Holding

The government may prescribe qualifications for promotion and the principle of avoiding stagnation applies to the conditions of service, not to individual employees, rendering the High Court’s order untenable.

Summary

The respondents, long‑serving drill operators, were denied promotion after the 1990 Jammu & Kashmir Geology and Mining (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules introduced a matriculation qualification for higher posts. They filed writ petitions seeking to quash the qualification bar and to be promoted on seniority grounds. The High Court allowed the petitions, holding that insisting on matriculation caused illegal stagnation. The State appealed, and the Supreme Court held that the government may prescribe qualifications for promotion and that the principle of avoiding stagnation applies to the conditions of service, not to individual employees. Consequently, the High Court’s order was set aside and the writ petitions dismissed.

Issues considered

The legality of imposing a matriculation qualification for promotion under the 1990 recruitment rules.
Whether the High Court could direct relaxation of the qualification requirement on the ground of avoiding stagnation.
Whether the principle of avoiding stagnation applies to individual employees or to service conditions generally.
Whether a prior promotion (J.R. Sharma) can be used to justify relaxing the rules.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Jammu and Kashmirs. 124

Subjects

service lawpromotionqualification requirementstagnationrecruitment rulesvested rightsconstitutional provisionseniorityjudicial review

Judgment

ST A TE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR A
v.
SHIV RAM SHARMA AND OTHERS

MARCH 30, 1999

(S. SAGHIR AHMAD ANDS. RAJENDRA BABU, JJ.] B

Service Law-Conditions of Service-Stagnation-Allegation that
requirement of passing ;matriculation was not there at the time of joining
service-Requirement has been made to the detriment of such persons while
in service-Avenue for promotion blocked-Held, the principle of avoiding C
stagnation in a particular post will not be with reference to a particular
individual employee but with respect to the conditions of service as such-
Jammu Kashmir Geology and Mining (Subordinate) Service Recruitment
Rules, 1990.

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were initially appointed as Rigman, later D
designate<! as Drill Operator, Grade II, in 1967 and were further promoted
in 1983 to the post of Drill Operator, Grade I. Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5
were initially appointed as Drill Operator, Grade II in 1984. It was noticed
by the Government that in higher promotfonal posts the incubents had to
shoulder higher responsibilities for which qualification of Matriculation was E
considered necessary. Consequently, the Government promulgated Rules
know as 'Jammu & Kashmir Geology and Mining (Subordinate) Service
Recruitment Rules, 1990. Under these Rules, for promotion to the post of
Drilling Assistant the minimum basic qualification prescribed was
matriculation with ~ve years service as Drill Operator, Grade II Boring
Mistry, Grade I; and for promotion to the post of Boring Mistry, Grade II F
Drill Operator, Grade I, the minimum basic qualification prescribed was
matriculation with seven years service as Boaring Mistry, Garade II or Drill
Operator, Grade II. The respondents did not possess the qualification of
matriculation and therefore, were not promoted to higher grades.

Respondents filed writ petitions seeking quashing of the Rules to the G
extent they related to qualification bar in Class - A categories I & II and for
further direction to fill up the posts on the basis of seniority irrespective of
qualifications. Single Judge allowed the writ petitions on the ground that
insistence on matriculation qualificatinn for promotion to a higher post was
illogical and for such posts service experience should be the sole criteria. H
251
252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 2 S.C.R.

A Aggrieved by the Judgement of the Single Judge, the appellant - State filed
appeal before the Division Bench. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal
holding that the respondents were facing complete stagnation not because of
absence of promotional avenues but because of the requirement 'or
matriculation qualification and it was observed that the Rules have to be
B amended suitably to avoid stagnation by adverting to the decision in T.R.
Kothanandraman & Ors v. Tamil Nadu Water Supply & Drainage Baord &
Ors., [1994) 6 SCC 282. Against the Judgment of the Division Bench, the
appellants have filed the present appeal.

The appellant - State contended that the High Court had noticed that ·
C promotional avenue was available subject to certain conditions; and that it
was not a case where the Rules _did not permit promotional opportu~ities at
all and th_e hardship resulting to one or two individual employees should not
have been taken note as a general standard to give the impugned directions
as given by the High Court.

D The respondents contended that the promotional opportunity under the
Rules was only a mirage as the qualifications prescribed therein were
impossible offulfilment by the respondents; that when the respondents joined
service the requirement of passing matriculation was not needed and while
they were in service such prescription has been litade to their detriment, and
the High Court has only directed to relax the relevant Rules which would
E benefit the respondents; and that in one case the benefit was extended in
relaxation of the Rules.

Allowing the Appeal, the Court

. HELD : 1. The law is well settled that it is permissible for the
F Government to prescribe appropriate qualifications in the matter of
appointment or promotion to different posts. It is clear that there is no
--
indefeasible right in the respondents to claim promotion to a higher grade
to which qualification could be prescribed and there is no guarantee that
those rules framed by the Government in that behalf would always be favourable
G to them. Once appointed an employee has no vested right in regard to the
terms of service but acquires a status and therefore, the rights and obligations
thereto are no longer determined by consent of parties, but by statute or
statutory rules which may be framed and altered unilaterally by the
Government. The High Court has also noticed that there was an avenue
provided for promotion but the prescription was not favourable to respondents.
H The principle of avoiding stagnation in a particular post will not be with
STfi.TE v. SHIV RAM SHARMA [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 253

- reference to a particular individual employee but with reference to the
conditions of service as such. The Rules provide for conditions of service
making an avenue for promotion to higher grades. (255-E-H)
A

Roshan Lal Tandon v. U.0.1., (1968) 1 SCR 185, relied on.
I

T.R Kothandaraman & Others v. Tamil Nadu Water Supply & Drainage B
Board & Others, (1994) 6 SCC 282, held inapplicable.

2. The promotion of another employee in relaxation of the Rules stood
altogether on a different footing as it was done prior to the coming into force
of the Rules. Hence on the basis of that promotion no direction could be
issued in favour of the respondents. [256-B-C) C
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 904 of
1999.

From the Judgment and Order dated 10.4.98 of the Jammu & Kashmir
High Court in L.P. A. No. 525of1998. D
Ashok Mathur for t~e Appellant.

Jagdev Singh Manhas for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by E
RAJENDRA BABU, J. Leave granted.

Respondents filed writ petitions in.the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir
seeking quashing of the Rules published vide notification No. SRO : 328
dated November 22, 1992 to the extent it related to qualification bar in Class- F
A categories I & II and for further direction to fi!l up the posts on the basis
of seniority irrespective of qualifications. Respondent Nos. l and 2 were
initially appointed as Rig-man in the months of March, 1967 and November,
1967 respectively. Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were initially appointed as
Boring Mistry, Grade II in February, 1984, July, 1984 and January, 1984 G
respectively. Respondent Nos. I and 2 were promoted in the month of February,
1983 from the post of Rig-man which was later on re-designated as Boring-
Mistry, Grade I and again re-designated as Drill Operator, Grade I in the year
1990. Respondent Nos. 3,4 and 5 were working on the post of Drill Operator,
Orade i1. On November 22, 1990 Rules were promulgated under Section 124
of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir styled as "Jammu & Kashmir H
254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 2 S.C.R.

A Geology and Mining (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 1990". The
Rules were to come into force from the date of their publication itl the 1
Government Gazette, which, it is said, was done on November 22, 1990. Under ·
-
these Rules, the requisite qualification for promotion of a Drilling Assistant
was prescribed as matriculation with five years service as Boring Mistry,
B Grade I or Drill Operator, Grade I. For promotion to the post of Boring Mistry,
Grade I/Drill Operator, Grade I, the minimum basic qualification prescribed was
matriculation with seven years service as Boring Mistry, Grade II or Drill
Operator, Grade II.

Recruitment to the post of Rig-man, that is, Drill Operator, Grade II and
C Assistant Drilling (Now Drilling Assistant) were made partly by appointment
from state subjects whose academic qualification was matriculation and above
and partly on contract basis from non-state subjects possessing vast
\
experience in drilling but without necessary academic qualification. The services
of these persons appointed on contract basis was subsequently regularised
by a Government order with all benefits of promotion, pension, etc. It was
D noticed that in the higher promotional posts the incumbents had to shoulder
higher responsibilities, such as, maintaining log books, keepin_g records of
inventories and do other technical and administrative tasks for which
qualification of matriculation was considered necessary. None of the
respondents possessed the qualification of matriculation. Therefore, they
E could not be promoted to higher grades. The High Court took the view that
when respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had been promoted last in the year 1983
insistence on matriculation qualification for promotion to a higher post was
illogical and for such posts service experience should be the sole criteria. On
that basis 1 the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions. The Division
Bench, to which the appeal was preferred, also took the similar view and it
F was stated that the respondents were promoted in the year 1983 and therefore,
they are facing complete stagnation not because of absence of promotional -
avenues but because of the requirement of matriculation qualification. By the .I.
)

time they reach that stage they would be at the fag end of their career and
insistence on the passing of the matriculation would be fatal as it is impossible
G for them to take such an examination now and it was observed that the Rules
have to be amended suitably to avoid stagnation and adverted to the decision
t
of this Court in T.R. Kothandaraman & Ors. v. Tamil Nadu Water Supply &
Drainage Board & Ors., [1994] 6 SCC 282.

The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court
H could not have directed amendments of the Rules particularly when it had
STATE v. SHIV RAM SHARMA[RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 255

noticed that the promotional avenue from one grade to another was available A
subject to certain conditions, such as, fulfilment of qualifications and experience.
It is not a case where the Rules did not permit promotional opportunities at
all to higher grade from lower grade and the hardship resulting to one or two
individual employees should not be taken note as a general standard to give
the impugned directions and, therefore, the learned counsel submitted that B
the view of the High Court is not justified at all.

The learned counsel for the respondents vehemently contended that
the promotional opportunity under the Rules is only a mirage by reason of
the qualifications prescribed thereto which are impossible of fulfilment by
the respondents. When the respondents joined the service long before these C
Rules were promulgated there was no pr¢cription of qualification of
matriculation for promotion and sole avenue for promotion is deprived of by
reason of prescription of such qualification. He, therefore, submitted that
relaxation in the Rules is required and all that the High Court has directed to
relax the relevant rules which would result in benefit to the respondents
and, therefore, no interference is called for. He also pointed out that in case D
of one J.R. Sharma the benefit had been extended to him in relaxation of the
Rules.

The law is well settled that it is permissible for the Government to
prescribe appropriate qualifications in the matter of appointment or promotion E
to different posts. The case put forth on behalf of the respondents is that
when they joined the service the requirement of passing the matriculation
was not needed and while they are in service such prescription has been
made to their detriment. But it is clear that there is no indefeasible right in
the respondents to claim for promotion to a higher erade to which qualification
could be prescribed and there is no guarantee that those rules framed by the F
Government in that behalf would always be favourable to them. In Roshan
Lal Tandon v. Union of India, [1968] 1 SCR 185, it was held by this Court
that once appointed an employee has no vested right in regard to the terms
of service but acquires a status and, therefore, the rights and obligations
thereto are no longer determined by consent of parties, but by statute or G
statutory rules which may be framed and altered unilaterally by the
Government. The High Court has also noticed that there was an avenue provided
for promotion but the prescription of the qualification was not favourable to
respondents. The principle of avoiding stagnation in a particular post will not
be with reference to a particular individual employee but with reference to
the conditions of service as such. As long as rules provide for conditions of H
256 ·SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) 2 S.C.R.

A service making an avenue for promotion to higher grades the observations
made in T.RKothandaraman's case [supra] stand fulfilled. In that view of
the matter, we do not think the High Court was justified in allowing the writ
petitions filed by the respondents.

The case of J.R.Sharma stood altogether on a different footing who
B was appointed in the year 1962 and he was promoted to higher grades with
effect from 1989, that is, prior to the coming into force of the Rules. In that
view of the matter, we do not think that that case could be taken note of in
giving any directions in favour of the respondents.

In the result, we allow this appeal and set aside the order made by the
C High Court affirming the order made by the learned Single Judge and dismiss.
the writ petitions filed by the respondents. No order as to.costs. '
'
A.K.T Appeal allowed.