Supreme Court of India
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESHversusAMAR NATH SHARMA AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1994 INSC 239
- Decided
- 12 July 1994
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- KULDIP SINGH
Holding
The Supreme Court upheld the memorandum's definition of "family", struck down the 10‑mark weightage for families with no member in organised employment as violative of Articles 14 and 16, and held that the interview process was not illegal, thereby setting aside the High Court judgment.
Summary
The Himachal Pradesh Government issued an office memorandum in 1980 prescribing a recruitment procedure for Class III and IV posts, granting weightage of 10 marks each for candidates from families with no member in organised employment and for families with annual income not exceeding Rs.6,000, and defining "family" as parents, brother and unmarried sisters. Special selection committees conducted interviews and appointments were made based on the memorandum. A batch of writ petitions challenged the definition of family, the 10‑mark weightage for families with no member in organised employment, and the conduct of the interviews, leading the High Court to quash those provisions and the appointments. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the definition of family was reasonable given the state's social conditions and could not be struck down, but the weightage for families with no member in organised employment was unconstitutional under Articles 14 and 16 and was set aside prospectively. The Court also found no illegality in the interview procedures and restored the validity of selections made before the judgment, thereby allowing the appeals and dismissing the writ petitions.
Issues considered
- Whether the definition of "family" as parents, brother and unmarried sisters in the recruitment memorandum is arbitrary and violative of constitutional principles.
- Whether the provision of 10 marks weightage for candidates belonging to a family with no member in organised employment is permissible under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
- Whether the interview and selection procedure adopted by the special selection committees was arbitrary, illegal or violative of due process.
- Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the memorandum and the appointments made under it.
Subjects
reservationbackward classesemploymentweightagefamily definitionselection procedureArticles 14 and 16constitutional lawstate recruitmentinterview process
Judgment
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH A
v.
AMAR NATH SHARMA AND ORS.
JULY 12, 1994
B
[KULDIP SINGH AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.]
Se1vice Law : Civil Services--C/ass III and Class IV posts under the
State Govt.- of Himachal Pradesh-Office memorandum laying down proce-
dure fa• selection-Weightage for economically backward and for those whose
family did not have anyone in the organised employment-Selection and ap-
c
pointment made on the basis of the office memorandum-Validity of
For recruitment to class III and class IV posts not falling within the
pun-iew of the Public Service Commission the appellant State Government
issued an office memorar.dum in 1980 laying down the procedure to be D
followed. In addition to marks for educational qualifications, general
knowledge and personality, the said memorandum also provided for
marks for those candidates belonging to a family is which not even one
member is in organised employment .and for candidates whose family
income did not exceed Rs.6,000.
E
A special Selection Committee was constituted and candidates from
•
v·arious Employment Exchanges from the State were called for interview
and the selected candidates were appointed. TI1is was challenged before
the High Court by way of writ petitions.
F
The High Court quashed part of the said memorandum as well as
the selection and appointments made on the grounds that the definition
of "family" did not include spouses; that there was no justification for not
excluding married brothers; that a candidate who belonged to rich busi-
ness family could not be considered socially and educationally backward G
and as such not entitled to any weightage even though not a single member
of the said family was in organised employment and that the interviews
were held in an arbitrary manner. The State Government preferred the
present appeals against the High Court's judgment.
Allowing the appeals, this Court H
429
430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A HELD : 1. The word "family" has been defined by the State Govern·
ment as "parents, brother and unmarried sisters of the candidate." The
High Court fell into patent error in quashing the said definition. The State
Goverriment adopted the definition keeping in view the social conditions
in the State, viz. in low income groups, the married brother continues to
be an integral part of the family and the spouses of men-folk do not seek
B employment or to work independently for earning. There was no material
before the High Court to have reached the conclusion that the definition
of "family" adopted by the State Government was arbitrary. [433-F-H]
2. There is no justification for providing any weightage or incentive
C for a class of citizens which is not socially and educationally backward. An
affiuent family having education and social status cannot be given any
preference in the matters relating to employment or appointment to any
office under the State in the scheme of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitu-
tion of India. The weightage of 10 marks for a candidate 'belonging to a
family for whom not even one member is in organised employment" is
D therefore set aside. This shall operate prospectively from the date of this
judgment, and any seiection already made on the basis of the memoran·
dum shall be considered valid. [434-B-C]
3. The High Court was not justified in quashing the selection proce·
E dure. It acted merely on surmises and conjectures. Simply because a
candidate obtained less marks for educational qualifications and more
marks in the interview, it is no ground to reach the conclusion that the
candidate was favoured. The special selection committees at various dis·
trict levels adopted their own procedure to hold the interviews. At some
places lumpsum marks were awarded in respect of general knowledge and
F parsonality whereas at other places 20 marks were divided into general
knowledge and personality separately. There is no illegality in the manner
of holding the interviews. (434-D-F]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 3038-
G 3048/87.
From the Judgment & Order dated 6-8-82 of the High Court of H.P.
at Shimla in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 211, 212, 217, 218, 225, 235, 240 and
247/80 and 43, 55 and 4 of 1981.
H Sunil Gupta and K.J. John for the Appellants.
STATE OF H.P. v. AN. SHARMA[KULD!P SINGH,J.) 431
·.
S.S. Khandya, Yash Pal Dhingra, B.K. Satija, Naresh K. Sharma and A
Ms. A. Subhashini for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KULDIP SINGH, J. Government of Himachal Pradesh issued office
memorandum dated September 27/29, 1980 (the memorandum) wherein B
the procedure for recruitment to class III and IV posts/services - not within
the purview of the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission - was laid
down. The memorandum provided that fresh recruitment to the posts/ser-
vices mentioned therein would be made on the basis of an interview which
would carry 50 marks as follows:- C
"(a) For belonging to a family of whom
not even one member is in organised
employment. 10 marks
(b) For belonging to a family whose annual
income does not exceed Rs.6000. 10 marks
D
(c) Minimum educational qualification 10 marks
(d) General Knowledge, experience and
personality 20 marks
E
Total 50 marks
The word 'family' has been defined by the Govt. as 'parents,
brother and unmarried sisters of the candidate."
The State Government decided to hold special recruitment for class F
III and class IV posts in accordance with the procedure laid down in the
memorandum. Candidates registered up to the specified dates with the
various employment exchanges in the State of Himachal Pradesh were
called for interview by the special selection committees constituted for the
recruitment. On the basis of the interviews held by the special selection G
committees, merit lists were prepared and the selected candidates were
given appointments.
The selection and che consequent appointments were challenged by
way of a batch of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India before the Himachal Pradesh High Court. A Division Bench of the H
432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994( SUPP.1 S.C.R.
A High Court by its judgment dated August 6, 1982 allowed the writ petitions
and quashed part of the memorandum, the selection and the appointments.
These appeals by way of special leave are against the judgment of the High
Court.
The High Court referred lo various judgments of this Court and held
B that it was permissible for the State to make special provisions for the
advancement of socially and educationally backward class of citizens. The
High Court, however, did not agree with the definition of the expression
"family" given in the memorandum and set aside the same on the following
reasoning: -
c "This definition does not include spouses. In other words, the
income of a husband or a wife of a candidate who may be earning
fabulously has not been taken into consideration. There also seems
to be no justification for not excluding married brothers of a
candidate. A married brother has his own obligations and so it
D does not stand to reason that his income should be taken into
consideration for deciding the question of weightage for a can-
didate.'1
The High Court also struck down the 10 marks provided for a
candidate " belonging to a family of whom not even one member is in
·E organised employment." According to the High Court a candidate who
belongs to a rich - business family cannot be considered socially and
educationally backward and as such is not entitled to any weightage even
though not a single member of the said family is in organised employment.
The High Court, on the examination of the proceedings of the special
F selection committees, came to the .conclusion that the interviews were held
in an arbitrary manner and quashed the same on the following reasoning:-
"The record relating to the selection of Class-III emloyees reveals
that as many as 423 candidates were interviewed. As usual, the
record does not show the date of interview. If all these candidates
G were interviewed on the day, it shows that it was impossible to give
more than one to two minutes to each candidate and the result
would be that arbitrary marks must have been allotted with respect
to 11 general knowledge, experience and perSonality, 11 There are
cases also where in the interview high marks have been obtained
H by those who had obtained very low marks in the examination. For
STATE OF H.P. 1·. A.N. SHARMA [KULDIP SINGH. J.] 433
example, at page 89 at SL No. 17 is one Miss Nirmala who obtained A
only 3.1. per cent marks for educational qualifications, she was
given 11 marks for general knowledge etc. whereas the next two
candidates at SL Nos. 18 and 19 who had secured 5.4 and 5.6 marks
for educational qualifications, got only 10 and 11 marks. Another
person at SL No.I on page 89 who got 5.8 per cent marks for
B
edu~tional qualifications was given only 10 marks. In one case on
page 65 one Miss Kamla Devi who, to begin with, got 9 marks for
interview was, later on, given two more marks. This appears to
have put her up very high in the total marks. All this shows that
the interviews were held in a very undesirable manner.
c
The records of the selection committees for various Districts have
been placed before us. We have gone through them. We find that
selection committees for Districts Solan, Kangra, Bilaspur, and
Kulu have given lump sum marks in respect of general knowledge,
experience and personality. The records of District Una do not D
show how the selections were made though the final typed list of
the candidates is on record. As regards the records of Chamba,
Mandi, and Hamirpur Districts, these show that separate marks
for general knowledge, experience, and personality were awarded.
The records for District Sirmur Placed hefore us show only the
names of the candidates selected after the interview." E
The word "family" has been defined by the State Government as
"parents, brother and unmarried sisters of the candidates." We are of the
·view that the High Court fell into patent error in quashing the said definition.
The State Government adopted the definition keeping in view the social F
conditions in the State. It is· contended on behalf of the State that in the
existing social system in the State of Himachal Pradesh, specially in the low
income groups, a married brother does not ordinarily live separately but
continues to be an integral part of the family and this being a matter of
common knowledge the Government was justified to take the same into
account while defining the expression "family". Similarly the family structure G
and the social norms in the State of Himachal Pradesh do not encourage the
spouses of the men-folks to seek employment or to work independently for
earning. There was no material before the High Court to have reached the
conclusion that the definition of "family" adopted by the State Government
was arbitrary. We, therefore, set aside the finding of the High Court on this H
434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A issue and uphold the definition of "family" as given in the memorandum.
So far as the weightage provided for the candidates belonging to a
family which has no member in the organised employment, we are of the
view that the High Court was justified in holding the same to be arbitrary.
There is no justification for providing any weightage or incentive for a class
B of citizens which is not socially and educationally backward. An affluent
family having education and social status cannot be given any preference
is the matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under
the State in the scheme of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
We, therefore, agree with the High Court and set aside the weightage of
10 marks for a candidate "belonging to a family for whom not even one
c member is in organised employment." This shall operate prospectively from
the date of this judgment. Any selection made prior to the date of this
judgment, on the basis of the memorandum shall be considered valid.
The High Court, in our view, was not justified in quashing the selection
D - procedure. The High Court has acted merely on surmises and conjectures.
We have not been able to find any material illegality in the cond.uct of inter-
views. Simply because a candidate obtained less marks for educational
qualifications and more marks in the interview. It is no ground to reach the
conclusion that the candidate was favoured. The special selection commit-
tees at various district levels adopted their own procedure to hold the inter-
E views. At some places lump sum marks were awarded in respect of general
knowledge and personality whereas at other places 20 marks were divided
into general knowledge and personality separately. We see no illegality in the
manner of holding the interviews. We, therefore, set aside the findings of the
High Court and hold that the interviews were held properly.
F We, therefore, allow the appeals and set aside the impugned judg-
ment of the High Court. The writ petitions filed before the High Court by
the respondents are dismissed. No costs.
Civil Appeal No. 4125 of 1985
G
ORDER
We have today pronounced judgment in Civil Appeal Nos. 303~ -
3048 of 1987 titled State of Hirnacha/ Pradesh v. Amar Nath Shanna & Ors ..
For the reasons recorded in the said judgment, we allow this appeal and
H set aside the High Court judgment and dismiss the writ petition filed by
STATE OFH.P. v. AN.SHARMA[KULDIP SINGH, J.] 435
respondent 3 before the High Court. No costs. A
Civil Appeal No. 3049/ 1987
ORDER
We have today pronounced judgment in Civil Appeal Nos. 3038 - B
3087 of 1987 titled State of Himacha/ Pradesh v.Amar Nath Sharma & Ors..
For the reasons recorded in the said judgment, we allow this appeal and
set aside the High Court judgment and dismiss the writ petition filed by
respondents 1 to 22 before the High Court. No costs.
G.N. Appeals allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "reservation"Sign in to search