LexVIRENDRA KRISHNA MISHRA versus UNION OF INDIAAND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(, l J ' \ ; . ~ . ( I - I ~ .'. :' , '· , •_-, .• ' • / - .-: " . [2014) 13 S.C.R. 17 ' VIRENDRA KRISHNA MISHRA ' v. . - UNION OF INDIAAND OTHERS - · (Civil Appeal No. 9979 of 2014) OCTOBER3°1, 2014' . . . · ···· · [ANIL R: DAVE, KURIAN JOSEPH AND 1 B R. K.AGRAWAL, JJ.] . · - . · : Service Law - Encadrement oi posts ~ Guarantee .•. -d ,. . . ' - -- -- ·- ' . . ·against discrimination u/Art.14 of the Constitution-National Capital Territory of Delhi; Andaman- and Nicobar Islands, C Lakshadweep, Daman and Diu and Dadra and Nagar Haveli Civil Services_- Posts 'of Deputy Resident Commissioner (DRC), Tourist Information Officer (TIO) and Information Officer (10}- /n status, grade, scale of pay and professional content, the posts of 10, . TIO and DRC were same - Feeder D cadre for all the posts was PRO-:- Cadre Review Committee encadred only, the DRCs, ignoring T/Os and the /Os - Justification .. - Held: Not justified -:- Whole conduct of the Cadre Review Committee was arbitrary and a blatant violation of the guaranteed protection of equality u!Art.14 of E the Constitution - No justification for distinguishing persons ·who are grouped together - If posts of DRC· only are . encadred, th_e juniors' in the feeder as well as promoted category will steal a march over their seniors, merely on F foituitous situation of posting as DRC- Direction issued.to. the Union of India to encadre all the posts which were treated · -·by the Andaman and Nicobar Islands under a common ·~ seniority ..;. Andaman and Nicobar Administration (lnformation.Officerin the Directorate of lnfomiatior;i, Publi~ity G and Tourism) Recruitment Rules, 1988 - Andaman and Nicobar Administration (Group 'B' Gazetted post of Tourist Information Officer and Deputy Resident Commissioner in .· the Directorate of Information, Publicity and Tourism) . /,·, . 17 H ), ' 18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13 S.C.R. A Recruitment Rules, 1997 - Constitution of India. 1950 - Art. 14. Fundamental Rights- Right to equality- Held: Cannot be arbitrarily denied to equals in the absence of a valid B classification. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Equality before law and equal protection of laws is the quintessence of Right to Equality, a C Fundamental Right guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Equals cannot be treated unequally, nay, they are to be treated equally. Right to such equality cannot be arbitrarily denied to the equals in the absence of a D valid classification. [Para 2][19-F-G] 1.2. In the case at hand, one fails to understand, on elementary principles, as to how the Cadre Review Committee would encadre only the Deputy Resident Commissioners (DRCs), ignoring Tourist Information E Officers (TIOs), leave alone the Information Officers (IOs). The whole conduct is arbitrary and a blatant violation of the guaranteed protection of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. [Para 15][31-C-E] F 1.3. There is no justification for distinguishing persons who are grouped together. The feeder cadre is PRO for all the three posts of 10, TIO and DRC. Promotion is based on seniority. If 3 posts of DRC only are encadred, the juniors in the feeder as well as promoted G category will steal a march over their seniors, merely on fortuitous situation of posting as DRC. People who have burnt their boats should sail together. Therefore, the interest of justice would be protected and cause of justice would be advanced only if a positive direction is issued H VIRENDRA KRISHNA MISHRA v. UNION OF INDIA 19 to the Union of India to en cadre all the seven posts which A are treated by the Andaman and Nicobar Islands under a common seniority. [Para 17][32-D·G] ··' Budhan Choudhary and Ors. v. State of Bihar AIR 1955 SC 191 : 1955 SCR 1045 - referred to. B Case Law Reference: 1955 SCR 1045 referred to Para 16 · CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal C No. 9979 of 2014. From the Judgment and Order dated 14.03.2012 of the High Court at Calcutta, circuit at Port Blair, in COCT No. 01 of 2012. . D J.S. Attri, Gurukrishana Ku'mar, Sr. Advs., Surajit Samanta, Sujoy Monda!, S. K. Poddar, Bijan Kumar Ghosh, Rupesh Kumar, Ms. Meenakshi Grover (For Ms. Sushma Suri), Mohan Prasad Gupta, R. Balasubramaniam, D.S. Mahra, B.K. Prasad,.Hiren Dasar:i; Ms. Shanta Pandye,Avinash Singh, S.K. E Bhattacharya, D.K. Mishra for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Co
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.