1971 (2) TMI 116 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of the communal policy for promotions in the Education Department of Jammu & Kashmir.
2. Compliance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution.
3. Validity of promotions under the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeals) Rules, 1956.
4. Legitimacy of promotions made after the Supreme Court's previous judgment.
5. Impact of the Supreme Court's earlier decision on current promotions and adjustments.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutionality of the Communal Policy for Promotions:
The petition under Article 32 of the Constitution was filed to challenge the communal policy of reserving 50% of vacancies for Muslims, 40% for Jamvi Hindus, and 10% for others, including Kashmiri Pandits, in the Education Department of Jammu & Kashmir. This policy was previously struck down in Triloki Nath & Another v. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Others ([1969] 1 S.C.R. 103) as it violated the constitutional guarantee under Article 16.

2. Compliance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution:
Articles 14 and 16 were made applicable to Jammu & Kashmir in 1954. Rule 19 of the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeals) Rules, 1956, allowed reservations for backward classes. However, the communal policy was not a reservation but a distribution of posts based on religion, caste, and place of birth, which was found unconstitutional. The Supreme Court reiterated that such a policy directly offended the Constitution.

3. Validity of Promotions under the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services Rules, 1956:
Promotions were to be made based on merit and ability as per Rule 25 of the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services Rules. The communal policy did not comply with this rule. Promotions were made on communal lines rather than merit, violating the constitutional guarantee under Article 16(1) and (2).

4. Legitimacy of Promotions Made After the Supreme Court's Previous Judgment:
Despite the Supreme Court's earlier judgment, the Education Department continued to promote teachers based on the same communal policy. The Court found that promotions made after the judgment, even for those not party to the previous petition, were unconstitutional. The judgment declared that the communal policy was invalid and binding on all, regardless of their participation in the previous petition.

5. Impact of the Supreme Court's Earlier Decision on Current Promotions and Adjustments:
The Supreme Court found that the State's officers attempted to circumvent its earlier decision by adjusting reverted teachers into non-gazetted cadres with the same emoluments. This was deemed an ingenious device to maintain the communal policy's effect. The Court ordered that all promotions made pursuant to the communal policy be revised and reconsidered in accordance with the law. The new rules framed by the State were not evaluated in this judgment.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the petition, declaring all promotions made under the communal policy illegal and unconstitutional. The Court directed respondents to revise and reconsider promotions in accordance with the law, emphasizing compliance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The petitioners were awarded costs.