LexSTATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR versus SHIV RAM SHARMA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
ST A TE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR A v. SHIV RAM SHARMA AND OTHERS MARCH 30, 1999 (S. SAGHIR AHMAD ANDS. RAJENDRA BABU, JJ.] B Service Law-Conditions of Service-Stagnation-Allegation that requirement of passing ;matriculation was not there at the time of joining service-Requirement has been made to the detriment of such persons while in service-Avenue for promotion blocked-Held, the principle of avoiding C stagnation in a particular post will not be with reference to a particular individual employee but with respect to the conditions of service as such- Jammu Kashmir Geology and Mining (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 1990. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were initially appointed as Rigman, later designate<! as Drill Operator, Grade II, in 1967 and were further promoted in 1983 to the post of Drill Operator, Grade I. Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were initially appointed as Drill Operator, Grade II in 1984. It was noticed D by the Government that in higher promotfonal posts the incubents had to shoulder higher responsibilities for which qualification of Matriculation was E considered necessary. Consequently, the Government promulgated Rules know as 'Jammu & Kashmir Geology and Mining (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 1990. Under these Rules, for promotion to the post of Drilling Assistant the minimum basic qualification prescribed was matriculation with ~ve years service as Drill Operator, Grade II Boring Mistry, Grade I; and for promotion to the post of Boring Mistry, Grade II F Drill Operator, Grade I, the minimum basic qualification prescribed was matriculation with seven years service as Boaring Mistry, Garade II or Drill Operator, Grade II. The respondents did not possess the qualification of matriculation and therefore, were not promoted to higher grades. Respondents filed writ petitions seeking quashing of the Rules to the G extent they related to qualification bar in Class - A categories I & II and for further direction to fill up the posts on the basis of seniority irrespective of qualifications. Single Judge allowed the writ petitions on the ground that insistence on matriculation qualificatinn for promotion to a higher post was illogical and for such posts service experience should be the sole criteria. H 251 252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 2 S.C.R. A Aggrieved by the Judgement of the Single Judge, the appellant - State filed appeal before the Division Bench. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal holding that the respondents were facing complete stagnation not because of absence of promotional avenues but because of the requirement 'or matriculation qualification and it was observed that the Rules have to be B amended suitably to avoid stagnation by adverting to the decision in T.R. Kothanandraman & Ors v. Tamil Nadu Water Supply & Drainage Baord & Ors., [1994) 6 SCC 282. Against the Judgment of the Division Bench, the appellants have filed the present appeal. The appellant - State contended that the High Court had noticed that · C promotional avenue was available subject to certain conditions; and that it was not a case where the Rules _did not permit promotional opportu~ities at all and th_e hardship resulting to one or two individual employees should not have been taken note as a general standard to give the impugned directions as given by the High Court. D The respondents contended that the promotional opportunity under the Rules was only a mirage as the qualifications prescribed therein were impossible offulfilment by the respondents; that when the respondents joined service the requirement of passing matriculation was not needed and while they were in service such prescription has been litade to their detriment, and the High Court has only directed to relax the relevant Rules which would E benefit the respondents; and that in one case the benefit was extended in relaxation of the Rules. Allowing the Appeal, the Court . HELD : 1. The law is well settled that it is permissible for the F Government to prescribe appropriate qualifications in the matter of appointment or promotion to different posts. It is clear that there is no indefeasible right in the respondents to claim promotion to a higher grade to which qualification could be prescribed and there is no guarantee that those rules framed by the Government in that behalf would always be favourable G to them. Once appointed an employee has no vested right in regard to the terms
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.