LexUNION OF INDIA versus PREM KUMAR JAIN & ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
,._...... __ . __
.
A
B
c
.. D
£
F
G
11
. ,1~6
.
·' f·'
. ~,
UNTON OF INDIA
,
I
v.
PREM: KUMAR' JAIN & ORS. ETC ..
· April 28. 1976
[A. N. R;y,'. C.i., R. S. SARKARIA P. N. SHlNGlTAL
.
AND JASWANT SINGH JJ.l
·C01wiwrion of ·India A rtld~ 312--A/1 l11dia Sen• ice Act, 1951-IYhnlter
Union . Turitoriu ar~ 'State•.<' for.. thr pmposc of.
A new. c.odre of the ln<iinn Administrntiv.: Scrvic.: w:t• con<titute<l for Dtlhi
. nod. Himachnl Pra<le,h, and recruitment to it was made
dirtctlv
without
followinl! the normal method prc.<crihcd by Rule 4( I) of the J.A.S. !Recruit-
. m<llt) Rule•. 1954.
These Rule' were nmendc<.l, to provide for n ioint c3<1re
for the Union Territories and the North East Frontier Agcncv. and the Central
GO\-eroment formul:ttecl a scheme for extcndinl': the Ddhi-Himachal Pradesh
Cadre to all the Union Territories bl( 'lb<orbin!! its officers an.l
nr>PQintin~
of]'icers from. the Todian Frontier Adrni~i,trative Service and all other Union
Territorie• initiallv. The ioint cndre wn~ brou~ht into e xistence bv the Central
Government's onier4 notified under S.:e. · 3 (I ) of the T.A.S. (Cadre) l!ul<5.
1954, !'Uhlished in the G;w.:ue of India, F.~traordinary. The creation of tiK
new joint cadre · nnJ
th~ anpointmcnt of. some of the respondents th~reto.
were chnllcnged in. the llit•h Court on the cround that they were contrary
to Art. 312 of the Con"itution nnLI the All India Services Act. 1951. as
the joint carlrc \\'a.S not common to the Union nnd the States inasmuch as a.
Union Territory· Wft5 not a Stnte, nnd the recruitment of the resoondent•
concerned, Wi!Jl
ille~al. The Hich Court quash•<.! the Central Gover11mcnt's
ordu< and the scheme for the formation of a ioint cadre of the J.A.S. nr.d
h~J ,J lhat !h•.=atic>n of. the Delhi H imachal Pra.te,;h Cadre was al-;o ultra virci
lhc Con,lttutJOn.' ~
~t..., stlon of law which came up before thi.• cOurt "':\.'
w~eth:r _1Jnton Terntor.,, aro 'Stole~' for tho purpose of Art. 311 of
&e
Con,lilut•un. llnd lhc all Jndia Service Rule•. 195 L 7
},llowing the apf>e~l• the Cottrt,
·
I' Hf'f.O: Section 3~58) of the c~neral ChHJSCS Act. 1897, provid., inter
•.~·1
• lhnt·. tbe expresst~n 'Stale' shall me;m
~:1 state spccifi~d in th• fir<;,
~.hed!tle . to. t.he. Con•t•rutlon
nnd
~hall
include. n
U nion
Terirtorv.
nv VIrtU~ or Arttcl.- 372-A or th-.
Constitution.
which wa~ in~el\ed bv tM
Co•~•tltutton tS.:v~nth Amendmcn\) Ac ~
1956 becou<e of the fact that th~
~n~e.r. of· ndaJ>t.~hon · un<l~r · nrticle 372'(2) h:W con•o to ntl ~"'1. it -..·:~~ thJt
~c lllttl~n of the exnre..,.ion 'Stull'' which haJ eiTect frorn
th~ t st <lav of
h ovem e.r. 195~. Vld Inc C'on<tltution expres~ly orovidcd th,1t it caul.! not
e. que<tloned '" unv COull of btw.
T• Wll$ a
·~c!al nrovi•ion \\'nkh \\111 .
me,Jnt (0 '<fVl' fhr (lllr11i>'e
(
I.'
L
I
bl~
Artide 37' A 1
"
ma•mP t.,e s.-,••nth Arncn.!m••nt A~l '""•l ·
analc>r•nn• ~in ~~~u·,:;~v<' n ~<''h ~w~r rn th .. Pr.-<id••nt which ""'< ~ual ";~' ·
th• Pr"'iJrnt th•rdor er 11" er nrllcll 37212\.
A• from Novrmt..•r I. 19. ·
hrineinJ: tne provj<lo~. h.t~t the flOV.('l : (O nd:,nJ th• bw~ ror tho• nttr~e of
l"rovi,fon• of thl' Con<li~ t' ony law '" force in ln<lia in
~,·c•"'l' <'tth. th~
i·•urd the Adurl'ltion of l' ron. ~I ,..,,, lln•lrr !hat pow~r thnt th<" Pr.stJ(O
dnu!lt' (~R) In .::ctinn 3 0~~h ( G 0 • I 1 O«l'f. 1911i, whi<"h ~uh<ritnt.,l thr nt~•
'f1,,.
l·li~h Court W<'nl wr
":
.trn~rat Clause• Act. 1 ~97. ,...r"rr"l "' ahrW i
"llnion Tc-rritori-""'1" w
on~ \~ t~tku.,t! " rnhtrarv vi.-w nnft irt
hll1dio~ chr~
ere 0 " 1
Stut~
(l6Mf';, 169.\G. 1710!
"'''"'If'~"""'"' nf A I·
1
fl'l70J 3 S r R
·~1 'r:r"''u, 11' 11'""ct Co. Ltd. v . . %ri Gmudau~i!l ~- ()rr .•
· ·
• "" •
1 .:rreu tn.
oft~~~~.'- Ar>PrtLATP. JURI'mtcno~: Civil Appeals Nos. 218~~~99
.~·
(From the iudl!mc t
1
d
D !hi
Hil'h Court in Writ p ~}
0
( ~~ et dated the 25-9-1969 of tbll
c
'
e 1 100~ 1{o~. <405 nncl 4 7R to 487 of 1 961!) •
-r--
I .-
-
UNION v, P. K. JAIN (Shinghal, !.)
167
V. P. Rama11, Addl. Sol. General with P. P. Rao, and S. P. Nayar,
A
for the appeUant.
R. B. Datar, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SHINGHAL, J.
These appeals by certificate are directed against the
B
judgment of the Delhi High Court dated September 25, 1969, allowing
Civil Writ Petition No. 405 of 1968 and connected petitions Nos. 478
to 487 of 196Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.