Skip to content


Bal Ram Prasad Rawat and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Subject

Constitution

Court

Supreme Court of India

Decided On

Case Number

Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 10026, 10027,10805, 11154 and 596 of 1981 and 10028 of 1980

Judge

Reported in

AIR1981SC1575; (1981)3SCC249

Acts

Constitution of India - Articles 136 and 226; Uttar Pradesh Promotion by Selection in Consultation with Public Service Commission (Procedure) Rules, 1970 - Rule 7A and 7B; Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Tribunals) Act, 1976 - Sections 4

Appellant

Bal Ram Prasad Rawat and ors.

Respondent

State of U.P. and ors.

Excerpt:


.....tehsildar -preferential treatment given to direct recruits assistants over promotees on basis of educational qualification held, under the amended rule directly recruited assistants were given preferential treatment by making them eligible for promotion as deputy tehsildars on completion of five years of service as assistants by placing them above the senior promotee assistants. the rationale for giving preference to the directly recruited assistants was that their minimum educational qualification was graduation while that of te promotees was senior school learning certificate (s.s.l.c.) when they joined as junior assistants. it is true that both the directly recruited assistants and promoted assistants have been integrated into one cadre of assistants. but, even after this integration for further classification for promotion higher educational qualifications can possibly be a rtional basis, but there can certainly be no further classification between direct recruits and those promotee assistants who have acquired the graduation qualification whether before joining as junior assistant or thereafter. once a promotee becomes a graduate there could not be any rational basis for..........will be served by directing the petitioners to avail of the alternative remedy by approaching the u.p. public service tribunal, specially when in a similar situation har prashad was given the relief under article 226 of the constitution by the same high court, in the circumstances, we granted special leave petitions and treated the same as civil appeals. the notice of these appeals was accepted by the counsel for the state.3. after hearing the counsel for the appellants, we allow these appeals and quash the orders of the high court dated 4th of november, 1980, and 17th of november, 1980, and declare rules 7-a and 7-b aforesaid to be ultra vires articles 14 and 16 of the constitution. we, however, make no order as to costs.

Judgment:


R.B. Misra, J.

1. These are six petitions for grant of special leave to appeal. The first five petitions are directed against the order dated 4th of November, 1980, of the High Court of Allahabad dismissing five writ petitions on the ground that the petitioners therein have an alternative remedy, while the last petition, that is Special Leave Petition No. 10028 of 1980, challenges a similar order dated 17th November, 1980. All these petitions were ordered to be listed along with Civil Appeal No. 282 of 1980 reported in : (1981)ILLJ494SC arising out of a special leave petition filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against one Ram Gopal Shukla.

2. Shri Yogeshwar Prasad appearing for some of the petitioners has pointed out that the High Court granted relief to one Har Prashad in a similar case but made invidious distinction in rejecting these petitions on the ground above stated. The petitioners seek to challenge the vires of Rules 7-A and 7-B added on 4th of July, 1972, to the Uttar Pradesh Promotion by Selection in Consultation with Public Service Commission (Procedure) Rules 1970 which were declared to be ultra vires the Constitution by the High Court of Allahabad in a judgment dated 29th March, 1979, in the writ petition filed by the aforesaid Ram Gopal Shukla (Writ Petition No. 524 of 1975). Against that judgment, the State Government filed an application under Article 136 of the Constitution for special leave to appeal which was granted giving rise to Civil Appeal No. 282 of 1980 reported in : (1981)ILLJ494SC . By a separate order of today's date, the appeal filed by the State has been dismissed and the judgment of the High Court has been confirmed, with the result that the aforesaid Rules 7-A and 7,-B stand declared void being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In view of the judgment in Civil Appeal No. 282 of 1980, filed by the State against Ram Gopal Shukla, no useful purpose will be served by directing the petitioners to avail of the alternative remedy by approaching the U.P. Public Service Tribunal, specially when in a similar situation Har Prashad was given the relief under Article 226 of the Constitution by the same High Court, In the circumstances, we granted special leave petitions and treated the same as civil appeals. The notice of these appeals was accepted by the counsel for the State.

3. After hearing the counsel for the appellants, we allow these appeals and quash the orders of the High Court dated 4th of November, 1980, and 17th of November, 1980, and declare Rules 7-A and 7-B aforesaid to be ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. We, however, make no order as to costs.




Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //