VINOD KUMAR BHAGAT AND ORS versus STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND ORS

Citation: [2021] 12 S.C.R. 304 · Decided: 17-11-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, VINEET SARAN, SURYA KANT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
304
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 12 S.C.R.
VINOD KUMAR BHAGAT AND ORS
v.
STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND ORS
(Civil Appeal Nos. 6928 of 2021)
NOVEMBER 17, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, SURYA KANT
AND VIKRAM NATH, JJ]
Service law: Judicial service – Respondents were appointed
as Judicial Magistrates in 2002-03 – They were placed higher in
the merit list compared to the reserved category petitioners –
However, the gradation list was prepared by applying the roster for
direct recruitment as provided under r.5 of the Jammu and Kashmir
Reservation Rules, 2005 – This in effect led to the reserved category
petitioners displacing the general category respondents in the
gradation list – The third and fourth petitioners were promoted as
Sub-Judge on the basis of their placement in the gradation list –
Respondent filed writ petition for quashing the gradation list of
Judicial Magistrates and for a direction to prepare the gradation
list, based on merit – The contention of the respondents before the
High Court was that r.5 of the 2005 Rules will be applicable only
for direct recruitment and not for determination of inter se seniority
for the purpose of promotion – While disposing of the writ petition,
High Court relied upon its earlier decision in Ashok Kumar and
Others v State of J&K – High Court held that there was merit in the
challenge to the gradation list issued by the High Court and to
promotions granted to the post of Civil Judge on the basis of
placement in the gradation list – On appeal, held: High Court had
observed that the ratio in Ashok Kumar’s case would be sufficient
to settle the principle issue raised – The reference to the decision in
Ashok Kumar’s case was wholly unnecessary since no submission
was urged on the basis of that decision by the petitioners before the
High Court – However, High Court also undertook an analysis of
the validity of the gradation list independent of the ratio in Ashok
Kumar’s case – The decision of the High Court seems to intertwine
the reasoning on both aspects – It was not necessary for the High
Court or, for that matter, appropriate to rely upon the decision in
Ashok Kumar’s case, since such a ground was not urged either in
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
305
the writ proceedings or in the course of the submissions by the
petitioners before the High Court – Impugned judgment and order
of the High Court set aside – Writ petition restored to the file of the
High Court for a decision afresh.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.6928 of
2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.11.2015 of the High Court
of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu in S.W.P. No.1350 of 2011.
A. K. Ganguli, A. Mariarputham, Sr. Advs., C. Azad, Avneesh
Arputham, Ms. Anuradha Arputham, M/s Arputham Aruna and Co.,
Advs. for the Appellants.
Tushar Mehta, SG, Ms. Madhavi Divan, ASG, Gaurav Pachnanda,
V. Giri, Sanjay R Hegde, Sr. Advs., Rajat Nair, Devashish Bharukha,
Ankur Talwar, Ms. Shashi Juneja, Satyajeet Kumar, Ms. Taruna
Ardhendumauli Prasad, Ms. Kanu Agrawal, Aditya Manubarwala, Parth
Awasthi, Ms. Avni Sharma, Ms. Manisha Ambwani, Anupam Raina,
Ms. Suveni Bhagat, Sunando Raha, Deepak Goel, Rutwik Panda, Ms.
Nikhar Berry, Ms. Anshu Malik, Arjun Krishnan, Ms. Prerna Mehta,
Ram Sankar, Ms. Sujatha Bagadhi, Ms. G. Chitrakala, G. Jai Singh, Aniv
Veda Sharma, R. V. Kameshwaran, Gopal Balwant Sathe, Amit Arora,
Mohd. Asif Ali, Ajay Kumar, Ms. Richa Pandey, B. L. Shivhare, Yusuf,
B. Krishna Prasad, Ms. Astha Sharma, Ms. Mantika Haryani, Sahil
Tagotra, Kaustav Som, Advs. for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was passed :
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from a judgment of a Division Bench of the
High Court of Jammu and Kashmir (at Jammu) dated 27 November
2015.
3. The respondents, who are the petitioners before the High Court,
qualified at the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Judicial) Examinations
2002 and were appointed as Judicial Magistrates in 2002-03. They were
placed higher in the merit list compared to the petitioners. However, the
gradation list was prepared by applying the roster for direct recruitment
VINOD KUMAR BHAGAT v. STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
306
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 12 S.C.R.
as provided under Rule 5 of the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules,
20051. This in effect led to the reserved category petitioners displacing
the general category respondents in the gradation list. The third and
fourth petitioners were promoted as Sub-Judge on the basis
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.