be achieved as it does not promote efficiency or merit in the service.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petitions, quashed Order No. 579 dated 24.10.2008, and directed the High Court to process the papers for a de novo exercise in the matter in accordance with the directions given in the judgment.
2. The pleadings of the lead case, SWP No. 2681/2011, titled Abdul Rashid Masoodi and ors v. State of J&K and ors., are exceedingly exhaustive, containing facts and averments supported by relevant documents, ranging from historical background of the service upto the present day scenario vis-a-vis the service. I think it would be burdensome to give a narrative of the facts pleaded in the petition; therefore, I deem it appropriate to concisely give a summary of the facts and delineate the issues which have been raised in the petition. Before doing so, it needs a mention here that the responses of the official and the private respondents in the petition are short, sketchy, bald and bereft of any rebuttals to the averments so made in the petition, especially, those having vital bearing on the outcome of these petitions. Normally, when the averments are left without rebuttal, the same have to be taken to be admitted. On that count a petition can be allowed, if the case is otherwise made out. However, in the instant case, the reliefs prayed for by the petitioners being hinged on multitude of averments and legal grounds, I feel it imperative and just to deal with each issue one by one on the touchstone of the settled law in context of whatever sketchy response thereto has been from the respondents. Summary of the facts is noted hereunder:
3. Appointments to the posts borne on the cadre of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court Staff, historically, were made on the pattern governing the appointments made against identical posts elsewhere under the State Government. The basic minimum educational requirement was Matriculation. Once appointed to the lowest ministerial post of Junior Assistant, an appointee would go up the promotional ladder in normal course.
4. On 25.04.1987, it appears, the High Court issued an advertisement notice inviting applications for filling up the posts of Junior Assistant. The minimum qualification in the said advertisement notice was prescribed as Graduation. However, as is manifest from a plain reading of Note (2) appended to High Court order dated 24.10.2008, persons possessing qualifications less than Graduation entered the service on the said date, meaning thereby, in consequence of selections made pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement notice.
5. It may be observed here that the services of the members of High Court Staff are governed by the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Staff (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1968 (for short High Court Staff Rules) framed by the High Court pursuant to the powers conferred by Section 108(2) of the State Constitution. Rule 6 of these Rules empowers the Chief Justice to lay down qualifications for a post and determine the mode of recruitment. Pursuant to the aforesaid provision of the Rules, it appears, it was for the first time in 2001 that the Chief Justice laid down qualifications and mode of recruitment to various posts borne on the cadre of the service. However, the High Court, while issuing order dated 24.10.2008 referred to in the first paragraph of this judgment and impugned herein, does not seem to have given any credence to the said order of 2001, inasmuch as no reliance has been placed thereon by the High Court in the order dated 24.10.2008. Nonetheless, after the aforesaid order was made by the Chief Justice in 2001, promotions in the cadre of the service, from time to time, continued to be made in relaxation of educational qualifications mentioned therein.
6. It is important to note here that, of late, there have been two recognised sources of recruitment to the posts of Junior Assistant in the High Court, as elsewhere under the State. 75% posts are filled in by direct r
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
