MRS. SHAKUNTALA SHARMA versus HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA AND ANR.

Citation: [1994] 1 S.C.R. 523 · Decided: 02-02-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. SAWANT, N.P. SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

MRS. SHAKUNTALA SHARl\iA 
v. 
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA AND 
ANR. 
FEBRUARY 2, 1994 
[P.B. SAWANT AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.] 
Service Law: T7te High Court of Himachal Pradesh ReCTuitment(Con-
ditions of Service) Rules, 1992. 
R. l<>--Promotion-Superintendent-Appoi11tment by promotion--Eligi-
bility-Three years service as Deputy Superintendent/Revisor, failing which 
persons with 6 years service as Senior Assistant/Translator-Held, r.10 is 
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution-If incumbents of both sets of posts 
A 
B 
c 
are to be made eligible for promotion to the post of Superintendent, no 
qualifying period of service can be prescribed for incumbents of posts of D 
Deputy of Superintendents/Revisors-Directions given to frame an equitable 
rule in place of r. 10. 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 14-Rule 10 of Himachal Pradesh 
Recruitment(Conditions of Service) Rules, 1992-Whether violative of. 
E 
In the respondent-High Court, there were two sets of equivalent 
hierarchical posts, namely, Clerks, Translators and Revisors, on the one 
hand and Clerks, Senior Assistants and Deputy Superintendents, on the 
other, leading to a common promotional post of Superintendent. 
The appellant, who was working as Revisor, was senior to respondent 
no.2 at every stage. In the combined seniority list, the appellant stood at 
serial no. 13 whereas respondent no. 2 at 17. However, since the appellant 
F 
had not completed three years' service as Revisor and there was no other 
Deputy Superintendent or Revisor with a minimum three years' service in G 
the respective posts, respondent no. 2, who was working on the post of 
Senior Assistant • a post one grade below to that held by the appellant • 
was promoted to the post of Superintendent, as envisaged by r. 10 of the 
High Court of Himachal Pradesh Recruitment(Conditiolis of Service) 
Rules 1992. The said Rule provided for appointment to the post of Super-
intendent by promotion from amongst graduate Deputy Superinten- H 
523 
524 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
dents/Revisor with minimum three years of service as- such in the ratio of 
4:1, failing which by promotion from amongst Senior Assistants(frans· 
lators with minimum six years service in the same ratio. 
B 
c 
The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging 
the validity of Rule 10 of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh Recruit-
ment(Conditions of Service) Rules 1992. She claimed her promotion to the 
post of Superintendent in place of respondent no. 2. The High Court held 
r.10 as.valid and dismissed the writ petition. Hence the appeal, by special 
leave. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. Rule 10 of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh Recruit-
ment( Conditions of Service) Rules 1992 violates Article 14 of the Constitu-
tion since it treats unequals as equals and even gives unwarranted 
advantage to the incumbents of the lower posts over the incumbents of the 
D higher posts. The Rule is inequitous, indefensibly unjust and is, therefore, 
struck down. The promotion given to respondent np. 2 stands quashed. 
[528-F, H; 529-A] 
1.2. The basic weakness in r. 10 is that it places two unequal sets of . 
E 
posts on par with each other and also prescribes qualifying service for the 
higher posts. The posts of Deputy Superintendents and Revis ors are posts 
higher than those of Senior Assistants and Translators respectively. If the 
incumbents of both the sets of posts are to be made eligible for promotion 
to the post of Superintendent, no qualifying period of service can be 
prescribed for the incumbents of the posts of Deputy Superintendents and 
F 
Revisors. [528-B, C] 
2.1. If Senior Assistants and Translators are to be provided with 
promotional avenue, more posts of Deputy Superintendents and Revisors 
which are above the posts of Senior Assistants and Translators respective-
G ly, should be created, and first the Senior Assistants and Translators have 
to be promoted to the said posts. [528-D] 
2.2. The High Court should frame an equitable rule for promotion 
to the post of Superintendent in place of r. 10, in a manner which would 
not deny to the incumbents of the higher posts promotion and would not 
H give advantage over them to those holding lower posts. [528-H; 529-A] 
SHAKUNTALA v. HIGHCOURTOFH.P.[SAWANT,J.) 
525 
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.1.1993 of the Himachal 
Pradesh High Court in C.W.P. No. 1055 of 1993. 
Rama Jois, B. Rajani and K.R. Naga

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