SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1976 Supreme(P&H) 90

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
O.Chinnappa Reddy, S.C.Mital and Surinder Singh JJ.
Jagdish Rai
Versus
State Of Haryana
Civil Writ PetITION No. 2149 of 1972,
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 17, 1976

The reservation of posts for Ex-Servicemen is a classification within Article 16 (1) of the Constitution and is constitutionally valid.

Headnote:

RESERVATION OF POSTS - EX-SERVICEMEN - CONSTITUTIONALITY - ARTICLE 16 (1) AND 16 (4) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION - CLASSIFICATION OF EX-SERVICEMEN AS A SOURCE OF RECRUITMENT - VALIDITY.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners challenged the reservation of 28% of vacancies in the posts of Sub-Inspectors in the Food and Supplies Department for Ex-Servicemen, contending that it violated Article 16 (1) of the Constitution.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that Article 16 (4) of the Constitution was not an exception to Article 16 (1) but was illustrative of one of the methods of achieving equality, and that it was not exhaustive of the classifications necessary and, therefore, permissible for achieving equality.

Issues: 1. Whether the reservation of posts for Ex-Servicemen is a classification within Article 16 (1) of the Constitution? 2. Whether the reservation of 28% of vacancies in the posts of Sub-Inspectors in the Food and Supplies Department for Ex-Servicemen is constitutionally valid?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Article 16 (4) of the Constitution is not an exception to Article 16 (1) but is illustrative of one of the methods of achieving equality. 2. Article 16 (4) is not exhaustive of the classifications necessary and, therefore, permissible for achieving equality. 3. The general principles applicable to situations under Article 14 are equally applicable under Article 16 (1). 4. The reservation of posts for Ex-Servicemen is a classification within Article 16 (1) of the Constitution. 5. The reservation of 28% of vacancies in the posts of Sub-Inspectors in the Food and Supplies Department for Ex-Servicemen is constitutionally valid.

Final Decision: The court dismissed both the writ petitions challenging the reservation of posts for Ex-Servicemen.

Judgment

1. This judgment would dispose of three writ petitions, that is, C. W. 2437 of 1970, C.W. 2149 of 1972 and C. W. 2174 of 1972 as common question of law arises in them. Civil Writ No. 2098 of 1970 filed by Miss Asha also involved a similar question but that has been dismissed as withdrawn, Initially that writ petition came up for hearing before B. R. Tuli J. (as he then was) and the same was referred by the learned Judge for decision to a larger Bench considering the importance of the question of law involved. Thereafter, the other three writ petitions were also ordered to be heard along with Civil Writ No. 2098 of 1970 as the point involved in those petitions was the same as in Civil Writ No. 2098 of 1970.

2. In all these petitions the main point that requires determination is whether reservation of vacancies for Ex-Armed Forces Personnel is constitutionally valid or not. In order to decide the merits of the controversy, it would be useful to notice certain salient features which I am narrating from the amended writ petition filed by Dr. (Miss) Jasbir Gill (Civil Writ No. 2437 of 1970) which read as under:

The petitioner is a member of the Scheduled Castes. After her graduation (B.D.S.) in 1964, she was offered an appointment as Demonstrator (Dental) on temporary basis by the Director of Health Services, Punjab, Chandigarh, respondent No. 2, and the same was accepted by the petitioner on 22nd June, 1966. In the year 1968, Punjab Public Service Commission advertised five vacancies for the posts of Demonstrators in the Dental College and Hospital, Amritsar, and invited applications for the same. It seems that no recruitment was made on the basis of the said advertisement as again in November, 1969, a fresh advertisement, copy of which has been attached as Annexure- B to the petition, was issued inviting applications for six pasts of Demonstrators.

The petitioner submitted her application in response to the said advertisement. The Punjab Public Service Commission interviewed the candidates, including the petitioner. Thereafter, the Punjab Government issued orders appointing respondents Nos. 3 to 9 as Demonstrators in the advertised vacancies. Contemporaneously with this order, the Government passed another order terminating the services of the Demonstrators, including the petitioner, who were already working. A copy of this order is attached as Annexure- C . It is in these circumstances, that Civil Writ No. 2437 of 1970 was filed by Dr. Jasbir Gill. written statements were filed separately on behalf of respondents Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 7 in which material allegations made in the writ petition have been controverted.

3. While challenging the legality of the impugned order, the main contention raised by Mr. J. L. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, whose contentions were adopted by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the other writ petitions, was that reservation for Ex-Emergency Commissioned Officers to the exent of fifty per cent was unconstitutional. In nutshell what was sought to be argued by Mr. Gupta was that under Article 16 (4) of the Constitution of India, no reservation could legally be made for the Ex-Emergency Commissioned Officers. In the alternative it was submitted that even if such a reservation could be made, then also the same was liable to be struck down as unconstitutional because the entire reservation came to seventy per cent, that is, fifty per cent for the Ex-Emergency Commissioned Officers and twenty per cent for Scheduled Castes.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Harbans Lal, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents, whose contentions were adopted by the learned counsel for the respondents in the other writ petitions, submitted that the argument of Mr. Gupta, was misconceived inasmuch as no reservation was made in favour of the Ex-Emergency Commissioned Officers under Article 16 (4) of the Constitution, According to the learned counsel, it was a case of classification for the purpose




























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top