Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2005 DIGILAW 635 (SC)

Raj Kumar v. Rohtas

2005-03-28

ARUN KUMAR, B.P.SINGH

body2005
JUDGMENT : B.P. Singh, J. Special leave granted. 2. We have heard counsel for the parties. 3. The facts not in dispute are that the appellant as well as respondent No.1 were working as Safai Karamcharis in the respondent-Municipal Committee. On the 1st March, 1999 the Municipal Committee selected the appellant for promotion to the post of Safai Daroga. It is not disputed that the eligibility conditions prescribed that the person to be appointed Safai Daroga must be literate, in as much as he should have knowledge of Hindi. On the 1st of March, 1999 the cases of appellant as well as respondent No.1 were considered and the appellant was promoted to the post of Safai Daroga while respondent was held ineligible for promotion since he was illiterate. It also appears from the record maintained by the Municipal Committee, including the seniority list, that respondent was shown as illiterate in the Municipal records. 4. Two and a half (2½) years later respondent No.1 made a representation to the Municipal Committee stating that he had knowledge of Hindi and, therefore, necessary correction be made in the seniority list which showed him as illiterate. The representation was allowed and accordingly the seniority list of the year 1999 was amended in July, 2001 to show the respondent as literate. Pursuant thereto the promotion granted to the appellant on 1st March, 1999 was cancelled and in his place respondent No.1 was promoted as Safai Daroga. The said order of the Municipal Committee was challenged but the High Court has upheld the same. 5. The High Court took notice of the fact that in acknowledgment of payments made to him, respondent No. 1 used to sign in Hindi. It also took notice of the fact that the representation made to the Municipal Committee on 25.7.2001 was in the Hindi language. It, therefore, concluded that respondent No.1 had knowledge of Hindi and consequently, he was eligible for promotion on 1st March, 1999. 6. We find it difficult to sustain the order of the High Court. The question of promotion of the appellant as well as respondent No.1 was considered on the 1st of March, 1999. The question is whether on that date respondent No.1 was literate, in the sense that he had knowledge of Hindi. 6. We find it difficult to sustain the order of the High Court. The question of promotion of the appellant as well as respondent No.1 was considered on the 1st of March, 1999. The question is whether on that date respondent No.1 was literate, in the sense that he had knowledge of Hindi. It may be that after 2½ (two and a half) years on 25.7.2001 respondent No.1 represented that he had knowledge of Hindi and, therefore, the seniority list be amended to show him as literate having knowledge of Hindi. The prayer was allowed and such an amendment was made in the seniority list. It may be that on that date respondent No.1 had acquired knowledge of Hindi. But that is not to say that on the 1st March, 1999 when the promotion was made, respondent No.1 was literate having knowledge of Hindi. The fact that the representation made by respondent No.1 in the year 2001 was in the Hindi language, is no ground to jump to the conclusion that he had knowledge of Hindi, or that in March, 1999 also respondent No.1 was literate. We, therefore, find no justification for cancelling the promotion already granted to the appellant on 1st March, 1999 because the record as it stood then, and as the facts disclosed, respondent No.1 on that date was not literate, in as much as he did not have knowledge of Hindi. The record maintained by Municipal Committee supported this conclusion. From such later date (25.7.2001) the respondent No.1 may get benefit of his being literate but that benefit cannot be given to him retrospectively from 1st March, 1999. 7. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 18.11.2002 passed in CWP No.17579 of 2001 and hold that the promotion given to the appellant as Safai Daroga on 1.3.1999 is legal and valid, and the appellant is, therefore, entitled to be reinstated with all consequential benefits. We direct accordingly. 8. We clarify that as from 21st July, 2001 respondent No.1 may be treated as literate having knowledge of Hindi, and any benefit on that account that may accrue to him thereafter may be given to him in accordance with law. 9. No costs.