JAGHNATH versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [1991] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 152 · Decided: 01-11-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
JAGHNATH 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER 1,1991 
[RANGANATH MISRA, CJ., M.H.KANIA 
AND KULDIP SINGH, JJ.] 
Civil· Service--Compositors in printing presses-Promotion 
--Categorisation of "highly skilled" and "skilled"-Seniority basis-Validity 
of 
Civil Service-Compositors in printing presses--Promotion --Stag-
nation between cadres-Removal of-Ratio prescribed. 
Petitioner claiming that he and other similarly placed Com-
positors working in the Government of India presses all over India 
were entitled to the status and salary of Compositors, Grade I in the, 
"highly skilled" category with effect from January 1, 1966 on the 
ground that the decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in 
Thakur 's case was applicable in principle to all the Compositors, 
filed the present petition under Article 32 of the C,onstitution. 
The High Court in Thakur's case held that the categorisation 
as "highly skilled" and "skilled" on the basis of seniority alone was 
unreasonabl~ and discriminatory. As no special leave petition against 
the judgment of the High Court was brought to this Court the judg-
ment became final. 
Over-ruling Thakur's case_and~ismlssing the-petitiOn this Court, 
HELD : l.Academic pursuit and experience are two primary 
sources of learning. A Compositor's job in a printing press is a 
skilled job requiring special technique. In such a job it would be 
reasonabie to measure the standards of skill by length of experi-
ence. The High Court fell into error in quashing the classification 
based on experience arising out of length of service. [157 BJ 
2. 
"Highly skilled" category was created to handle the nature 
of work which involved higher skill than the original hand composi-
tion. The Compositors with longer service and who were found fit 
152 
• 
,..
I 
JAGHNATH v. U.0.1. [KULDIP SINGH, J.] 
153 
for promotion were appointed to Grade I and were categorised as 
A 
"highly skilled". Experience itself is merit and can be a valid basis 
for classification. [157 C-DJ 
3. Keeping in view the large number of Compositors all over 
the country and to remove stagnation the ratio between the two 
cadres should be 33 1/ 3 : 66 2/ 3 %. [158 DJ 
B 
4. The respondents are directed to increase the strength of 
· the cadre of Compositor Grade-I 'highly skilled' to 331/ 3 percent 
with effect from April 1, 1992. [158 DJ 
Thakur's Case (Writ petition C.W. N?. 61/69) dated 21.5.1971; 
C 
overruled. 
State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia, [1989J 1 S.C.C. 121 ; referred to. 
EXTRAORDINARY JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil No. 651 
of 1986. 
D 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia). 
P.P. Rao, Ms. Bina Gupta, Ms. Vandana Saggar and Ms. Monika 
Mobil for the Petitioners. 
V.C. Mahajan, K. Swamy, Ms. A. Subhasbini and Ms. Niranjana 
Singh for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
E 
KULDIP SINGH, J. This petition under Article 32 of the Costitution F 
bas been filed by Prahalad Singh claiming that be and other similarly 
placed Compositors working in the Government of India Presses all over 
India are entitled to the status and salary of Compositors, Grade I in the 
"highly skilled" category with effect from January 1, 1966. The said relief 
is claimed on the sole ground that one T.R. Thakur bas already been given 
Grade I in the "highly skilled" category as a result of the judgment in his 
G 
favour given by the Himachal Pradesh High Court. The writ petition 
(C.W. 61/69) filed by T.R. Thakur was allowed by the learned Single 
Judge of the High Court on May 21, 1971 and Letters Patent Appeal against 
the said judgment was dismissed on May 9, 1979. The High Court held 
that the categorisation as "highly skilled" and "skilled" on the basis of 
seniority alone was unreasonable and discriminatory. No special leave 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
154 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1991] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
petition against the judgment of the High Court was brought to this Court 
and as such tbejudgment has become final. 
Prahalad Singh and others have claimed that they are entitled to the 
benefit of the judgment given by the High Court in Thakur's case. Ac-
cording to them the said judgment is applicable in principle to all the 
Compositors whether they were parties before the High Court or not. This 
petition came for hearing before a Bench of this Court consisting of R.S. 
Pathak, en, M.N. Venkatachalia, J. The Bench in its order dated April 28, 
1989 observed as under:-
"The principal objec
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.