LexMAHARAJ KRISHAN BHATT AND ANR. versus STATE OF J & K AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 11 S.C.R. 670 ~ A MAHARAJ KRISHAN BHATT AND ANR. ~ v. ~ STATE OF J & K AND ORS. (Civil "Appeal Nos. 8481-8482 of 2003) B AUGUST 1, 2008 [C.K. THAKKER AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, ) JJ.] Service Law - Appointment - To the post of Sub-lnspec- \ tor of Police - Some Constables making representation seek- I c 1-- ing appointment through direct recruitment by relaxing the r Regulation of Police Manual - Writ petition before High Court I - In the Petition of one constable, relief granted and confirmed .. upto Supreme Court- Relief granted to the present constables 0 by Single Judge of High Court relying on the decision passed in the case of the other constable - Relief denied in writ ap- peal as well as in Ieview - On appeal, held: Order of Single Judge was legal, fair and in furtherance of Justice - He rightly relied on .the case. of the other constable - Division Bench E wrongly denied the relief since the case of the other constable t--, was not distinguishable from that of the present constables - ; Jammu and Kashmir Police Manual - Chapter VII Regula- tion 174. Appellants and three others, who were constables ~ F in Jammu & Kashmir Police made representations for con- sidering their cases for appointment to the post of Sub- s Inspector of Police under 50% direct recruitment quota, by relaxing Regulation 174 of Chapter VII of Jammu & Kashmir Police Manual. One constable was recom- G mended for the appointment while the representations of others were rejected. The appellants as well as one of the other constables filed separate writ petitions before High Court. In the writ petition of the appellants, despite the ~ direction of the court, they were not considered. On the H 670 MAHARAJ KRISHAN BHATT & ANR. v STATE OF 671 J & K & ORS. -+ basis of observation made by Division Bench of High A Court in LPA, they filed fresh writ petition. In the meantime, the writ petition filed by the other constable was allowed by High court and confirmed upto this Court. B ~ Single Judge of High Court allowed the writ petition of the appellants, relying on the decision passed in the case of the other constable. In writ appeal, Division Bench of High court set aside the order of single Judge. Review petition against the same was also dismissed. Hence the c present appeals. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 The order passed by the Single Judge of the High Court was legal, proper and in furtherance of justice, equity and fairness in action. Division Bench ought D not to have interfered with the said decision. [Paras 16 and 16] [680-C; 679-D] 1.2 Single Judge of High Court could not be said to have committed any error of law in following the decision E passed in case of the other constable and in issuing s.imi- tar directions to the State Authorities. This was particu- larly true because the judgment and order of the Single Judge passed in the case of the other constable was con- firmed by the Division Bench of the High Court and even by this Court. [Para 15] [678-G~; 679-A] F :J. 1.3 In fairness and in view of the fact that the deci- sion in the case of the other constable had attained final- ity, the State Authorities ought to have gracefully accepted the decision by granting similar benefits to present writ- petitioners. [Para 17] (680-A-B] G 1.4 No distinguishing feature had been brought to ~ the notice of the Division Bench, nor the Division Bench .... set aside the judgment and order passed by the Single JJdge holding or observing that though another con- H 672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R. ~ A stable was granted the benefit, the appellants were not entitled because their case was different. Even before this court nothing special or extraordinary fact or circum- stance was shown to distinguish the case of another con- stable and that of the appellants. [Para 16] [679-B-D] . B. 1.5 It is correct that if one illegal action is taken, a person whose case is similar, cannot invoke Article 14 or )o 16 of the Constitution of India and demand similar relief illegally or against a statute. But in the case on hand, there ., was no illegality. on the part of the Single Judge in allow- )- c ing writ petition instituted by the other constable and in issuing necessary directions. Since the action was legal and in consonance with law, the Division Bench con- firmed it and this Court did not think it proper to interfere with the s
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.