- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State Of Haryana And Others v. Birkha Ram And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
In 1957 the Government of Punjab decided to reserve 25% of the posts of “Masters” for a category of in-service teachers described as “unadjusted B.A., B.T./B.Ed. teachers.” Despite a circular dated 7 November 1958 reaffirming this reservation, the benefit was not extended, prompting litigation.
A first round of writ petitions culminated in State of Punjab v. Kirpal Singh Bhatia (1975) 4 SCC 740, where the Supreme Court held that such teachers were entitled to appointment as Masters up to their 25 % quota on the basis of seniority-cum-merit from the date they obtained the requisite qualification. A second batch of petitions, Nirmaljeet Kaur v. Union of India, 1972 SLR 809, secured broader relief, including monetary benefits and seniority readjustment.
Punjab failed to revise the seniority list, leading to fresh High Court directions that became final after an unsuccessful appeal process. Haryana, however, voluntarily implemented the Nirmaljeet Kaur directions and issued a revised seniority list on 15 February 1979. This revision pushed some directly recruited Masters down the list; they filed writ petitions and succeeded before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The State of Haryana and the “unadjusted teachers” appealed to the Supreme Court, giving rise to the present decision.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Government of Haryana’s revised seniority list, giving effect to the 25 % quota for in-service teachers from the date of their acquiring B.T./B.Ed. qualifications, correctly implements the principles laid down in Kirpal Singh Bhatia and Nirmaljeet Kaur.
- Whether retrospective adjustment of seniority for the quota teachers impermissibly introduces a “rotational” system not expressly contained in the service rules.
- Whether a 25 % reservation for unadjusted B.A., B.T./B.Ed. teachers existed in law at all.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants (State of Haryana and Unadjusted Teachers)
- The revised seniority list faithfully follows the Supreme Court’s directions in Kirpal Singh Bhatia and the High Court’s directions in Nirmaljeet Kaur, which have become final.
- Once the quota and the effective date principle were judicially settled, the Executive was bound to implement them; no further limitation on retrospectivity exists.
Respondents (Directly Recruited Masters)
- No explicit 25 % reservation is contained in the rules; the entire premise of a quota is mistaken.
- The Haryana order gives retrospective effect to the quota and, in substance, introduces a rotational principle contrary to Supreme Court rulings in A.K. Subraman, N.K. Chauhan and B.S. Yadav.
- Kirpal Singh Bhatia expressly refused retrospective relief; therefore, seniority of direct recruits appointed before that judgment cannot be disturbed.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| State of Punjab v. Kirpal Singh Bhatia (1975) 4 SCC 740; AIR 1976 SC 2459 | Teachers who acquire B.T./B.Ed. are entitled to Master’s status and grade from the date of qualification within a 25 % quota; relief for past vacancies may be denied on grounds of delay. | Treated as laying down the “broad general principle” that Haryana was entitled to apply; distinguished only on the discretionary denial of back-vacancy relief. |
| Nirmaljeet Kaur v. Union of India, 1972 SLR 809 | Followed Kirpal Singh Bhatia and granted full relief, including arrears and revised seniority, without discretionary limitation. | Relied on to justify Haryana’s comprehensive implementation of the quota and seniority readjustment. |
| A.K. Subraman v. Union of India (1975) 1 SCC 319 | Caution against implied introduction of rotational principles absent statutory backing. | Cited by respondents; Court held the case did not bar the present implementation because no rotation was, in fact, being introduced. |
| N.K. Chauhan v. State of Gujarat (1977) 1 SCC 308; AIR 1977 SC 251 | Similar to Subraman: rotation cannot be read into rules unless clearly provided. | Respondents invoked it; Court found the question academic because Haryana merely complied with earlier binding judgments. |
| B.S. Yadav v. State of Haryana 1980 Supp SCC 524 | Rotation may sometimes be implied; no absolute rule against it. | Used by Court to rebut respondents’ claim that rotation can never be implied. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court examined the earlier judgments to determine their precise ratio. It concluded that:
- Kirpal Singh Bhatia established the substantive right of qualified in-service teachers to occupy 25 % of Master posts from the date of qualification; denial of earlier vacancies there was an exercise of discretion based on delay, not a rejection of retrospectivity per se.
- Nirmaljeet Kaur accepted the same substantive principle and, unlike Kirpal Singh Bhatia, granted full relief without discretionary limitation. That decision was never overturned and, in Punjab, had become final after failed appeals.
- Haryana’s 1979 seniority revision merely carried these binding principles into effect. Hence, the High Court erred in quashing it.
- The contention that no 25 % quota exists cannot be reopened because successive judgments, including those of the Supreme Court, have repeatedly affirmed the quota.
- The allegation that Haryana surreptitiously introduced a rotational system is unfounded; even if rotation were implicit, precedents such as B.S. Yadav show that rotation is not invariably prohibited.
Holding and Implications
Appeals ALLOWED; High Court writ petitions DISMISSED; no order as to costs.
The revised Haryana seniority list stands restored, confirming that teachers who acquired B.T./B.Ed. qualifications are entitled to Master’s status and seniority from the date of qualification within their 25 % quota. The decision clarifies implementation of earlier rulings but sets no new substantive precedent beyond reaffirming those principles.
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.— We grant special leave and having heard the learned Counsel for the parties proceed to dispose of the appeals.
2. The appeals arise out of a judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana which is an aftermath of two earlier judgments of that Court. The appeal preferred to this Court against one of the earlier decisions was dismissed by this Court by a speaking order while a special leave petition filed against the other decision was dismissed by a non-speaking order. It appears that the Government of Punjab by its memorandum dated July 23, 1957 decided to reserve a quota of 25% of posts of Masters for a category of teachers already in service familiarly known in their service parlance as “unadjusted B.A, B.T/B.Ed teachers”. Notwithstanding the memorandum, these teachers were not given the benefits flowing from the reservation and therefore, a large number of them filed a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana claiming the status and emoluments of Masters. A Single Judge of the High Court held as under:
“The basis of their claim is the decision of the Director of Public Instruction, circularised vide letter dated November 7, 1958. According to that letter, the teachers already in service having B.A, B.T or B.Ed degrees were to be given the Master's grade whenever the recruitment was to be made to the extent of 25% of vacancies while 75% of the vacancies had to be filled by direct recruitment. The petitioners could compete for that recruitment but none of them appears to have done so. They could only lay claim to the 25% of the vacancies on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. There was requirement of subject combination in B.A and, therefore, the selection from amongst the teachers possessing the degrees in B.A, B.T or B.Ed on the basis of subject combination was not in accordance with the rules and was in fact discriminatory which violated the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The category was of B.A, B.T/B.Ed and no further selection could be made on the basis of subjects nor could the cases be referred to Punjab Subordinate Service Selection Board for purposes of selection. The selection had to be made on seniority-cum-merit basis and not on merit-cum-seniority basis as seems to have been done. The petitioners were, therefore, discriminated against. It has also not been stated who issued the instructions with regard to subject combination formula, which has occasioned the discrimination complained of. But no relief can be granted to the petitioners in this behalf as they did not challenge their supersession promptly and the teachers already promoted have not been made parties to this petition so that no order to their prejudice can be made herein. They are entitled to the relief that they should be considered for promotion to the 25% quota in accordance with seniority-cum-merit formula, whenever vacancies arise in future ignoring the subject combination formula.”
The matter was carried in appeal to a Division Bench and in further appeal to the Supreme Court. The appeals were futile. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court in State of Punjab v. Kirpal Singh Bhatia (1975) 4 SCC 740, AIR 1976 SC 2459, (1976) 1 SCR 529. It was observed by the Supreme Court:
“The third conclusion which the High Court arrived is correct that the teachers were to be considered for appointment to the posts of masters to the extent of 25% quota as recognised for their category of teachers on the basis of seniority-cum-merit without being subjected to the condition of subject combination.”
Later another group of teachers also filed similar writ petitions (Nirmaljeet Kaur v. Union of India 1972 SLR 809) and the High Court of Punjab and Haryana following the general principle laid down in the earlier decision in Kirpal Singh Bhatia case (1975) 4 SCC 740, AIR 1976 SC 2459, (1976) 1 SCR 529 found that the petitioners were entitled to the reliefs which were given to Kirpal Singh Bhatia and others. A Single Judge of the High Court accepted the writ petitions and granted the reliefs in the following terms:
“(i) The petitioners and other members of their Class (Unadjusted B.A, B.T/B.Ed teachers) shall be appointed to the posts of Masters in the regular cadre to the extent of 25% quota reserved for them for each year in accordance with the Memorandum dated November 7, 1958 (Annexure ‘B’ to the writ petition) and after adjusting them in the cadre their salary and inter se seniority shall be fixed along with the other members of the service in accordance with the service rules, without affecting the rights of the members of the Service who have already been promoted;
(ii) The petitioners are entitled to the higher grade of Masters Rs 110-250 from the day they acquired the B.T or B.Ed degree or with effect from May 1, 1957, whichever is later, and
(iii) The petitioners shall be paid the arrears of pay in the higher grade for a period up to three years and two months prior to the filing of their respective writ petitions in accordance with their entitlement.”
It appears there were abortive appeals to a Division Bench of the High Court and petitions for special leave to the Supreme Court.
1. Despite the directions in Nirmaljeet Kaur case 1972 SLR 809 a proper seniority list incorporating the names of the teachers who should have been promoted as Masters, at the appropriate places, on the dates when they acquired the requisite qualifications was not prepared by the Government of Punjab. The “unadjusted teachers” had once again to approach the High Court for relief. A Single Judge of the High Court gave a direction to the authorities to “re-frame the seniority list in accordance with the directions in Nirmaljeet Kaur case 1972 SLR 809 without reference to any other judgment”. We are informed that an appeal preferred to a Division Bench of the High Court was dismissed in limine and that petition to this Court for grant of special leave was also dismissed. Thus the direction given by the Single Judge and the High Court in regard to “unadjusted teachers” in the State of Punjab became final.
2. In the State of Haryana, the Government, of its own motion, gave full effect to the directions in Nirmaljeet Kaur case 1972 SLR 809, though in the actual order (dated February 15, 1979) which was issued, reference was made to Kirpal Singh Bhatia case (1975) 4 SCC 740, AIR 1976 SC 2459, (1976) 1 SCR 529 instead of Nirmaljeet Kaur case 1972 SLR 809 perhaps for the reason that Nirmaljeet Kaur case 1972 SLR 809 purported to follow the general principle laid down in Kirpal Singh Bhatia case (1975) 4 SCC 740, AIR 1976 SC 2459, (1976) 1 SCR 529. The fresh seniority list affected some of the directly recruited Masters who as a result of the effect given to the directions contained in Nirmaljeet Kaur case 1972 SLR 809 were placed below the teachers who were deemed to be appointed as Masters in the quota of 25% reserved for those teachers who acquired the B.T/B.Ed qualification subsequent to their original appointments as teachers, and were given the status of Masters from the date of acquisition of such qualification. They filed writ petitions in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and their writ petitions were accepted by the High Court on the ground that the action of the authorities was not in conformity with the directions contained in Nirmaljeet Kaur case 1972 SLR 809 and that it introduced the rotational principle into the rules without any express provision for the same. According to the writ petitioners (who are respondents herein), it was expressly made clear in Kirpal Singh Bhatia case (1975) 4 SCC 740, AIR 1976 SC 2459, (1976) 1 SCR 529 that retrospective effect was not to be given to the quota rule and therefore, the seniority of those who had been appointed by direct recruitment prior to the date of the decision in Kirpal Singh Bhatia case (1975) 4 SCC 740, AIR 1976 SC 2459, (1976) 1 SCR 529 could not be touched. This was the argument which was accepted by the High Court who observed that there was nothing in Nirmaljeet Kaur case 1972 SLR 809 which departed from what had been said in Kirpal Singh Bhatia case (1975) 4 SCC 740, AIR 1976 SC 2459, (1976) 1 SCR 529 about retrospectivity. The State of Haryana as well as the “unadjusted teachers” have appealed to this Court.
3. The decision of the appeals really turns on the interpretation to be placed upon the judgments in Kirpal Singh Bhatia case (1975) 4 SCC 740, AIR 1976 SC 2459, (1976) 1 SCR 529 and Nirmaljeet Kaur case 1972 SLR 809 and the direction therein given. In Kirpal Singh Bhatia case (1975) 4 SCC 740, AIR 1976 SC 2459, (1976) 1 SCR 529 the Court laid down the broad general principle that the teachers who acquired the requisite qualification were entitled to the Master's status and grade with effect from the date of the acquisition of their qualification provided they came within the 25% quota reserved for them. While doing so, the Court, in exercise of its discretion denied relief in regard to the past vacancies on the ground that they had come to the Court late. In Nirmaljeet Kaur case 1972 SLR 809 however, the Court accepted without qualification the broad general principle laid down in Kirpal Singh Bhatia case (1975) 4 SCC 740, AIR 1976 SC 2459, (1976) 1 SCR 529 regarding the eligibility of those who had acquired the qualification to be appointed to the 25% of the posts from the date of the acquisition of their qualification and did not refuse to grant relief on any ground in the exercise of their discretionary powers. The Government of Haryana has now accepted the broad general principle laid down in Kirpal Singh Bhatia case (1975) 4 SCC 740, AIR 1976 SC 2459, (1976) 1 SCR 529 as adopted in Nirmaljeet Kaur case 1972 SLR 809 and they cannot, therefore, be found fault with for so doing. The learned counsel for the respondents tried to reopen the issue whether there was any reservation of 25% quota at all on the ground that the rule itself did not provide for such a reservation. But in view of the earlier decisions, all of which have accepted the position that there was a 25% quota reserved for those acquiring the requisite qualification, we do not think that we would be justified in permitting the counsel to reagitate the question. The learned counsel also urged that in effect the principle of rotation was being introduced by the backdoor as it were and that this was in the teeth of the decisions of this Court in A.K Subraman v. Union of India (1975) 1 SCC 319, (1975) 2 SCR 979 N.K Chauhan v. State of Gujarat (1977) 1 SCC 308, AIR 1977 SC 251, (1977) 1 SCR 1037 and B.S Yadav v. State of Haryana 1980 Supp SCC 524, (1981) 1 SCR 1024. In the first place, it is wrong to say that the rotational principle can never be read into the rules. There can be no dogmatic assertion as a matter of abstract law on that question as pointed out in Yadav case 1980 Supp SCC 524, (1981) 1 SCR 1024 itself. In the second place, the question does not really arise in this case as we are only concerned with the question whether the Government of Haryana was giving effect to what was decided in Kirpal Singh Bhatia case (1975) 4 SCC 740, AIR 1976 SC 2459, (1976) 1 SCR 529 and Nirmaljeet Kaur case 1972 SLR 809 or whether it was proceeding contrariwise. We do not have any doubt that the Government of Haryana acted in accordance with the principles laid down in Kirpal Singh Bhatia case (1975) 4 SCC 740, AIR 1976 SC 2459, (1976) 1 SCR 529 and Nirmaljeet Kaur case 1972 SLR 809. The appeals are, therefore, allowed and the writ petitions filed in High Court are dismissed with no order as to costs.
Alert