Skip to content


Jagtar Singh and ors. Vs. the State of Punjab and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectService
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1972LabIC1570; (1972)4SCC760; 1972(4)LC423(SC)
AppellantJagtar Singh and ors.
RespondentThe State of Punjab and ors.
Cases ReferredJagtar Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab and Ors. Civil Appeal No.
Excerpt:
.....of bail by supreme court is permissible. - normally, we would have acceded to a request like that, when the high court has not considered the individual grievances of the officers......to make regarding such aspects, it is open to them to make suitable representations to the state government, within three months from today. we dare say that any such representations made by them will be properly considered. but we make it clear that the lists of march 11, 1966 and march 20, 1970, have become final and cannot be reopened. subject to these observations, the appeals are allowed and the writ petitions filed by the respondents are dismissed. there will be no order as to costs.
Judgment:

A.N. Ray, J.

1. The points in controversy in all these appeals have now been considerably narrowed down in view of the decision of this Court in Jagtar Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab and Ors. Civil Appeal No. 1039 of 1971 decided on Dec. 3, 1971.

2. The respondents filed writ petitions in the High Court, challenging the ranks given to them in the integration lists finalised by the State Government. In all the writ petitions including Civil Writ No. 3121 of 1970 the High Court has quashed in toto the integration lists dated March 11, 1966 and March 20, 1970. The order of the High Court against Civil Writ No. 3121 of 1970 was dealt with by us in Civil Appeal No. 1039 of 1971. By our judgment, we have set aside the order of the High Court, quashing these two lists. The petition now is that the officers in the State are now governed by the two lists dated March II, 1966 and March 20, 1970; and it is only on the basis of the ranks given to the officers therein that their further claims for promotions will have to be considered.

3. Mr. Agarwala, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents, pointed out that before the High Court, his clients had made a grievance that their ranks have not been properly shown in those lists and that the representations made by them have not been appropriately considered and dealt with by the authorities concerned. The learned Counsel further pointed out that as the High Court quashed the two lists, it did not think it necessary to consider the individual grievances placed before it by the respective officers. In view of these circumstances, Mr. Aggarwala pointed out that this Court will have to give directions to the High Court to consider the grievances of the respective officers, that proper ranking has not been given to them in the two lists. Normally, we would have acceded to a request like that, when the High Court has not considered the individual grievances of the officers. But the position has become completely changed in view of the fact that we have finally upheld the validity of the integration lists published on March 11, 1966 and March 20, 1970. Those lists were finalised after giving all officers an opportunity to make representations. If, so, it follows that there is no necessity fur giving a direction for the individual grievances, if any, of the officers being considered. It may be that the acceptance of the finality of those lists by this Court may result in same hardship in individual cases; but that is not a circumstances which should weigh with this Court, when once the finality of the two lists has been accepted. That means that the ranking given to the officers by the State in the said two lists has become final.

4. We have given certain direction in our previous judgment to the authorities concerned. If any of the respondents have any representation to make regarding such aspects, it is open to them to make suitable representations to the State Government, within three months from today. We dare say that any such representations made by them will be properly considered. But we make it clear that the lists of March 11, 1966 and March 20, 1970, have become final and cannot be reopened. Subject to these observations, the appeals are allowed and the writ petitions filed by the respondents are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //