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

1968 Supreme(Online)(J&K) 2

JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
Judge, J
Raina A. N. (Dr.) v. State of J. and K.
Writ Petition under Art. 32-2(A) of the Constitution of India and S. 103 of the Constitution of J and K



Promotions to selection posts must adhere to the established procedures and principles of merit; failure to consult the Public Service Commission renders such appointments unconstitutional.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 32 - Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir - Section 103 - Promotion of professors - The petitioner challenges the promotions of respondents as Principals based on seniority and merit criteria set by the government which were allegedly violated. The court found that the appointments were not made in accordance with lawful procedure, and the Public Service Commission's recommendations were consistently ignored, leading to the conclusion that the appointments were void and unconstitutional. (Paras 14, 21-35)

(B) Public Service Commission - Appointment criteria - The court emphasized that promotions to selection posts must be based on merit and ability, and the failure to consult the Public Service Commission as required by law undermines the legitimacy of appointments. (Paras 30-34)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a qualified professor, claims he was consistently superseded due to favoritism in the appointment of principals, despite having superior qualifications and experience. The appointments were allegedly made in violation of established criteria for promotion.

Findings of Court:
The appointments of the respondents as Principals were set aside for failing to follow lawful procedures as outlined in the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir. The process disregarded recommendations from the Public Service Commission.

Issues: Whether the appointments of respondents were made in accordance with constitutional provisions and whether the petitioner was unjustly superseded.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that adherence to the established promotion procedure is critical, and appointments made without consulting the Public Service Commission constitute a violation of legal standards, thus invalidating the promotions. (Paras 21, 30,35)

Result: The appointment of the principals was set aside, and the case of the petitioner was directed to be reconsidered for proper appointment.

Table of Content
1. promotion processes affected by nepotism. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. legal arguments about discrimination in promotions. (Para 2 , 8 , 13)
3. merit-based criteria are essential for promotions. (Para 21 , 30 , 35)

1. The petitioner is a professor of Geography GGM College Jammu. He has brought this writ petition against the State of Jammu and Kashmir and seven others who have been arrayed as respondents 2 to 8 in this petition. The petitioner prays that the appointment of respondents 2 to 8 as Principals be declared void, the petitioner be deemed to have been appointed right from the time his first supersession took place by the appointment of Mr. Ishwar Sharma in the year 1961; that the petitioner be directed to be reimbursed for all the pay and grade during this period; that the petitioner be directed to be appointed as Principal in place of respondent 2.

2. I have started with the relief because the petitioner does not specifically mention anything except in the relief clause what this petition is aimed at. The relief in the petition given at the beginning of the petition is headed as petition under Art. 32-2 (A) of the Constitution of India and S. 103 of the Constitution of J and K.

3. The facts that have given rise to this writ petition are as under. The petitioner in his petition states that he passed M.A. in Geography and History in the years 1939 and 1941 respectively. He got a Ph. D from Aligarh University in 1959. Respondents 2 to 8 are second class MAs except Mr. BDL Sharma who is respondent 5 and is a third class MA in Urdu. The petitioner joined the SP College as a Lecturer in 1942 on probation for two years. He was confirmed. Respondents 2 to 8 were appointed as Lecturers after the petitioner, except Ishwar Sharma respondent 2 and SSL Sadhu respondent 4. Nonetheless, according to the petitioner he is senior even to these respondents. That the Government by Order No. 1234 - C of 1952 dated 15-12-52 fixed four criteria for promotion to professorship which are :
(1) That the person must be a first class MA.
(2) Must possess a Doctorate or Honours.
(3) Must have a degree or tripos from England or Cambridge.
(4) Must have written some book as a contribution to the subject.
In the year 1959 respondents 2 and 4 were appointed as offg. professors, although they did not possess the requisite qualifications mentioned above. No post of Professor of Geography was deliberately created. This matter was objected to by the Public Service Commission by means of letter No. 6265 dated 18-4-59. The petitioner protested against these promotions but no heed was paid by the Government. Two more posts of Professors were created to favour some persons and two other gentlemen, Messrs JN Dhar and Mohd. Yusuf were promoted as Professors, although there was no necessity of creating Professorships in those subjects. The petitioner was also promoted as Professor on 7-7-60. The petitioner made a representation for determination of his seniority and a seniority list was issued by the Government in which the petitioner was placed at No. 18. The next promotion available to a professor is that of a principal which has to be made on merit - cum - seniority. Another tentative list of seniority was published by the Government in which the petitioner was placed at No. 17. On 9-8-61 respondent 2 Ishwar Sharma was promoted as an acting Principal superseding the petitioners and many others. The Public Service Commission again objected to this appointment vide its No. PSC / DPC / 63/1772 dated 10-11-63.





4. Messrs SL Sadhu and Maqbul Fazilli were promoted as offg. Principals vide Government Order No. 1093 of 1962 dated 24-11-62 The Public Service Commission by another letter again protested to the Government, In 1965 Mr. BDL Sharma was promoted to the post of Principal on which the petitioner again made representation.

5. In para 14 the petitioner has made strong insinuations against certain officers and Ministers of State as to how these promotions were






















































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 Back to top