JANKI PRASAD PARIMOO & ORS. ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR & ORS.

Citation: [1973] 3 S.C.R. 236 · Decided: 10-01-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Case Allowed

Cited by 8 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

236 
JANKI PRASAD PARIMOO & ORS. ETC. ETC. 
v:. 
STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR & ORS. 
January 10, 1973 
{S, M. SIKRI, C.J., A. N. RAY, D. G. PALEKAR, M. H. BEG AND 
S. N, DWIVEDI, JJ.] 
The Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services 
Classification 
Control and 
Appeals) Rules 1969-Selection for promotion of teachers to JJOtlS of 
Jieadmaster and higher posts-Selection to be on 
merit-c="'eniority 
basis--Selection on basis of interview only without ·taking into aceount 
.character roll and confidential reports of candidates and by adopting o very 
·/ow curting score cannot he upheld. 
Jammu & Kashmir Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Restl"' 
vation Rules) 1910-Backward clarses, what are-Principles for deter-
·mining-Rules whether violative A.rt. 16(4), Constitution of India. 
On 14·6-1956 the State of Jammu & 
Kashmir 
promulgated 
the 
Jammu & Keshmir Civil Services (Classification O>ntrol 
& 
Appeals) 
Rules 1956. Rule 19 provided that re,.rvation was permitted to 
be 
made in favour of any backward class which in the opinion 
of the 
Government, was not adequately represented in service, 
Rule 
25(2) 
related to promotions which were to be made 
on 
merit-cum-seniority 
'basis. The State, 
relating 
Muslims a8 a backward clasa gave them a 
reservatio,n of 50% in the matter of promotion of teachers to the post 
of headmasters. This Court in Triloki Nath v. State of 
Jam1nu 
&: 
Kashmir, [1967] 2 S.C.R. 265 and Makhan/al Woza & Ors. v. State 
of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors,, [1971] 3 S.v.R, 832 
held 
that 
the 
promotions of muslims to the posts of headmasters or· teachers· in-charge 
were made on the basis of a communal policy and against the aforesaid 
1956 Rules, 
After the decision in Mak/Jan/al Maza's. case the State by 
an order dated 23·2-1971 reverted all those teachers who had officiated 
as headmasters or had been designated as teachers-in-charge. A Depart-
me:ntal Promotion Committee was appointed in accordance 
with 
the 
rules and the Committee was directed to interview the candidates. The 
interviews were held ~rom March to July 1971. The selections were to 
be made in accordance with the Jammu & 
Kashmir 
Civil 
Services 
(Clossification Central and Appeals) Rules 1969 which had 
replaced 
the old rules of 1956. 
Meanwhile In accordance with the recommenda-
tions of the Backward Cldsses Committee the State Governme'llt 
had 
also issued on April 18, 1970 the Jammu & Kashmir Scheduled Castes 
& Backward Cfasses (Reservation Rules) 1970. Later, on 
August 8 .• 
1970, a further order was passed known as Jarnmu & Kashmir Scheduled 
Castes & Backward Classes (Reservation of appointment by Promotion) 
Rules 1970. 
The present petitioners were adversely affected by the 
selections made by the aforesaid Departmntal Promotion' 
O>mmittee 
In 1971. l:n their petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution the ques· 
lions that fell ful- consideration were : (i) whether the selections made 
after interviews were improper and ·illegal and should be 
set 
aside; 
(ii) whether the Rules of reservation of posts in favour of backward 
classes are in violation of Art, 16 of the Constitution and should be 
set asic1t:. 
HELD : (i) Undoubtedly wht!ll> appointments to higher 
posts 
are 
·-made it may be perfectly legitimate to test the candidates at a properly 
•conducted interview. But interview cannot be made the aole 
test 
lll 
A 
B 
c 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
J, P, PAll!MOO V, J, & K. STATE 
237 
cases of this kind. The efficiency of a teacher and 
hi~ 
qu~catio~ 
to be appointed as Headmaster depend on several cons1derations. HIS 
character, his teachi:ng experience, ability 
to 
manage 
his class, 
his 
popularity with, the 
students and the high proportion of 
successful 
students be is able to produce are all matters which must be necessarily 
taken into consideration before a selection 
is 
made. 
For 
this 
any 
Committee which desires to mnke a seLection after 
interview 
should 
insist that the character roll and the service record of the teacher should 
be befdre it. 
In the present case however the Comm:ittee did ~t have 
before it either the character rolls or service records of the teachers 
nor any confidential reports about them. They had to go merely by 
the result of the interview. 
The Committee was wrong in undertaking 
to make the selections on the basis of mere interviews. [246 D] 
Further, the expert adviser had advised 50% as the cutting 
score)> 
but the Committee adopted 30% as the cutting 
score.· T

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.