'Esa Sarvesu Bhutesu, Gudho Atma No Parkasate..'
(KATHA UPANISAD 3.12)
(The Atma is present in every being, but being hidden, does not manifest itself.)
The above aspect of the matter comes into surface while dealing with the subject-matter of these two appeals, which are taken-up together as both the appeals arise out of the same original common judgment. The Courts below not only missed the inner-most soul of man, but it also knowingly or unknowingly banished the soul of the Constitution and Constitutionalism in adjudicating the Suit involving right to equality as ingrained in the Constitution in the form of Articles 14 and 16, in the following circumstances :
The respondent herein, viz. Shri Dulal Chakraborty, as plaintiff instituted a title suit claiming his right to promotion in aid of the equality clause enshrined in the Constitution on the face of the reservation policy as laid down by the state/respondents. In the suit, the plaintiff claimed for a declaration that he was senior in service to the defendants Nos. 6 and 7 (viz. Ranjit Kr Das and Shiraj Deb Barma, respectively) and that he was entitled to be promoted to the post of Assistant Controller of Weights & Measures, Govt. of Tripura, prior to that of respondents Nos. 6 and 7, with retrospective effect; and for a declaration that the notifications under memo No.F.2(199)/ WM/81/707-8 dated 27th June, 1998 issued by the Controller of Weights & Measures, Govt. of Tripura and Memo No. F. 4-38 (Vol-III)(26)/TW/78(loose)/244406-606 dated 14-12-1987 issued by the Tribal Welfare Department, Govt. of Tripura, as illegal, ultra vires, void and not binding upon the plaintiff and further that the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 were legally and factually bound to grant such promotion with all benefits and credentials appertenant to the said promotion post. The plaintiff also claimed for a mandatory injunction against defendant Nos. 1 to 5 restraining them from giving and granting to the defendant Nos. 6 and 7 any such promotion earlier to that of theplaintiff. In the plaint it was inter alia pleaded that he joined as Inspector of Weights & Measures under the State of Tripura on 18-12-1964 and meritoriously served under the defendants. The defendant Nos. 6 and 7, as named hereinabove, are employees under the same authority and department, both of them also being Inspector of Weights & Measures. Defendant Nos. G and 7 were appointed to the posts on 1-12-1982 and 24-11-1982, respectively. In the seniority list of the Inspectors of Weights & Measures, the plaintiff was shown at serial No. 2 whereas the defendants were shown at serial Numbers 11 and 12, respectively. It was also averred that the person senior to him, viz., Nalini Ranjan Bhattacharjee who comes above him the seniority list, was promoted to the post of Asstt. Controller of Weights & Measures with effect from 1-4-1982. One post of Asstt. Controller of Weights & Measures fell vacant in the year 1978 due to promotion of the incumbent to higher post. Similarly, another post of Asstt. controller of Weights & Measures also fell vacant on 1985. In paragraph 7 of the plaint, the plaintiff stated that the post which fell vacant in 1978 was kept reserved for ST candidate while the post which fell vacant in 1985 was also kept reserved for ST/SC candidate or candidates. Further the plaintiff stated that he submitted a number of representations for being promoted to the post of Asstt. Controller of Weights & Measures on be strength of his seniority and his law representation dated 20-5-1988 submitted to the Secretary, Revenue, Agratrla, was turned down by the authority on 27th June, 1988. It was averred in the plaint that there was practice in the department to keep certain posts reserved for three years for promotion of ST and SC candidates on the basis of the policy to reserve 29% for ST and 15% for SC, to the general candidates (employees) for promotion as also a practice of 'carry forward' of the reserved posts should there be no suitable candidates from the ST or SC communities for promotion and finally to release such posts or rather dereserve the posts beyond the period of three years. The plaintiff averred that one of such posts ought to have gone to one un-reserved candidate and accordingly, he ought to have been appointed to one of those two posts which fell vacant in 1978 and 1985. In support of his contentions, the petitioner in his plaint referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karmachari Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 1981 SC 298. The plaintiff also pleaded that the defendants were taking steps to promote defendant Nos. 6 and 7 to the two vacant posts of Asstt. Controller of Weights & Measures in an illegal and arbitrary fashion.
Defendant Nos. 1, 2 & 5 as well as defendant Nos. 6 and 7, submittedtwo separate written statements and contested the case. Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 5 in their w.s., stated that the plaintiff was informed by the Controller of Weights & Measures, Tripura, vide his communication dated 27-6-1988, that while filling-up any vacant post under the Government of Tripura, a 100 point roster as fixed by the Government were required to be followed and according to that roster, two posts (points 1 and 2) of Asstt. Controller of Weights & Measures, were filled up by General candidates and as a consequence another two posts (points No.3 and 4) of Asstt. Controller, Weights & Measures, were required to be filled-up by two reserved candidates (ST-1, SC-1) and as such, there was no scope to promote the plaintiff to any of the posts of Asstt. Controller of Weights & Measures, at that stage. It was further stated that the Tribal Welfare Department's memo No. F. 4-38 (Vol-III) (26)/78 (Loose) 24407-606 dated 14-12-1987, was relatable to the withdrawal of their earlier memo dated 28-5-1986. The defendants did not dispute the seniority of the plaintiff over defendant Nos. 6 and 7. The aforementioned defendant Nos. 1, 2 & 5 also averred that Shri Nalini Ranjan Bhattacharjee who was holding a permanent post of Inspector of Weights & Measures', who was senior to the plaintiff was promoted to one post of Asstt. Controller of Weights & Measures with effect from 1st April, 1982 on the temporary basis. It was further averred that one post of Asstt. Controlled, Weights & Measures was filled-up in the year 1978 on ad hoc basis which was subsequently regularised in May, 1981. Later one more post of Asstt. Controller of Weights & Measures fell vacant in the year 1981 due to the promotion of one Asstt. Controller of Weights & Measures on basis which was regularised later on. Out of the two posts of Asstt. Controller of Weights & Measures, one was filled-up in April 1982 by promotion of Shri Nalini Bhattacharjee, Inspector who was senior to the plaintiff, keeping one post reserved for ST candidate as per the reservation quota. Therefore, was no scope to promote the plaintiff at that time. Another post of Asstt. Controller of Weights & Measures fell vacant in the year 1986 due to promotion of one Asstt. Controller on ad hoc basis which was regularised subsequently. The aforementioned two posts of Asstt. Controller were meant for ST and SC candidates, one each, as per the reservation policy/principle. The respondents averred that the 100 point roster for filling up of the vacant posts by the ST/ SC candidates was being maintained in cases of all promotions since 19-2-1977 and posts are kept vacant according to the roster points. It was stated that since one vacant post of Asstt. Controller was filled-up with effect from 1 -4-1984, one post of Asstt. Controller had to be kept vacant as two such posts were filled-up earlier in the year 1978 and 1982 by candidates from General category. According to the100 point roster, at least one post of Asstt. Controller was to be filled-up by a candidate from reserved category. But while filling up those posts, it was stated that the next vacant post would be filled up by a reserved category candidate and as such, it was felt necessary to fulfill the commitment by keeping one post of Asstt. Controller vacant for the reserved candidate. Subsequently, there was an instruction under the Tribunal Welfare, Department's memo No. 14069-219/ F.4-38 (Vol-III) (26)/78 dated 28.5.1986 to the effect that the reservation should not exceed 50% of the total vacancies available on a particular occasion. Thereafter one post of Asstt. Controller of Weights & Measures, fell vacant when the incumbent of the post was promoted to a higher post in the year 1986 on ad hoc basis which was regularised subsequently. Therefore, two posts of Asstt. Controller of weights & Measures were available and according to the Tribal Welfare Department's memo dated 28-5-1986. one such post was to be filled-up by a general candidate and the case of the plaintiff was taken-up for consideration to be promoted to that post in year 1987. The said proposal was processed and after observing all the formalities, the matter was being considered by the appointing authority for finalisation. But due to the aforesaid welfare department's memo dated 14-12-1987 withdrawing their decision communicated vide their memo dated 28-5-1986, the proposal for promotion of the plaintiff could not materialise. The States/ defendants averred that the case of the promotion of Shri Ranjit Kumar Das and Shri Dhiraj Deb Barma, an SC and the other an ST candidate, respectively, to the two vacant posts of Asstt. Controller meant for ST/SC candidates under reserved quota, were under consideration of the appointing authority.
Defendant Nos. 6 and 7, also in fact did not seriously contest the seniority of the plaintiff. These defendants in their written statement stated that since one of the two vacant posts was filled up with effect from 1 -4-1984, one more post of Asstt. Controller of Weights & Measures had to be kept vacant as earlier, two posts of Asstt. Controller were filled-up from general candidates. That according to the 100 point roster, two more posts of Asstt. Controller were to be filled-up by the candidates from the reserved categories. That while filling up those two posts, it was stated by the Department that the next vacant post would be filled-up by reserved category candidate and as such, it was felt necessary to fulfill the commitment and to keep one such vacant post reserved and to maintain the roster register properly. They stated that they became eligible for promotion on the 1st of December, 1987 and 20th December, 1987, respectively, as per the rules.
Upon the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court, framed the following issues:
' 1. Whether there is any cause of action ?
2. Whether the suit is barred by non-joinder of parties?
3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
4. Whether the suit is maintainable?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree as prayed for ?
6. To what other relief/reliefs the parties are entitled?
During trial, plaintiff examined himself and proved some documents including the State Govt. Memo dated 28-5-1986, limiting the reservation to 50% of the total vacancies available on an occasion (exhibit 1), the communication issued by the Govt. of Tripura dated 14-12-1987, withdrawing the instructions contained in the communication dated 28th May, 1986 and thereby clarifying that in future the carry forward vacancies would be available together with the current reserved vacancies for utilisation even if the total number of such reserved posts exceeds 50% of the total vacancies arising in a year as long as the overall representation of STs and SCs in be concerned grade or cadre was loss than the prescribed percentage of reservation, i.e., 29% for the STs and 15% for SCs (exhibit 7), and other instruction/directions issued by the State from time to time. The learned Munsiff on conclusion of the trial, decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants also examined one witness during trial in support of their case. In deciding the core issue, i.e., the issue No. 5, the learned trial court referred to and sought to base his decision on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Akhil Bharatiya (supra), but on the face of the law as laid down by the Supreme Court, held exhibit 7 as illegal, ultravires, void and not binding. Referring to exhibit C-1, the learned trial court observed that one post of Asstt. Controller was kept reserved since 1978 for a period much more than three years and the said post ought to have been deserved immediately after October, 1981 and the plaintiff ought to have been promoted simultaneously with Nalini Ranjan Bhattacharjee with effect from 1-4-1982. The suit was accordingly decreed declaring the plaintiff as senior in service to defendant Nos. 6 and 7 and further declared the plaintiff as being entitled to be promoted to the post of Asstt. Controller at lease with effect from 2-4-1982. The learned Munsiff further declared that respondent Nos. 1, and 5, were legally bound to give promotion to the plaintiff to the post of Asstt. Controller and accordingly, therespondent Nos. 1 to 5 were directed to promote and post the plaintiff as Asstt. Controller of Weights & Measures with all benefits and credentials appertaining to the promotion with effect from 2-4-1982, and further restrained defendant Nos. 1 to 5 from granting any promotion to the defendant Nos. 6 and 7 earlier than the plaintiff. The aforesaid Judgment of the learned Munsiff was assailed by the defendant No. 6 and 7 which was registered and numbered as Title Appeal No. 4 of 1991. The State/defendants also preferred an appeal against the same Judgment and decree of the learned Munsiff, North Tripura, Kailashahar, which was registered and numbered as Title Appeal No. 7/91: Both these appeals were taken up together and the learned appellate Court delivered a common judgment dismissing the appeals and upholding the judgment and decree of the learned trial court passed on 27-2-1991, vide the appellate judgment and order dated 10-3-1992. The learned appellate court, however, modified the finding in issue No. 5 of the trial court and instead held that the plaintiff/respondent was entitled to have his case of promotion duly considered by the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and defendant Nos. 1 to 5 were accordingly directed to consider the case of the petitioner immediately to give him promotion to the post and to grant all the benefits legally entitled. The learned appellate court also copiously referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Akhil Bharatiya (supra); but curiously enough, upheld the judgment of the trial court. Hence the second appeals filed by the State.
2. In second Appeal No. 21/92, two substantial questions of law, were formulated, viz., (i) As to whether the interpretation given by the courts below in respect of the provision relating to reservation is tenable in law, and (2) Whether the practice of carry forward of back-log vacancies meant for Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste is permissible having no limitation of years is to be confined to particular period.' And in the other Second Appeal, being numbered as Second Appeal No. 22/1992, the substantial question of law that was formulated by the court was to the effect 'Whether the Court below was right in interpreting the percentage of reservation applicable under the Rules and laws.' The core question is as to the wisdom of the reservation policy of the State as well as the policy of carry forward. The law in this regard is not in controversy. Both the Courts below were made aware of the decision of the Supreme Court in the Akhil Bharatiya (supra). The first court, viz., the trial court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), as well as the appellate court, copiously referred to be aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court; but instead of acting as per the ratio decided, but both the court's thought it fit to refer and rely upon those observations whichhave nothing to do with the ratio as laid down by the Supreme Court. The judgment of the learned trial Court started with the observation of the dissenting judgment of Hon'ble Pathak, J, as he then was. The majority view of decision is reflected in the judgment of Hon'ble Krishna Iyer, J and Hon'ble Chinappa Reddy, J. Justice Iyer, in his own characteristic lucid way, dealt with all the aspects of reservation including the plea of administrative efficiency. The learned Judge observed that Article 14 bespeaks of equality before law and Article 16 vouches equality of opportunity. The social dynamics of equality involves a strategy of equalisation in a society of stratification through castification. '....In a specious sense, 'equal opportunity' for members of a hierarchical society makes sense only if a strategy by which the under privileged have environmental facilities for developing their full human potential. This consummation is accomplished only when the utterly depressed groups can claim a fair share in public life and economic activity, including employment under the State, or when a classless and casteless society blossoms as a result of positive State action. To help the lagging social segments, by special care, is a step towards and not against a larger and stabler equality...'. The learned Judge also took note of the depressed employment position of the STs/SCs in the context of battle against generations of retardation. The learned Judge observed that reservation and other solutions have made no significant impact on the employment of the depressed STs/SCs in public service. The learned Judge referring to the minority view of Subba Rao, J in the case of T Devdasan v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1964 SC 179, observed that though Hon'ble Subb Rao, J, was in the minority on one point in that case, that did not detract from the validity of force of the general observations. Upholding the 'carry forward' rule, the learned Judge referred to the following majority opinion of the Devdasan's-(supra) case :
'...reservation of a reasonable percentage of posts for members of the Scheduled Castes and tribes is within the competency of the State. What the percentage ought to be must necessarily depend upon the circumstances obtaining from time to time.'
The learned Judge also referred to the following observation of Mudholkar, J :
'In order to effectuate the guarantee each year of recruitment will have to be by itself and the reservation for backward communities should not be so excessive as to create a monopoly or to disturb unduly the legitimate claims of other communities.'
Thereafter, the learned Judge observed :
'By the three-year 'carry forward' rule one is unable to see how, in practice, the total vacancies will be gobbled up by the harijan/ girijan groups 'virtually obliterating' Article 16(1). The court has made it clear that the problem of giving adequate representation to the backward classes under Article 16(4) is a matter for the Government to consider, bearing in mind the need for a reasonable balance between the rival claims as pointed out in Balaji's case,[1963] Supp 1 SCR 439: (AIR 1963 SC 649).'
the pertinent observations made by the learned Judge in the Ahkil/Bharat [supra] are reproduced below :
'It Is true that in Balaji's case (AIR 1963 SC 649] and Devdasan's case (1964) 4 SCR 680; (AIR 1964 SC 179) 'the carry forward' rule for backward classes far exceeded 50% and was struck down. We must remember that the percentage of reservation for backward classes including SC & ST was rather high in both the cases. In Devdasan's case the court went into the actual, not Into the hypotheticals. This is most important. The Court actually verified the degree of deprivation of the 'equal opportunity' right and discovered : (ibid at 693-94)
In the case before us 45 vacancies have actually been filled out of which 29 have gone to members of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes on the basis of reservation permitted by the carry forward rule. This comes to about 64.4% of reservation. Such being the result of the operation of the carry forward rule we must on the basis of decision in Balaji's case hold that the rule is bad what is striking is that the Court did not take an academic view or make a national evaluation but checked up to satisfy itself about the seriousness of the infraction of the right. On that footing the petitioners have not demonstrated that in any particular year, virtually and in actual terms of promotion, there has been a substantial excess over 50% in favour of the SC & ST promotes. Mathematical calculations, departing from the realities of the case, may startle us without justification, the apprehension being misplaced. All that we need say is that the Railway Board shall take care to issue instructions to see that in no year shall SC & ST candidates be actually appointed to substantially more than 50% of the promotional posts. Some excess will not affect as mathematical precision is different in human affairs, but substantial excess will void the selection. Subject to this rider or condition that the 'carry forward' rule shall not result, in any given year, in the selection or appointments of SC & ST candidates considerably in excess of 50% we uphold Annexure I.
The sting of the argument against reservation is that it promotes inefficiency in administration by choosing sub-standard candidates in preference to those with better mettle. Competitive skill is more relevant in higher posts, especially those where selection is made by competitive examinations. Lesser classes of posts, where promotion is secured mechanically by virtue of seniority except where the candidate is unfit, do not require high degree of skill as in the case of selection posts. See (1968) 1 SCR 721 at 734: (AIR 1968 SC 507) It is obvious that as between selection and non-selection posts the role of merit is functionally more relevant in the former than the latter. And if in Rangachari reservation has been held valid in case of selection posts, such reservation in non-selection posts is an a fortiori case. If, in selecting top officers you may reserve posts for SC/ST with lesser merit, how can you rationally argue that for the posts of peons or lower division clerks reservation will spell calamity The part that efficiency plays is far more in the case of higher posts than in the appointments to the lower posts. On this approach Annexure K is beyond reproach.
One may easily sympathise with holders of non-selection posts, They are many in number in the lower stations of life. They are economically backward and burdened with drudgery of life. That is why there is a ballyhoo raised by a larger number of people when some categories in far more distressing social situations enter the arena with preferential treatment. Looking at the problem from the point of view of law and logic and the constitutional justification under Article 16(4) for reservation in favour of the panchama proletariat there is nothing to strike down in Annexure K. As between the socially even economically, depressed and the economically backward, the Constitution has emphatically cast its preference for the former. Who are we, as Judges to question the wisdom of provisions made by Government within the parameters of Article 16(4)? The answer is obvious that the writ of the Court cannot quash what is not contrary to the constitution, however tearful the consequences for those who may be adversely affected. The progressive trend must, of course, be to classify on the have - not basis but the SC/ST category is, generally speaking, not only deplorably poor but also humiliatingly pariah in their lot. May be, some of the forward lines of the backward classes have the best of both the worlds and their electoral muscle qua caste scares away even radical parties from talking secularism to them. We are not concerned with that dubious brand. In the long run, the recipe for backwardness is not creating a vested interest in backward castes but liquidation of handicaps, social and economic, by constructive projects. All this is in another street and we neednot walk that way now.
Trite arguments about efficiency and inefficiency are a triffle phoney because, after all, at the higher levels the harijan/ girijan appointees are a microscopic percentage and even in the case of classes III and !1 posts they are negligible. The preponderant majority coming from the unreserved communities are presumably efficient and the dilution of efficiency caused by the minimal induction of a small percentage of 'reserved' candidates cannot effect the over all administrative efficiency significantly. Indeed, it will be gross exaggeration to visualise a collapse of the Administration because 5 to 10% of the total number of officials in the various classes happened to be sub-standard. Moreover, care has been taken to give in-service training and coaching to correct the deficiency.'
In the aforementioned judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the 'carry forward' rule and the same 'carry forward' rule was the subject-matter for adjudication in the suit, which rule was set aside by the trial court and upheld by the first appellate Court, curiously enough on the reasoning's of Akhil Bharatiya (supra).
3. The fifty per cent vacancy was meant for vacancies in a particular year and not the promotion that is to be made in a year. It may also be stated that the fifty per cent rule is confined only to the case of initial appointments. The learned Courts below sought to bend the law to fill-up the vacancy against reserved posts by unreserved category of candidates. The percentage of reservation is fixed by the State by consciously taking into consideration the totality of the employment position vis-a-vis its obligation to avoid discrimination by a process of reverse discrimination. The percentage of reservation is fixed and the roster contains the running account to ensure that the ST and SC candidates and other backward classes/unprivileged classes, etc. get their percentage of reserved posts. In a cadre of 100 posts, when, posts are reserved in a roster for reserved categories, the post are filled by percentage provided for the reserved categories. The roster is to operate till the quota provided for in the roster is filled-up or reached. Once the prescribed percentage of posts is filled up as per the roster is satisfied, the roster and the numerical strength prescribed as per the roaster will not survive thereafter. The reservation is made taking into account the demographic estimates/constituents based calculations worked-out in relation to the population, to assure/ensure equality of opportunity to the backward classes and the general category of candidates/people is to permit the roster to operate till the time the respective appointees permitted occupy the posts meant for them inthe roster. In RKSabharwal and other v. State of Punjab and others, reported in (1995) 2 SCC 745, the Supreme Court observed :
'When a percentage of reservation is fixed in respect of a particular cadre and the roster indicates the reserve points, it has to be taken that the posts shown at the reserve points are to be filled from amongst the members of reserve categories and the candidates belonging to the general category are not entitled to be considered for the reserved posts. On the other hand the reserve category candidates can compete for the non-reserved posts and in the event of their appointment to the said posts their number cannot be added and taken into consideration for working out the percentage of reservation. For making any provision for reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any Backward Class of citizens, it is incumbent on the State Government under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India to reach a conclusion that the Backward Class/Classes for which the reservation is made Is not adequately represented in the State Services. When the State Government after doing the necessary exercise makes the reservation and provides the extent of percentage of posts to be reserved for the said backward class then the percentage has to be followed strictly. The prescribed percentage cannot be varied or changed simply because some of the members of the backward class have already been appointed/promoted against the general seats. The fact that consideration number of members of a backward class have been appointed/promoted against general seats in the State Services may be a relevant factor for the State Government to review the question of continuing reservation for the said class but so long as the Instructions/ rules providing certain percentage of reservation for the backward classes are operative the same have to be followed.'
The law is well settled by the Supreme Court. The Carry forward principle laid down by the Government in the situation, cannot be faulted. The posts cited as reserve posts in the roster, are to be occupied by the members of the reserved categories and not by others. Persons belonging to the general category are forbidden to be considered for promotion to the reserved posts. In the circumstances, the judgment and decree of both the Courts below cannot be sustained and accordingly, the judgment and decree of the learned Courts below are set aside.
It is unfortunate that both the Courts below defied the Constitutional mandate as contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and passed judgments setting over the spirit of the Constitution and above all, decreed the suit in utter defiance of the law as laid down by theSupreme Court which is binding through-out the whole of India under Article 141 of the Constitution. A Judge holds a high public office of great trust and responsibility. Judicial Service is not a mere employment and so, the Judge are not ordinary employees. They exercise sovereign power under the Constitution. A Judge is expected to act justly and fairly without being emotive, shorn of all forms of prejudices, predilections and predisposition. Creativity and impartiality in the functioning of the justice delivery system is essential to ensure the continuance of public confidence. In Akhil Bharatiya (supra). Justice Iyer aptly suggested of 'invisible sacrifice of judicial independence' and unwittingly surrender to 'the Spirit of the group in which the accidents of birth or education or occupation or fellowship have given ...'. The unfortunate part of the story is that both the Courts below disregarded the resounding message of Akhil Bharatiya (supra), missed the aim of the exercise and fell casualty to the subtle invasion.
Accordingly and in view of the discussions and reasoning's given above, the judgment and decree dated 27th February, 1991 passed in Title Suit No. 37 of 1988 by the Munsiff, Kailashahar, North Tripura, as well as the common judgment and decree dated 10th March, 1992 passed in Title Appeals Nos. 4 and 7 of 1991, are set aside. Title Suit No. 37/88 is dismissed and in the facts of the case, parties shall bear their own costs.
Both the appeals are allowed accordingly.