STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH versus AMAR NATH SHARMA AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 429 · Decided: 12-07-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH 
v. 
AMAR NATH SHARMA AND ORS. 
JULY 12, 1994 
[KULDIP SINGH AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.] 
Se1vice Law : Civil Services--C/ass III and Class IV posts under the 
State Govt.- of Himachal Pradesh-Office memorandum laying down proce-
dure fa• selection-Weightage for economically backward and for those whose 
family did not have anyone in the organised employment-Selection and ap-
pointment made on the basis of the office memorandum-Validity of 
A 
B 
c 
For recruitment to class III and class IV posts not falling within the 
pun-iew of the Public Service Commission the appellant State Government 
issued an office memorar.dum in 1980 laying down the procedure to be D 
followed. In addition to marks for educational qualifications, general 
knowledge and personality, the said memorandum also provided for 
marks for those candidates belonging to a family is which not even one 
member is in organised employment .and for candidates whose family 
income did not exceed Rs.6,000. 
A special Selection Committee was constituted and candidates from 
• 
v·arious Employment Exchanges from the State were called for interview 
and the selected candidates were appointed. TI1is was challenged before 
the High Court by way of writ petitions. 
The High Court quashed part of the said memorandum as well as 
the selection and appointments made on the grounds that the definition 
E 
F 
of "family" did not include spouses; that there was no justification for not 
excluding married brothers; that a candidate who belonged to rich busi-
ness family could not be considered socially and educationally backward G 
and as such not entitled to any weightage even though not a single member 
of the said family was in organised employment and that the interviews 
were held in an arbitrary manner. The State Government preferred the 
present appeals against the High Court's judgment. 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
429 
H 
430 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD : 1. The word "family" has been defined by the State Govern· 
B 
ment as "parents, brother and unmarried sisters of the candidate." The 
High Court fell into patent error in quashing the said definition. The State 
Goverriment adopted the definition keeping in view the social conditions 
in the State, viz. in low income groups, the married brother continues to 
be an integral part of the family and the spouses of men-folk do not seek 
employment or to work independently for earning. There was no material 
before the High Court to have reached the conclusion that the definition 
of "family" adopted by the State Government was arbitrary. [433-F-H] 
2. There is no justification for providing any weightage or incentive 
C for a class of citizens which is not socially and educationally backward. An 
affiuent family having education and social status cannot be given any 
preference in the matters relating to employment or appointment to any 
office under the State in the scheme of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitu-
tion of India. The weightage of 10 marks for a candidate 'belonging to a 
family for whom not even one member is in organised employment" is 
D therefore set aside. This shall operate prospectively from the date of this 
judgment, and any seiection already made on the basis of the memoran· 
dum shall be considered valid. [ 434-B-C] 
E 
F 
3. The High Court was not justified in quashing the selection proce· 
dure. It acted merely on surmises and conjectures. Simply because a 
candidate obtained less marks for educational qualifications and more 
marks in the interview, it is no ground to reach the conclusion that the 
candidate was favoured. The special selection committees at various dis· 
trict levels adopted their own procedure to hold the interviews. At some 
places lumpsum marks were awarded in respect of general knowledge and 
parsonality whereas at other places 20 marks were divided into general 
knowledge and personality separately. There is no illegality in the manner 
of holding the interviews. (434-D-F] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 3038-
G 3048/87. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 6-8-82 of the High Court of H.P. 
at Shimla in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 211, 212, 217, 218, 225, 235, 240 and 
247/80 and 43, 55 and 4 of 1981. 
H 
Sunil Gupta and K.J. John for the Appellants. 
·. 
STATE OF H.P. v. AN. SHARMA[KULD!P SINGH,J.) 
431 
S.S. Khandya, Yash Pal Dhingra, B.K. Satija, Naresh K. Sharma and A 
Ms. A. Subhashini for the Re

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