K.K.SHARMA versus HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND ORS.

Citation: [2014] 14 S.C.R. 944 · Decided: 15-12-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
[2014] 14 S.C.R. 944 
K.K.SHARMA 
v. 
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5838 of2012) 
B 
DECEMBER 15, 2014* 
[RANJAN GOGOt AND R. K. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Promotion - Amendment of Service Rules in the year 
c 1988 providing 100% promotion to the post of 'Senior Judicial 
Assistants' (SJA) from the posts of Treasures/UDCs -
Challenged by 'Junior Translators' in writ petition on the 
grouqd that the amendment affected their promotional 
avenues - Disposal of the writ petition by order dated 
o 16. 10. 1998 holding that the amendment was void offending 
Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution - another writ petition by 
the Junior Translators seeking due implementation of the 
judgment dated 16. 10. 1998 and as regards their seniority 
arid promotion - High Court by order dated 23.10.2009 
E directed a limited review of the promotions only in respect of 
the Junior Translators who had moved the court in view of 
delay in implementing the order dated 16. 10. 1998-Affected 
by implementation of the order dated 23. 10. 1998 writ petition 
by the appellants on the ground that they since did not belong 
F 
to the category of SJA, their promotion and seniority not to 
be unsettled- High Court by order dated 1.6.2012 directed 
that promotions of Junior Translators to be made on the basis 
of the result of their written test and interview and further held 
that this direction also carries the potential of causing 
G disequilibrium among the incumbents in service - On appeal, 
held: The judgments dated 23.10.2009 as well as 1.6.2012 
strike a balance between compulsion of law and equity by 
attempting to balance the legal rights of Junior Translators 
*This judgment to be read alongwith subsequent order passed by this 
H Bench on 22-01-2015. 
944 
K. K. SHARMA It. HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND ORS. 
945 
flowing from the judgment dated 16.10.1998 and equitable A 
consid(;Jrations of the appellants - An adverse impact on 
equitable rights occasioned by milder version of 
implementation of judicial orders that have attained finality 
in law cannot invite jurisdiction u!Art. 136 of the Constitution 
- Constitution oflndia -Art. 136. 
B 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: Civil Appeal No. 5838 of 2012: 
1. Both the orders dated 23.10.2009 and 01.06.2012 
passed by the High Court are attempts to balance the c 
situation by taking into account the legal rights that flow . 
to the Junior Translators from the judgments of the High 
Court that require implementation and the equitable 
considerations by which the cases of the appellants, 
who are not at fault, are required to be judged. The D 
impugned orders do strike a balance between the 
compulsion of law and equity. "The law, as an instrument 
of social justice, takes a longer look to neutralize the sins 
of history". If constitutionality of service Rules itself 
cannot be judged "on the touchstone of fortune of E 
individuals" and the paramount consideration in framing 
the service rule is reconciliation of conflicting claims, an 
adverse impact on equitable rights occasioned by a 
"milder version" of implementati"on of judicial orders that 
have attained finality in law, cannot invite jurisdiction F 
under Article 136 of the Constitution. Therefore, the order 
dated 01.06.2012 passed by the High Court cannot be 
interfered with. [Paras 13 and 14)(957-H; 958-A-E] 
Tamil Nadu Education Department Ministerial 
and General subordinate Services Association & 
G 
Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. 1980 (1) SCR 
1026: (1980) 3 SCC 97; Kamal Kanti Dutta and 
Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.1980 (3) SCR 811 : 
(1980) 4 sec 38;.. relied on. 
H 
946 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 14 S.C.R. 
A 
2. It is implicit in the order dated 23.10.2009 that the 
review should be undertaken at each stepfstage 
undergone by those who were wronglylmistakenly 
promoted. The limited review directed in the cadre of 
AOJICM has to be continued in all higher cadres to which 
B promotions may have been made on the basis of the 
initial promotion to the cadre of AOJICM. [Para 15] 
[958~F-G] 
' 
Union of India & Ors. v. K.B. Rajoria 2000 (2) SCR 
613: (2000) 3 sec 562 - relied on. 
c 
Civil A1meal No. 5839 of 2012: 
3. The appellant in the present appeal seeks 
implementation of the order dated 23.10.2009 and is 
_aggrieved by the modifications made to the said order 
D by the Impugned order dated 01.06.2012. In view of the 
facts, that the order dated 01.06.2012 has been affirmed 
and the appellan
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.