Supreme Court of India
K.K.SHARMAversusHIGH COURT OF DELHI AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2015 INSC 63
- Decided
- 15 December 2014
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- RANJAN GOGOI
Holding
The High Court’s orders effecting a limited review of promotions and balancing legal rights with equity are valid and not subject to interference under Article 136.
Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed Civil Appeal No. 5838 of 2012 filed by K.K. Sharma and others against the High Court of Delhi’s orders dated 23 Oct 2009 and 1 Jun 2012. The High Court had been directed to implement a 1998 judgment that declared a 1988 amendment to the Delhi High Court Establishment Rules void for violating Articles 14 and 16, and to carry out a limited review of promotions of Junior Translators to Senior Judicial Assistants (SJA) and subsequent cadres. The appellants argued that the High Court’s scheme unfairly affected their seniority and promotions. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s orders strike a proper balance between legal rights and equitable considerations and cannot be set aside under Article 136. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the High Court orders affirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court’s orders dated 23 Oct 2009 and 1 Jun 2012, implementing the 1998 judgment on promotion of Junior Translators, can be interfered with under Article 136 of the Constitution.
- Whether the limited review of promotions and the resultant impact on other categories of employees is lawful and consistent with Articles 14 and 16.
- Whether the amendment of the 1988 service rules that provided 100% promotion to SJA from Treasurers/UDCs was unconstitutional.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 136, s. Article 14, s. Article 16
Subjects
service lawpromotionseniorityArticles 14, 16, 136equityjudicial reviewDelhi High CourtSenior Judicial AssistantJunior Translatorlimited review
Judgment
[2014] 14 S.C.R. 944
A K.K.SHARMA
v.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5838 of2012)
B DECEMBER 15, 2014*
[RANJAN GOGOt AND R. K. AGRAWAL, JJ.]
Service Law:
Promotion - Amendment of Service Rules in the year
c 1988 providing 100% promotion to the post of 'Senior Judicial
Assistants' (SJA) from the posts of Treasures/UDCs -
Challenged by 'Junior Translators' in writ petition on the
grouqd that the amendment affected their promotional
avenues - Disposal of the writ petition by order dated
o 16. 10. 1998 holding that the amendment was void offending
Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution - another writ petition by
the Junior Translators seeking due implementation of the
judgment dated 16. 10. 1998 and as regards their seniority
arid promotion - High Court by order dated 23.10.2009
E directed a limited review of the promotions only in respect of
the Junior Translators who had moved the court in view of
delay in implementing the order dated 16. 10. 1998-Affected
by implementation of the order dated 23. 10. 1998 writ petition
by the appellants on the ground that they since did not belong
F to the category of SJA, their promotion and seniority not to
be unsettled- High Court by order dated 1.6.2012 directed
that promotions of Junior Translators to be made on the basis
of the result of their written test and interview and further held
that this direction also carries the potential of causing
G disequilibrium among the incumbents in service - On appeal,
held: The judgments dated 23.10.2009 as well as 1.6.2012
strike a balance between compulsion of law and equity by
attempting to balance the legal rights of Junior Translators
*This judgment to be read alongwith subsequent order passed by this
H Bench on 22-01-2015.
944
K. K. SHARMA It. HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND ORS. 945
flowing from the judgment dated 16.10.1998 and equitable A
consid(;Jrations of the appellants - An adverse impact on
equitable rights occasioned by milder version of
implementation of judicial orders that have attained finality
in law cannot invite jurisdiction u!Art. 136 of the Constitution
- Constitution oflndia -Art. 136. B
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: Civil Appeal No. 5838 of 2012:
1. Both the orders dated 23.10.2009 and 01.06.2012
passed by the High Court are attempts to balance the c
situation by taking into account the legal rights that flow .
to the Junior Translators from the judgments of the High
Court that require implementation and the equitable
considerations by which the cases of the appellants,
who are not at fault, are required to be judged. The D
impugned orders do strike a balance between the
compulsion of law and equity. "The law, as an instrument
of social justice, takes a longer look to neutralize the sins
of history". If constitutionality of service Rules itself
cannot be judged "on the touchstone of fortune of E
individuals" and the paramount consideration in framing
the service rule is reconciliation of conflicting claims, an
adverse impact on equitable rights occasioned by a
"milder version" of implementati"on of judicial orders that
have attained finality in law, cannot invite jurisdiction F
under Article 136 of the Constitution. Therefore, the order
dated 01.06.2012 passed by the High Court cannot be
interfered with. [Paras 13 and 14)(957-H; 958-A-E]
Tamil Nadu Education Department Ministerial
and General subordinate Services Association & G
Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. 1980 (1) SCR
1026: (1980) 3 SCC 97; Kamal Kanti Dutta and
Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.1980 (3) SCR 811 :
(1980) 4 sec 38;.. relied on.
H
946 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.
A 2. It is implicit in the order dated 23.10.2009 that the
review should be undertaken at each stepfstage
undergone by those who were wronglylmistakenly
promoted. The limited review directed in the cadre of
AOJICM has to be continued in all higher cadres to which
B promotions may have been made on the basis of the
initial promotion to the cadre of AOJICM. [Para 15]
[958~F-G] '
Union of India & Ors. v. K.B. Rajoria 2000 (2) SCR
613: (2000) 3 sec 562 - relied on.
c Civil A1meal No. 5839 of 2012:
3. The appellant in the present appeal seeks
implementation of the order dated 23.10.2009 and is
_aggrieved by the modifications made to the said order
by the Impugned order dated 01.06.2012. In view of the
D
facts, that the order dated 01.06.2012 has been affirmed
and the appellant has also retired from service in the
meantime, this appeal is closed. [Paras 17, 18][959-D-F]
Civil A[meal No. 11197 of 2014:
E 4. The claim of the appellants of parity with the writ
petitioners (Junior Translators) has been considered by
the High Court and has held that the two appellants were
not eligible for being placed at par with the writ
petitioners. The ·said conclusions have been made on
F consideration of the dates of appointments of the
incumbents; their consequential promotion to the cadre
of SJA; and further mo_re, their success/results in the ·
selection to the post of AO(J)/CM. Therefore, there is no
error in the relevant part of .the order of the High •
G Court dated 01.06.2012 so as to justify intereference.
[Paras 19, 20][960-A-C]
CASE LAW REFERENCE •
1980 (1) SCR 1026 relied or:i Para 14
1980 (3) SCR 811
H 2000 (2) SCR 613
relied on
relied on
Para 14
Para 15 •
-
K. K. SHARMA v. HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND ORS. 947
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). A
58~8 of 201.2.
From the Judgment and Order dated 01-06-2012 of the
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in CM No. 22133 of 2010 in
WP (C) No. 4077-84 of 2004.
B
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 5839 of 2012 and 11197 of 2014
V. Giri, Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv., Gautam Narayan,
Ms. Asmita Singh, K. Vijay Kumar, Arvind Kr. Sharma, Saurabh
Mishra, Ms. Asha Jain Madan, Amit Mishra, Pawan Kumar C
Bahl, B. Vijay Kumar, Gagan Gupta, Varun Singh, Ms. C.K.
Sucharita, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The following Judgment and Order of the Court were
delivered:
D
JUDGMENT
RANJAN GOGOi, J.
1. What should be the right balance between equitable
claims and the demands of the law is the constant quest of the
judicial system. Delicate and complex by itself, the task E
becomes even more formidable and challenging if a resolution
is postponed. Time, often, has the effect of strengthening
equitable claims and blurring the corresponding legal
entitlements. This is precisely what had happened in the
present case wherein we have been called upon to decide on F
the correctness of the answer provided by the High Court of
Delhi in a situation involving its own employees.
Civil Appeal No. 5838 of 2012
2. The Delhi High Court Establishment (Appointment &
Conditions of Service) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter for short 'the G
Rules') came into effect from 1.9.1972. The Rules provided
for 100% selection to fill up the post of Assistants [later
designated as 'Senior Judicial Assistants' (SJA)). The
selection was to be made on the basis of a test from members
of the High Court establishment with minimum 5 years of H
948 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.
A service. In 1978 i.e. from 20.9.1978 the Rules were amended
by providing avenues of promotion to fill up the post of SJA to
the extent of 50%. Such promotion was to be made on the
basis of seniority-cum-suitability from the cadre of Treasurers/
UDCs with minimum 5 years service; the remaining 50% of
B the cadre was to be filled by sele'ction, as earlier. A decade
later i.e. with effect from 16.3.1988 the Rules were once again
amended to provide for 100% promotion to the post of SJA,
from Treasurers/UDCs having 5 years service. The criteria of
promotion remained the same i.e: seniority-cum-suitability.
C 3. Two Junior Translators, Atul Kumar Sharma and M.M.
Beg challenged the amendment of the Rules made in the year
1998 by filing a writ petition i.e. C.W.P. No. 1218/1989. The
short ground urged was that the promotional avenue for Junior
Translators to the cadre of Senior Translators being extremely
D limited in view of the limited numb~r of posts in the promotional
cadre, the amendment of the Rules providing for filling up all
the posts in the cadre of SJA by promotion from the cadre of
Treasurers/UDCs offended the rights of the writ petitioners
under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as the said
E amendment had deprived the Junior Translators of an avenue
of advancing to a higher equivalent post i.e. SJA.
4. The writ petition was disposed of on 16.10.1998 in
the following terms.
"We find no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that
F
the amendment brought into force on 16. 03. 1988, in
so far as it affected the service conditions of the Junior
Translator, is void in law offending Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution of India and accordingly it is declared
void. The High Court shall follow the rule which provided
G promotional avenues to the Junior Translators also to
the post of Assistant/Jr. Reader/Caretaker prior to the
date of the amendment, namely, 16.03.1988."
H
K. K. SHARMA v. HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND ORS. 949
[RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
5. As there was an interim order in the writ petition i.e. A
C.W.P. No.1218of1989 to the effect that promotions made
during the pendency thereof would be subject to the final orders
as maY. be passed in the writ petition, the question of
consequential relief and adjustment of seniority including review
of the promotions made arose for decision. The attempts B
made to implement the judgment, evidently, did not satisfy the ·
writ petitioners (hereinafter referred to as "the Junior
Translators") which led to a second approach to the High Court
by means of another set of writ petitions i.e. W. P.(C) Nos.4077-
84 of 2004. The.core relief prayed for in the aforesaid writ c·
petitions was due implementation of the judgment dated
16.10.1998 in C.W.P. No.1218of1989 in so far as seniority
and promotion of Junior Translators is concerned.
6. What happened during the interregnum has been
elaborately recited in the order dated 23.10.2009 of the D
Division Bench of the High Court disposing of the aforesaid
writ petitions i.e. W.P. (C) No.4077-84 of2004. The said facts
need not be recited once again but in so far as the issues·
raised in the present appeal is concerned the.following facts
and events will have to be noticed. E
(i) A few promotions (2 or 3 in number) from the cadre of
Junior Translator to SJA were made on the basis of a
departmental test (selection) held on 16.08.2000.
(ii) Though some other Junior Translators, after they were F
notionally promoted to the cadre of SJA, had participated
in a process for promotion to the cadre of AOJ/CM held
on 09.09.2000 and 25.08.2001 (pursuant to the decision
taken by a Committee of Judges for implementation of
the order dated 16.10.1998 in C.W.P. No.1218of1989),
the selection in so far as the aforesaid Junior Translators G
is concerned was not finalised as they were not
interviewed.
(iii) Consequent to the above, while the aforesaid Junior
Translators were not promoted, 8 others who had H
950 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 14 S.C.R.
A participated in the same selection were promoted to the
cadre ofAOJ/CM in the year 2002. The overlooked Junior
Translators were promoted to the same cadre
subsequently.
(iv) In between 1988-2000, 81 posts in the cadre of SJA
B. were filled up exclusively by promotion on the basis of
the criteria of seniority-cum-suitability. No promotion was
made on the basis of departmental tests (selection).
(v) Though after 2000, 94 promotions were made on the
basis of departmental tests, the total number of
c promotions on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability stood
at 115. ·
7. Taking note of all the aforesaid facts, W.P. (C)
Nos.4077-84/2004 was answered by a Division Bench of the
0 High Court by its order dated 23.10.2009. While rendering
the said order, the Division Bench acknowledged the fact that
the order dated 16.10.1998 disposing of C.W.P. No.12.18 of
-1989 called for large scale reversion of incumbents. Though
it was further acknowledged that such an exercise may have
E been appropriate and proper at the relevant point of time, with
passage of time the same became impractical in view of the
deleterious effect that such an exercise; at a belated stage,
was bound to have on the High Court administration. At the
same time recognising the rights of the Junior Translators and
F its duty to implement the order dated 16.10.1998, the 'fligh
Court evolved a framework to deal with the situation-- by
conceiving of a limited review of the inter-se seniority and
consequential promotions. Taking note of the fact that it is only
the Junior Translators who had moved the High Court inJ:ipth
G sets of writ petitions, the High Court limited the exercise in
respect of Junior Translators and directed, instead of a whole
scale review, a limited review to the extent of 20% of the 81
posts (20 posts) which· had been exclusively filled up by
promotion on the criterion of seniority-cum-suitability.
H According.ly, the following directions came to be issued by the
. order dated 23.10.2009 :-
K. K. SHARMA v. HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND ORS. 951
[RANJAN GOGOi, J.)
"(1) 81 vacancies having been filled to the SJA cadre, A
during 1988-2000, of which 40 posts ought to have been
filled through departmental exams;
(2) A total 115 vacancies being filled through application
of seniority cum suitability criteria, and 94 through
departmental exams (ignoring the correctness of B
promotions given in 2004, to 20 candidates, who had
competed in the year 2000, and in the absence of any
provision for a waiting list - an irregularity serious in
itself, but not meriting an adverse order, as that is not
the subject matter of this petition), thus implying that at C
·1east 20 vacancies should have been fallen to the share
of the 50% departmental exam quota;
(3) All the petitioners, concededly qualified in the
departmental test for promotion to the higher cadre of D
Senior Translator, long back, between 1987 and 1996;
(4) The petitioners have put in long years of service,
and most of them being concededly senior to those in
equivalent grades, in the combined seniority list.
41. Today,· only Junior Translators (most of them having E
been subsequently promoted, on later dates, as Senior
Translators, and some, to higher posts of A OJ/CM) are
before the Court. In view of the above facts, the Court
is of opinion that there should be a review in respect of
at/east 20% of the posts that were filled up during 1988- F
2000 (i.e. of 81 vacancies filled up during that time).
Although a strict implementation of the judgment would
mean review in respect of 50% of the posts, or 40 such
promotions (as recom[rlended by the later committee
of 2002), yet since only the Junior Translator's cadre is G
seeking this review, the court is of the opinion that ends
ofjustice would be satisfied if 20% of those vacancies
are filled (or treated as filled, as the case may be) in
the manner indicated by this judgment. Therefore, the
Court is of opinion that eve!}' fifth slot should be adjusted H
952 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.
A against the 50% departmental exam quota. These
vacancies may be filled, or treated as filled, in the
following manner:
(1) Firstly, from the cadre of Junior Translators,
according to their inter-se seniority, subject to the
B. individual concerned possessing the required 5 year
experience, stipulated in the rules (in the relevant·
prescribed grade) - without their having to qualify in
any further test.
(2) After accommodating the junior translator's cadre,
c the balance vacancies - which would be about e/ght,
shall be filled through a special review departmental
test, where those entitled to be considered, and eligible,
for the purpose, during the relevant period, i.e. 1988-
2000 alone shall be permitted to compete. Those
D successful shall be accommodated against the last 8
slots.
(3) The promotions by following the above procedure,
shall benotional; the incumbents shall not be entitled
E to arrears of pay, but shall be entitled only to
consequential fixationlfitment in the grade.
'
42. While giving effect to the above directions, the
respondents shall endeavor that there are no
reversions. The incumbent SJA's appointment shall
F be notionally pushed down, to later dates, if there is any
need to revert those promoted the basis of seniority-
cum-suitability, in the cadre of Junior Assistants!UDCs
or other cadres promoted as SJA, in excess of the 50%
quota. Also, there shall be no recovery of pay or
G allowances made to them. ·in case any such SJAs have
been promoted on selection basis, every endeavour
shall be made that they do not face reversion and
instead, their date(s) of promotion are postponed. In
case of undue hardship, the Registry shall make
H
K. K. SHARMA v. HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND ORS. 953
[RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
appropriate orders, by seeking recourse to the A
establishment's residuary powers under the Rules.
43. The second limb of the problem - which is also a
claim made by the petitioners is their promotion to the
post of A OJ/CM. Although almost all of them have now
been promoted to that cadre, it cannot be doubted that B
the decade long hiatus or deadlock regarding
promotions to SJA and implementation of Atul Kumar-
/ resulted in ~~e postponement of consideration of their
claims. Crucially, it is a matter of record that the
petitioners were pennitted to participate in the selection C
process for promotion to A OJ/CM on 09.09.2000 (in the
case of two of them) and, on 21.08.2001, in the case of
the others. It is a matter of record also, that all, save
petitioner were declared successful, in the written test,
andwerecalledforinterview, on 19.09.2001. However, D
they were not interviewed, and the others - including
those from· the SJA cadre, were appointed against the
eight vacancies. The first respondent does not explain
this aspect. That the petitioners were later promoted,
as A OJ/CM is no explanation; they were given what was • E
due tO them.
44. The respondents' argument that the petitioners are
claiming an untenable relief, as without their promotion
to SJA, and essential five years' service, they cannot
be considered for f(Jrther promotion seems facially to F
accord with the rule position. However, this Court is now
called upon to rule in respect of a situation where the
authority, at five different points in time, did not follow
the rules; at least in two of those instances, there really
was no excuse for not holding a departmental test for G
promotion to the SJA cadre. Pertinently, in relation to
the cadre of A OJ/CM, the petitioners were successful
in seeking orders - right up to the Supreme Court,
permitting their appearance in the written test; the
H
954 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.
A respondents even held a supplementary test to enable
their participation. Yet, inexplicably, they were not
interviewed. The Court is duty bound to restitute their
"lost opportunity" as their subsequent promotion cannot
but act to their disadvantage vis-a-vis those who wefE'
B promoted, in time, and who had participated in the said
promotional process. In this context, it would be apt to
quote the observations in Rajoria (supra):
'
"The notional promotion was given to
Krishnamoorti to right the wrong thaThad been done to
c him by his supersession on 22-2-1995. If Krishnamoorti
.is denied the right to be considered for promotion to
the post of Director General on the basis of such notional
promotion, particularly when the relevant provisions so
provide, it would result in perpetuating the wrong done
D to him. That is exactly what the High Court has done."
45. In view of the above, the respondents are hereby
directed to review the petitioners promotions to the cadte
of AOJs!CMs and reconsider the issue, on each of the
previous dates, when the OPCs were held prior to their
E actual promotions. It is clarified that this direction is
confined to reviewing the petitioners' promotional dates,
since they have already been promoted, and the
exercise will be limited to considering their cases, along
with those who were promoted on those concerned
F dates. An endeavour shall be made to see that no
reversions follow, and that if anyone in position is
deemed not up to the mark, his or her promotion shall
be postponed to a later date, and such promotion shall
be accommoqated against a later vacancy.
G
46. The writ petitions therefore, are entitled to succeed;
they are allowed in terms of the directions contained in
Paras 40 - 44 of this judgment. There shall however, ·
be no order on costs."
H
K. K. SHARMA v. HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND ORS. 955
[RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
8. The attempt of the High Court administration to A
implement the aforesaid directions brought the appellants to
the forefront to contend that as they belonged to categories
other than SJA (Senior Personal Assistant/Court Officers/
Accountants) and were promoted to the cadre of AOJ/CM from
other feeder categories, the directions in W.P. (C) No.4077- B
84 of 2004 had the potential of unsettling them and that too
without hearing them, they not being parties to the proceeding.
At the point of time when the appellants had raised the
aforesaid question by instituting C.M. No.22133 of 2010 they
were in the cadre of AOJ/CM or the higher cadre of Assistant c
Registrar. The materials laid before us would indicate that the
aforesaid situation has also been altered with passage of time
by the grant of promotions to the appellants to even higher
echelons in service. This would indicate the sweep of the issues
before us in the presen! appeal. D
9. The appellants assert that their seniority in promotion
each of the cadres to which they have been promoted from
time to time remains unassailed and cannot be adversely
affected by the directions in favour of the Junior Translators
who have come to the cadre of AOJ/CM from the cadre of E
SJA with which cadre the appellants are not in any way
concerned or connected.
10. The administration of the High Court resisted the claim
of the' appellants by contending that some amount of setback
for the incumbents in the cadre of AOJ/CM coming from other F
streams is inevitable in a situation where one eligible class
i.e. Junior Translators had been overlooked for promotion to
the (;adre of SJA which is the feeder cadre for further
promotions. However, to minimise the impact on the serving
incumbents, the High Court administration had suggested G
'intermediary dates' for grant of benefits to the Junior
Translators which dates, in its p-erception, would be a fair
implementation of the order passed in W.P. (C) No.1218 of
1989.
H
956 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.
A 11. The very same Division Bench of the High Court
which had rendered the order dated 23.10.2009 in W.P. (C)
Nos. 4077-84 of 2004, considered the plea urged on behalf of
the appellants in C.M. No.22133 of 2010 as well as the stand
of the High Court administration, noticed above. By the
B impugned order dated 01.06.2012 the Bench held that Junior
Translators were required to be con.sidered for promotion to
the cadre of SJA.by selection in accordance with the 1978
Rules in terms of the order dated 16.10.1998 passed in C.W.P.
No.1218of1989. As the same was not done atthe required
C point of time, the promotion of such Junior Translators to the
higher cadre of AOJ/CM was delayed. The Bench further held
that to give effect to the Court's order dated 16.10.1998
necessary corrections were required which were so made by
the order dated 23.10.2009 passed in W.P. Nos.4077-84 of
o 2004. It was also observed that if promotions to the Junior
Translators under the 1978 Rules had been made at the time
when such promotions were due, the concerned incumbents
would have been promoted to the higher cadre of AOJ/CM
much earlier than the appellants. Nonetheless, to further
E minimise the possible adverse impact, it was directed that
promotions of the Junior Translators to the cadre of A OJ/CM
would be made on the basis of the result of the written test as
well as the marks secured in the interview which marks were.
a
computed by the High Court on notional basis on principles
F which were considered to be equitable. As even the aforesaid
modified direction(s) of the High Court carries the potential of
causing some disequilibrium among the incumbents in service,
the present appeal has been lodged on the grounds and
contentions earlier noticed. •
G 12. The appellants were, admittedly, not heard prior to
the order dated 23.10.2009 in W.P.(C) Nos.4077-84 of 2004. ""'
1-
Undoubtedly, the directions-in the said order would prejudicially
affect all or some of the appellants once the same are
implemented. In the above situation, the High Court had two
•
H
I
K. K. SHARMA v. HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND ORS. 957
[RANJAN GOGOi. J.]
options before it. The first was to recall the order dated A
23.10.2009 and start afresh. The second was to hear all the
affected parties while considering C.M. No.22133 of 2010
itself. To us, either of the options would have been in accord
with the requirement of a fair hearing. The emphasis must be
on substance and not on form. The test, always, will be whether B
the affected person has been heard. There is no inevitable
need to .obliterate the adverse order before hearing a person
who was mistakenly not heard earlier; the slate can always be
cleaned if upon hearing the affected person such a course of
action is required. Until such a decision is taken the adverse c
order is deemed to be in abeyance. This is how the course of
events in the present case has to be understood.
13. In the present case, according to us, the order dated
23.10.2009 passed in W.P. (C) Nos.4077-84 o 2004 does
not justify a recall even upon hearing the appellants and after a D
comprehensive consideration of the case urged on their behalf.
The decision of the High Court in C.W.P. No.1218of1989 has
attained finality in law. The said order has the effect of putting
clock black to the year 1988 and therefore should have been
implemented immediately.· Such implementation, to say the E
least, was tardy. A modified scheme of implementation, taking
note of the facts and events which have occurred during the
interregnum, was attempted by the High Court by the order
dated 23.10.2009 in W.P. (C) No.4077-84 of 2004. Not only
was the implementation confined to a limited number of posts F
and benefit thereof restricted to the Junior Translators only,
even the said directions were further diluted to the advantage
of the incumbents coming from ·categories other than SJA by
restricting the eligibility of the Junior Translators for promotions.
In both the orders i.e. 23.10.1989 and 16.01.2002, the High G
Court had also made it clear that adjustment of seniority was
to be purely notional and if any reversion was to result, the
High Court administration was free to take necessary
administrative measure to minimise the impact thereof. Both
H
958 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 14 S.C.R.
A the orders dated 23.10.2009 and 01.06.2012 are attempts
made by the High Court to balance the situation by taking into
account the legal rights that flow to the Junior Translators from
the judgments of the High Court that require "implementation
and the equitable considerations by which the cases of the
B appellants, who are not at fault, are required to be judged.
14. The balancing of the two sets of claims was a
formidable task which in our opinion the High Court has done
commendably. The impugned orders do really strike a balance
between the compulsion of law and equity. "The law, as an
C · instrument of social justice, takes a longer look to neutralize
the sins of history".' If constitutionality of a service Rules itself
cannot be judged "on the touchstone of fortune of individuals"
and the paramount consideration in framing the service rule is
reconciliation of conflicting claims as observed in Kamal Kanti
D Dutta & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2 , we do not see how
an adverse impact on equitable rights occasioned by a "milder
version" of implementation of judicial orders that have attained
finality in law can invite our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the
Constitution. We, therefore, will not upset what has already
E been done by the High Court and interfere with the order dated
01.06.2012 passed by the High Court.
15. At what stage the reversal of the process that had
been erroneously undertaken and the corrections initiated
should end? It is implicit in the order dated 23.10.2009 (para
F 45) that the review should be undertaken at each step/stage
undergone by those who were wrongly/mistakenly promoted.
The limited review directed in.the cadre of AOJ/CM has to be
continued in all higher cadres to which promotions may have
been made on the basis of the initial promotion to the cadre of
G AOJ/CM.
'
Any other view would .
be inconsistent with the view
'(1980) 3 sec 97 (Para 18)
[famil Nadu Education Department Ministerial and General Subordinate
Services Association & Ors. vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.]
H '(1980) 4 sec 38
K. K. SHARMA v. HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND ORS. 959
[RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
expressed in Union of India & Ors. vs. K.B. Rajoria 3 , with A
which we are in respectful agreement.
''The notional promotion was given.to Krishnamoorti to
right the wrong that had been done to him by his
supersession on 22-2-1.995. If Krishnamoorti is denied
the right to be considered for promotion to the post of B
Director General on the basis of such notional promotion,
particularly when the relevant provisions so provide, it
would result in perpetuating the wrong done to him. That
is exactlywhatthe High Court has done."
16. IR view of the above, the appeal is dismissed with C
the observations and directions contained in the present order
but without any order as to costs.
Civil Appeal No. 5839 of 2012
17. The appellant in the present appeal (applicant who D
had instituted C.M. No. 7841/2011) seeks implementation of
the order dated 23.10.2009 passed in W.P. (C) Nos. 4077-
84/2004 and is aggrieved by the modifications made to the
said order by the impugned order dated 01.06.2012.
18. By separate orders passed today in Civil Appeal No. E
5838/2012, the impugned order dated 01.06.2012 has been
affirmed. The appellant has also retired from service in the
meantime. In these circumstances this appeal is closed in
terms of the order passed in Civil Appeal No. 5838/2012.
Civil Appeal No.11197 of2014 (Arising outofSLP(C) F
No. 3202/2014
19. Leave granted.
This appeal is filed by two individuals claiming parity with
the writ petitioners (Atul Kumar Sharma and others) which had G
been initially granted by the High Court by order dated 6.5.2011
which has now been recalled by the order dated 1.6.2012.
'(2000) 3 sec 562 H
960 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.
A 20. The order dated 16.1.2012 passed by the Higti Court
is based on a detailed consideration of the facts and
circumstances surrounding the claims made by the appellants.
The High Court has held that.the two appellants were not eligible
for being placed at par with the writ petitioners (Atul Kumar
B Sharma and Others). The said conclusions of the High Court
have been made on consideration of the dates of appointments
of the incumbents; their consequential promotion to the cadre
of SJA; and further more their success/results in the selection
to the post of AO(J)/CM. We, therefore, do not find any error in
c the relevant part of the order of the High Court dated
010.6.2012 so as to justify interference. We accordingly
dismiss the appeal. ' ·
ORDER*
D
In the Judgment dated 15th December, 2014 passed in
Civil Appeal No. 5838 of 2012 and other connected matters,
the date '23.10.1989' mentioned in paragraph 13 (at Page
No. 17) of the said judgment shall be read as '23.10.2009'
E and thedate '16.01.2002' mentioned in paragraph 13 (at Page
No. 17) and date '16.1.2012' mentioned in Paragraph 20 (at·
Page 21) andthe date '010.6.2012' mentioned inthe last page
(Page No. 22) of the said judgment shall be read as
'01.06.2012'.
F
Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeals dismissed.
*Subsequent order dated 22.01.2015 passed in the matter of KK Sharma
v. High Court of Delhi and Ors., [2014] 14 SCR 944, by same Division
8ench.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "service law"Sign in to search