Ajay Kumar Guria vs State Of Jharkhand Through ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 24 Jhar

                             [1]


   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                      W.P.(S) No.5842 of 2019
  Ajay Kumar Guria, aged about 37 years, son of Shri Anand Guria,
  resident of Quarter No.35, Judge Colony, Kanke Road, P.O. GPO,
  Ranchi, P.S. Sukhdeonagar, Town and District Ranchi.
                                                            . ... Petitioner
                                   Versus
1. State   of   Jharkhand   through    Principal   Secretary,   Personnel,
   Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of
   Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.
   Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi.

2. Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms
   and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its
   office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur,
   District Ranchi.

3. Secretary, Law (Judicial) Department, Government of Jharkhand,
   Having its office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Town and
   District-Ranchi.

4. High Court of Jharkhand through Registrar General, having its office
   at High Court Campus, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.
                                                          ... Respondents
                                    WITH
                      W.P.(S) No.5849 of 2019
  Rajiv Tripathi, aged about 43 years, son of Shri Balram Tripathi,
  resident of Quarter No.33, Judge Colony, Kanke Road, P.O. GPO,
  Ranchi, P.S. Sukhdeonagar, Town and District Ranchi.
                                                            . ... Petitioner
                                   Versus
1. State   of Jharkhand     through    Principal   Secretary,   Personnel,
   Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of
   Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.
   Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi.
                                    [2]


     2. Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms
         and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its
         office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur,
         District Ranchi.

     3. Secretary, Law (Judicial) Department, Government of Jharkhand,
         Having its office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Town and
         District-Ranchi.

     4. High Court of Jharkhand through Registrar General, having its office
         at High Court Campus, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.
                                                       ... Respondents/Respondents
                                   -------

    CORAM :              HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
                                   -------
    For the Petitioners      : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
    For the Resp.- State     : Mr. Suresh Kumar, SC (L&C)-II
                                   [W.P.(S) No.5842 of 2019]
                                   Mrs. Darshana Poddar Mishra, AAG-I
                                   [W.P.(S) No.5849 of 2019]
    For the Resp.-High Court      : Mr. Sudarshan Shrivastava, Advocate
                                ----------------------------

ORAL JUDGMENT

05/Dated 05th January, 2021

1. The matter has been heard through video conferencing with the

consent of the learned counsel for the parties. They have no

complaint about any audio and visual quality.

2. Both these writ petitions, since involving common issues, have been

heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment

with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

3. Both the writ petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India inter alia for grant of following reliefs:

[3]

In W.P.(S) No.5842 of 2019:

"(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, including writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the letter issued under the signature of Deputy Secretary, Department of Personal, Administrative Reform and Rajbhasha, Ranchi (Respondent No.2) contained in letter No.13/Nya. Ni. Sa. 87/2014 Ka. 373 dated 13.01.2017 (Annexure-7), wherein it has been informed that the claim of the petitioner for three advance increments cannot be sustained as the petitioner has obtained the certificate of LLM Degree on 26.02.2011 and thus as per the Resolution No.4328 dated 24.05.2016 the criteria's are not being fulfilled.

(ii) Upon quashing of the aforesaid letter further appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued commanding upon the respondents to grant the three advance increments to the petitioner, and further grant this three increments on every promotions or revised pay scale in the light of the recommendations of Hon'ble Shetty Commission;"

In W.P.(S) No.5849 of 2019:

"(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, including writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the letter issued under the signature of Deputy Secretary, Department of Personal, Administrative Reform and Rajbhasha, Ranchi (Respondent No.2) contained in letter No.13/Nya. Ni. Sa. 120/2014 Ka. 1850 dated 02.03.2017 (Annexure-6), wherein it has been informed that the claim of the petitioner cannot be sustained as the petitioner has obtained the certificate of LLM Degree on 15.10.2010 and thus as per the Resolution No.4328 dated 24.05.2016 the criteria's are not being fulfilled.

(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, including writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the notification as contained in letter No.13/Nya.Ni San- 120/2014 Ka. 4281 dated 12.06.2018 issued under the signature of Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand (Respondent No.2), communicated to the petitioner through Registrar General, Hon'ble High [4]

Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi (Respondent No.4) vide Letter No.2671/Apptt., Dated 23.06.2018 (Annexure-8/1 &8) whereby and whereunder the application of the petitioner for grant of three advance increments on the basis of Hon'ble Shetty Commission Report with effect from the date of acquiring LLM degree has been rejected.

(iii) Upon quashing of the aforesaid letter further appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued commanding upon the respondents to grant the three advance increments to the petitioner, and further grant this three increments on every promotions or revised pay scale in the light of the recommendations of Hon'ble Shetty Commission;"

4. At the outset Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners

in both the cases has submitted before this Court, on instruction,

that prayer No.1(ii) of W.P.(S) No.5842 of 2019 and prayer

No.1(iii) of W.P.(S) No.5849 of 2019 are not being pressed at this

stage, however, he may be allowed to agitate it again at an

appropriate stage, if such situation comes in future.

5. We, after considering the aforesaid submission, have proceeded

with the issue for examining the prayer made in W.P.(S) No.5842 of

2019 to the effect for quashing the letter issued under the signature

of Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative

Reform and Rajbhasha, Ranchi (Respondent No.2) contained in

letter No.13/Nya. Ni. Sa. 87/2014 Ka. 373 dated 13.01.2017

(Annexure-7), wherein it has been informed that the claim of the

petitioner for three advance increments cannot be sustained as the

petitioner has obtained the certificate of LLM Degree on

26.02.2011 and in W.P.(S) No.5849 of 2019 to the effect for

quashing the letter issued under the signature of Deputy Secretary, [5]

Department of Personnel, Administrative Reform and Rajbhasha,

Ranchi (Respondent No.2) contained in letter No.13/Nya. Ni. Sa.

120/2014 Ka. 1850 dated 02.03.2017 (Annexure-6), wherein it has

been informed that the claim of the petitioner cannot be sustained as

the petitioner has obtained the certificate of LLM Degree on

15.10.2010.

However, the petitioners are at liberty to agitate the

prayer No.1(ii) of W.P.(S) No.5842 of 2019 and prayer No.1(iii) of

W.P.(S) No.5849 of 2019 at an appropriate stage, if such situation

arises.

6. The brief facts of the case which are required for consideration of

the lis, read as hereunder:

The petitioner of W.P.(S) No.5842 of 2019 obtained his

LL.B Degree in the academic year 2003-06. He has completed his

Masters of Law (LL.M) for the academic year 2006-08 and passed

in the year 2010 and obtained mark sheet on 27.07.2010, thereafter,

the LL.M Degree certificate was issued on 26.02.2011.

The petitioner of W.P.(S) No.5849 of 2019 obtained his

LL.B Degree in the academic year 2000-03. He has completed his

Masters of Law (LL.M) with specialization in Human Rights in the

academic year 2008-10 and obtained the score card on 03.09.2010

and thereafter certificate was issued on 15.10.2010.

7. Both the petitioners participated in the process of selection for the

post of Munsif (Jr. Division) and were declared successful. The

petitioners were appointed and took charge of the post of [6]

Probationary Civil Judge, Jr. Division (Munsif), trainee on

31.01.2011 [petitioner of W.P.(S) No.5842 of 2019] and on

25.04.2011 [petitioner of W.P.(S) No.5849 of 2019].

8. A Commission was set up for recommending uniform pattern of

eligibility conditions and pay structure throughout the country in the

Judicial Services, known as "Shetty Commission" (hereinafter

referred to the Commission). The Commission has considered the

desirability of granting additional benefit for higher qualification.

The Commission referred to the Service Rules and conditions of

service prevailing in different States at the entry level and took

notice in para 8.46 of its Report Volume-II of the fact that except

Delhi and Rajasthan, in none of the States, additional benefit to the

selected candidates possessing higher qualification was admissible,

which prompted the Commission to make following

recommendation as under paras 8.48 of the Report (Volume-II):

"8.48 If selected candidates are having a higher qualification like Post-Graduation in Law, we recommend that three advance increments be given as it is allowed by the Delhi Administration. It is an acknowledged fact that Post- Graduation in Law is a difficult course and it is better to reward appropriately such candidates."

9. The recommendation of the Commission was considered and

accepted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in All India Judges'

Association and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors., (2002) 4 SCC

247. The Hon'ble Apex Court issued several directions for the

improvement of service conditions including reasonable hike in the

pay scales of the judicial officers. The recommendation made by the

First National Judicial Pay Commission, apart from other [7]

conditions, is for grant of three advance increments to judicial

officers having Post Graduate degree in Law, which has also been

accepted by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

10. The department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and

Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand vide Resolution

No.13/variya vividh-03/2010 Ka.4328 Ranchi dated 24.05.2016 has

published a resolution bringing on record the report of the

Commission whereby and whereunder certain criteria for the grant

of three additional increments who have obtained LLM degree has

been stipulated.

11. The petitioners herein have made representation on 02.09.2016 and

18.07.2016 respectively, in the light of the Report of the

Commission before the Under Secretary, Department of Personnel,

Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of

Jharkhand enclosing the copy of the LL.M degree and mark sheet

requesting for three additional increments.

12. The learned Registrar General of the High Court of Jharkhand has

forwarded the applications and certificates of the petitioners to the

Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative

Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand

vide Memo No.4063/Apptt. and Memo No.383 Dated 22.07.2016

and 21.01.2017 respectively.

Finally, the respondent No.2, vide notifications contained

in Letter No.13/Nya. Ni. Sa. 87/2014 Ka. 373 dated 13.01.2017 and

Letter No.13/Nya. Ni. Sa. 120/2014 Ka. 1850 dated 02.03.2017 [8]

respectively, rejected the applications of the petitioners for grant of

three advance increments on the basis of Hon'ble Shetty

Commission Report.

13. The petitioners have approached to this Court by invoking the

jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India assailing the orders dated 13.01.2017 [W.P.(S) No.5842 of

2019] and 02.03.2017 [W.P.(S) No.5849 of 2019].

14. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted

that the competent authority of the State of Jharkhand, before

negating the claim of the petitioners, has not appreciated the very

intent and object of the recommendation made by the Shetty

Commission in granting three advance increments to such

candidates who have obtained LL.M degree because the sole

purpose behind making such recommendation was to induce

candidates who are willing to come to the judicial services and if

having been found to have obtained higher degree they may be

given benefit of three annual advance increments so that the same

be treated to be an incentive to such candidates and will lead to

encouraging other candidates in getting higher degree like that of

LL.M which finally improve the judicial acumen of such officers.

The respondent-State of Jharkhand ought to have taken

into consideration the very spirit and intent of the said intention of

making recommendation by the Commission but going on hyper

technicality and even though the candidates who have produced the

mark sheet at the time of selection has been denied with such claim

even without considering the fact that the issuance of the [9]

degree/certificate is not within the domain of such candidates rather

it is to be supplied by the competent authority of the concerned

University. It has been submitted that if the competent authority of

the State of Jharkhand would have considered this aspect of the

matter, which is not only to make such candidates entitle who will

produce LL.M degree at the time of selection rather the same is to

be provided to all such candidates who are in service which is for

the purpose of inducement and will finally lead in enhancing the

judicial acumen of such judicial officers. Therefore, the stipulation

made under the impugned orders to the effect that since the

petitioners have not produced LL.M degree at the time of selection

cannot be said to be in terms of the object and intent of the said

Commission.

15. Learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand has submitted that so far

as the impugned orders are concerned, the same may not be

interfered with because the competent authority has acted on the

basis of the recommendation made by the said Commission and

since the due certificate of LL.M has not been produced at the time

of selection, the claims have been rejected.

Learned counsel further submits that it is not that the

State of Jharkhand is not acting on the basis of the recommendation

of the Commission rather by taking such decision of negating the

claim of the petitioners, since they have not produced the degree of

LLM, impugned decisions have been taken.

16. Mr. Sudarshan Shrivastava, learned counsel for the High Court has

submitted by referring to the object and intent of the Report of the [10]

Commission, duly been accepted by the Hon'ble Apex Court, that

the State of Jharkhand ought to have taken into consideration the

very intent and object of the recommendation which is for the

purpose of inducing the judicial officers in getting higher degree

and if such inducement has been granted, the competent authority of

the State of Jharkhand ought to have considered the very aspect of

the matter and not to go on hyper technicality rather to see that by

dint of his labour the selected candidates have obtained LL.M

degree and also produced mark sheet at the time of selection and

even if the candidate has participated in the final examination of the

LL.M at the time of selection but awaiting for the result and if such

certificate has been produced before the competent authority for

getting the benefit of three advance increments, the same is also to

be considered by the State of Jharkhand taking into consideration

the very intent and object of the recommendation made by the

Commission.

He further submits that the State of Jharkhand ought to

have considered the recommendation made by the Commission in

paras 8.48 & 8.49 which ought to have been read out in entirety

because even accepting the fact that the recommendation has been

made to the effect that if selected candidates are having higher

qualification like that of Post Graduate in Law, we, recommend that

the three advance increments be given as it is allowed by the Delhi

Administration which is an acknowledged fact that Post Graduation

in Law is a difficult course, therefore, if the entire Report as

submitted under para 8.48 of the Report will be considered, the [11]

benefit of three advance increments is not only to be given to such

candidates who have been found to have obtained LL.M degree at

the time of selection rather to such candidates also who have

obtained LL.M degree in course of service, if permissible. In that

view, the impugned decision of the State of Jharkhand cannot be

said to be in terms of the recommendation made by the

Commission.

17. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

document available on record. The disputes raised in both these writ

petitions are:

(i) Whether the benefit of three advance increments can be

denied to such candidates who have produced qualifying

mark sheet of LL.M at the time of selection and produced the

LL.M degree subsequent to the date of selection?

(ii) Whether the candidates who have participated in the final

examination before coming to the service as a Judicial

Officer in the basic cadre and if passed after joining the post,

can he be deprived from the benefit of three advance

increments as recommended by the Commission?

Since both the issues are interlinked, as such, both are

being discussed and answered jointly.

18. It requires to refer herein that the Hon'ble Apex Court in All India

Judges' Association vs. Union of India and Ors., (1992) 1 SCC

119 gave certain working conditions which should be given to the

members of the subordinate judiciary. That decision was [12]

subsequently reviewed in All India Judges' Association and Ors.

vs. Union of India and Ors., (1993) 4 SCC 288 and the said

directions were partly modified. On 21.03.1996, pursuant to the

directions issued in All India Judges' Association and Ors. vs.

Union of India and Ors., (1993) 4 SCC 288, the Government of

India had constituted the First National Judicial Pay Commission

under the Chairmanship of Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.J. Shetty as he

then was, with the specifications of terms of reference.

Consequently, the reference to the Fifth Central Pay Commission

with regard to the fixation of the pay scales of the judicial officers

was deleted. The Fifth Central Pay Commission submitted its report

on 30.01.1997 which was accepted by the Government on

30.09.1997 and became applicable retrospectively w.e.f.

01.01.1996. The said Commission has made certain

recommendations one of which has been stipulated under paragraph

8.48 as has been quoted above.

19. It is evident from the recommendation made by the Commission as

under paragraph 8.48 whereby and whereunder it has been

recommended to the effect that if the selected candidates are having

a higher qualification like that of Post Graduation in Law, we,

recommend that three advance increments be given as it is allowed

by the Delhi Administration. It is an acknowledged fact that the

Post Graduation in Law is a difficult course and it is better to

reward appropriately such candidates.

20. The aforesaid recommendation does clarify that full consideration

has been given by the Commission to reward such candidates who [13]

are having higher qualification like that of Post Graduation in Law

by granting three advance increments taking into consideration the

fact that Post Graduation in Law is a difficult course and it is better

to reward appropriately such candidates, meaning thereby, object

and intent of such recommendation is that if a candidate is found to

have higher qualification like that of Post Graduation in Law they

are required to be appropriately rewarded.

21. It is not in dispute that such recommendation has been accepted by

the Hon'ble Apex Court as would appear from the judgment

rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in All India Judges' Association

and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors., (2002) 4 SCC 247.

22. It further requires to refer herein that while taking decision, the

object and intent, for which the recommendation/policy has been

formulated, is required to be seen. It is well known that an

interpretation of the statute which harmonizes with its avowed

object is always to be accepted than the one which dilutes it.

23. The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of West Bengal vs. Union of

India, AIR 1963 Hon'ble Supreme Court 1241 has laid down that

the Court must ascertain the intention of the legislature by directing

its attention not merely to the clauses to be construed but to the

entire Statute; it must compare the clause with the other parts of the

law, and the setting in which the clause to be interpreted occurs.

In N.K. Jain and Ors. vs. C.K. Shah and Ors., (1991) 2

SCC 495 it has been laid down that for considering the provision of [14]

the Act a purposive approach should be adopted. The Hon'ble Apex

Court has laid down at paragraph-13 which reads as hereunder:

"....the legislative purpose must be noted and the stature must be read as a whole. In our view taking into consideration the object underlying the Act and on reading Sections 14 and 17 in full, it becomes clear that cancellation of the exemption granted does not amount to a penalty within the meaning of Section 14(2-A)."

24. We have proceeded on the basis of the proposition laid down by

Hon'ble Apex Court as referred hereinabove by considering the very

purpose and object of the recommendation as under paragraph 8.48

for grant of three advance increments to such candidates who are

having higher qualification like that of Post Graduation in Law

because Post Graduation in Law is a difficult course and it is better

to reward appropriately to such candidates, meaning thereby, if the

entire recommendation as under paragraph 8.48 of the Report of the

Commission would be read, the purposive construction would be to

reward such candidates who are having higher qualification like that

of Post Graduation in Law since the candidates have been able to

qualify the Post Graduation in Law which is a difficult course.

The recommendation made therein stipulates with respect

to the selected candidates. It does not stipulate that only at the time

of selection LL.M certificate if produced by such candidates, then

they will be rewarded rather the simple interpretation of the said

recommendation would be, according to the considered view of this

Court by taking into consideration purposive construction of the

said recommendation that if a candidate has participated in LL.M

examination before coming to service and subsequent to the joining [15]

got LL.M certificate, certainly, the candidate will come under the

fold of the recommendation made under paragraph 8.48 of the said

recommendation. The aforesaid view has also been taken by the

Allahabad High Court in its Division Bench in Service Bench

No.1496 of 2015 (Sanjay Shankar Pandey vs. State of U.P. thru.

Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Apponitment and Another) and other

analogous cases wherein while discussing paragraph 8.48 of the

recommendation made by the Commission (Volume-II), it has been

observed therein that the degree of Masters of Law would certainly

bring efficiency in discharging duties by the judicial officers in

comparison to those officers who do not possess such degree. The

question has been framed therein as to whether the classification

sought to be made between the judicial officers who possessed

LL.M. degree at the time of joining service and those who obtained

the same subsequent to their appointment come within the

reasonable classification based upon an intelligible criteria or not.

While answering the same, it has been held therein which reads as

hereunder:

"...........no tangible distinction amongst the judicial officers possessing higher qualification of LL.M. whether obtained degree before or after joining the judicial service. If the degree of Masters of Law or higher education brings efficiency and improves quality of discharging duties by a judicial officer, we fail to understand as to why such a qualitative advantage will not be achieved by an officer who does LL.M. after joining the service."

The same view as has been expressed by the Allahabad

High Court has been considered by the Kerala High Court in Joshy [16]

John and Others vs. the State of Kerala and Another, 2014 SCC

Online Ker 27398.

25. We, after going through the aforesaid judgments rendered by the

Allahabad High Court and the Kerala High Court vis-à-vis, the

recommendation made by the Commission, are of the view that

Article 14 of the Constitution of India does envisages reasonable

classification but it does not say about unreasonable classification.

26. Herein, if such candidates who have got the degree of LL.M after

joining or got certificate after joining and at the time of selection

only mark sheet was available, if they will be deprived from the

benefit of three advance increments it will be nothing but an

unreasonable classification because one or the other candidates, if

participated in the examination of LL.M but got the certificate

subsequent to joining will not be allowed to get three advance

increments and a candidate who participated in the LL.M

examination and got the certificate at the time of selection would be

granted the benefit of three advance increments without having any

fault of said candidates who have not got LL.M degree at the time

of selection or joining will be deprived from such benefit of three

advance increments. In that circumstances there would be class

amongst class and certainly the same will hit the principle laid

down under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The broad test for determining the classification

is.......(i) The classification must be founded on an intelligible

differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped

together from others left out of the group; (ii) The differentia must [17]

have a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the

statute in question.

In Air India vs. Nergesh Meerza and Ors., (1981) 4 SCC

335 which propounds the right of equality under Article 14 of the

Constitution of India after considering various decisions. In that

case, constitutional validity of Regulation 46(i)(c) of Air India

Employees' Service Regulations was challenged, which provides

for retiring age of an Air-Hostess. The Court (in paragraph-39)

summarized thus:

"39. Thus, from a detailed analysis and close examination of the eases of this Court starting from 1952 till today, the following propositions emerge :-

(1) In considering the fundamental right of equality of opportunity a technical, pedantic or doctrinaire approach should not be made and the doctrine should not be invoked even if different scales of pay, service terms, leave, etc., are introduced in different or dissimilar posts. Thus, where the class or categories of service are essentially different in purport and spirit, Art. 14 can- not be attracted.

(2) Article 14 forbids hostile discrimination but not reasonable classification. Thus, where persons belonging to a particular class in view of their special attributes, qualities, mode of recruitment and the like, are differently treated in public interest to advance and boost members belonging to backward classes, such a classification would not amount to discrimination having a close nexus with the objects sought to be achieved so that in such cases Art. 14 will be completely out of the way.

(3) Article 14 certainly applies where equals are treated differently without any reasonable basis.

(4) Where equals and unequals are treated differently, Article 14 would have no application.

[18]

(5) Even if there be one class of service having several categories with different attributes and incidents, such a category becomes a separate class by itself and no difference or discrimination between such category and the general members of the other class would amount to any discrimination or to denial of equality of opportunity.

(6) In order to judge whether a separate category has been carved out of a class of service, the following circumstances have generally to be examined:-

(a) the nature, the mode and the manner of recruitment of a particular category from the very start,

(b) the classifications of the particular category.

(c) the terms and conditions of service of the members of the category,

(d) the nature and character of the posts and promotional avenues,

(e) the special attributes that the particular category possess which are not to be found in other classes, and the like.""

27. So far as the fact of this case is concerned, it is not in dispute that

for obtaining LL.M degree or publication of result of the exam is

not within the domain of such candidates.

Now the question is that if there is no wrong committed

on the part of one or the other candidates in not producing LL.M

degree at the time of selection, can such candidates be deprived

from the benefit of three advance increments and if it would be

allowed, will it not amount to unreasonable classification?

28. The answer of this Court would be, in the present scenario of the

case, that admittedly the petitioner of W.P.(S) No.5842 of 2019

produced the mark sheet of LL.M at the time of selection, however, [19]

the certificate was not produced during the relevant time but the

same was produced subsequent to the joining while the petitioner of

W.P.(S) No.5849 of 2019 produced the mark sheet after joining to

the post and on such ground, denial of the benefit of three advance

increments can it be said to be based upon the principle of

reasonable classification? Certainly, the same would amount to

unreasonable classification by denying the claim of three advance

increments that too for no latches lying on the part of the

petitioners. The very object and intent of the recommendation made

in this regard by the Commission is for the purpose of rewarding

such candidates who have obtained LL.M degree with the

stipulation of the word "selected candidates". It does not say that

the certificate of LL.M is to be produced at the time of selection

rather the word used in the said recommendation is "selected

candidates", therefore, if the purposive construction of the said

recommendation would be considered in pragmatic way, denial of

such claim to such candidates who have not produced the LL.M

degree at the time of selection will amount to restricting the very

scope of the recommendation and if the same would be allowed the

very object and intent of the recommendation will vanish.

Since our Constitution does not emphasizes unreasonable

classification, therefore, if such denial of the claim would be

allowed to such candidates who have not produced the LL.M

certificate at the time of selection will lead to unreasonable

classification and there would be class amongst class in between

such candidates who have obtained LL.M degree at the time of [20]

selection and who have not obtained LL.M degree at the time of

selection rather after joining on the post, which cannot be said to be

appropriate.

29. Further, the respondent-State of Jharkhand has not considered the

recommendation by taking into consideration the word "selected

candidates", since selected candidates does not stipulate that only at

the time of selection the certificate of LL.M degree is to be

produced rather it would amount to providing such benefit to all

such candidates who have been selected and participated in the

LL.M examination prior to the selection but awaiting for the result.

30. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the

decision taken by the respondent-State of Jharkhand to the effect

that such judicial officers who have produced the LL.M certificate

at the time of selection would be granted the benefit of three

advance increments, is held to be discriminatory and in the teeth of

the principle laid down under Article 14 of the Constitution of India

on the basis of the reason mentioned hereinabove.

Further, we hold that all Civil Judges (Jr. Division) who

have participated in the LL.M examination before the selection and

if produced the LL.M certificate either at the time of selection or in

course of service, would be entitled to get the benefit of three

advance increments.

31. In view thereof, the impugned orders passed by the State of

Jharkhand dated 13.01.2017 [in W.P.(S) No.5842 of 2019] and [21]

02.03.2017 [in W.P.(S) No.5849 of 2019] are hereby quashed and

set aside.

The matter is remitted before the competent authority of

the State of Jharkhand to take decision afresh within a period of

three months from the date of receipt/production of copy of the

order.

32. With this observation and direction, both the writ petitions are

allowed.

33. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J.)

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Saurabh

A.F.R.