STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR versus RAJ DULARI RAZDAN & ORS.

Citation: [1979] 2 S.C.R. 870 · Decided: 15-12-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

870 
A 
STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR 
v. 
RAJ DULAR! RAZDAN & ORS. 
December 15, 1978 
B 
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER, P. N. SHINGHAL, P. S. KAILASAM, D. A. DESAI 
AND A. D. KOSHAL, JJ.] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Ja1n1nu and Kashmir Constitution-Section 133 (2) (b), interpretation 
-Whether consulting the Public Service Commission is mandatory. 
The appellant State Government's Order No. 643-HTE dated July 25. 1909 
promoting certain professors was quashed by the High Court of Jammu & 
Kashmir while allowing the Writ Petition .No. 124/69 filed by the respondent. 
Leaving out the merits for decision by another Bench of this Court. 
HELD : I. What clause (b) of sub-section (2) of s. 133 of the Jammu 
& Kashmir Constitution requires is that the Commission shall be consulted : 
(i) on the principles to be followed in making appointments to civil services 
and posts and in making promotions and transfers from one service to another 
and (ii) on the suitability of candidates for such appointments, promotions 
or transfers. No other interpretation 
is 
really 
permissible 
on 
the 
plain 
language of the clause. It is not provided by s. 133 of the Constitution that 
all the members of the Commission should have interviewed all or any of the 
candidates, or that it was not permissible for the Commission to entrust the 
selection to a committee consisting of only one of its members, so long 
as 
the Commission reserved to itself the right to approve or disapprove the com· 
rnittee's report and actually 
discharged 
that 
constitutional 
responsibility. 
[872 F· H, 87 4 B-C] 
2. 1·he question ·whether the requirement for consulting the Commission i'.i 
mandatory or not does not arise in this case. [873 A]. 
3. The High Court erred in holding that the Commission \Vas not consult· 
ed in the manner required by s. 133 of the Jammu & Kashmir Constitution 
and in regard to the principles to be followed in mlaking the promotions to the 
posts of professors on the suitability of selected candidates for the promotions. 
[873 B, 874 D-E] 
On the facts which have been brought on the record it is established that 
(a) the Commission \Vas consulted in regard to the principles to be follo.,.ved 
in making the promotions to the post<; of professors as laid down in the 
"Jammu & Kashmir Professors of Colleges (Selection) 
Rules, 
1969", 
and 
[873 C-D]. 
(b) the Commission was consulted on the suitability of the candidates for 
promotion as professors and the second requircn1ent of clause (b) of sub-section 
(2) of s. 133 \Vas also complied with, since the selection of the respondents 
(to the Writ Petition) was made on the recommendation of the Public Service 
Commission after their names were sent strictly in order of seniority as per 
direction of the Commission, after they had been interviewed and examined 
by the Selection Committee, formed and presided over by one of the members 
of the Commission as Chairman. [873 F·H, 874 Al. 
1,. 
' .. 
r 
J. & K. v. RAJ DULAR! (Shinghal, /.) 
871 
civiL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 246 of 1973. 
.\ 
Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated 1-11-1971 of the 
Jammu and Kashmir High Court in W.P. No. 124/69. 
S. V. Gupte, Attorney General, Altaf Ahmed for the Appellant. 
L. N. Sinha, K. P. Gupta, D. B. Tawkley and Vineet Kumar for 
RR 1-21, 23, 25, 27 to 29 and 31-38. 
G. L. Sanghi, R. K. Mehta and Miss Uma Mehta for RR 55 and 
72. 
S. S. Khanduja for RR 53. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SHINGHAL J.-This appeal by certificate is 
directed against the 
judgment of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir dated November 
1, 1971, in writ petition No. 124 of 1969. That petition was filed 
against the promotions of respondents Nos. 1 to 46 and others 
as 
Professors in supersession of the claims of the writ petitioners who con-
tended that they were senior and more qualified for promotion. 
The 
High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the State Govern-
ment's Order No. 643-HTE dated July 25, 1969, in regard to 
the 
appointments of respondents Nos. 3 to 46 and directed that it would 
be open to the State Government to make a fresh selection of Profes-
"-- sors in accordance with the law. 
A review petition was filed against 
the judgment but was dismissed on September 14, 1972. 
The State 
Government is aggrieved and has filed the present appeal. 
When the case was taken up for hearing on November 28, 1978. 
it was brought to our notice by counsel for the respondents that it will 
not be possi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.