# [1973] 3 S.C.R. 236 - **Citation:** [1973] 3 S.C.R. 236 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1973-01-10 - **Case number:** Writ Petitions Nos. 175, 359 and 360 of 1971 - **Bench:** M. Sikri, A. N. Ray, D. G. Palekar, M. H. Beg, Dwivedi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1973-3-s-c-r-236-5811 - **Pages:** 26 ## Headnote The Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services Classification Control and Appeals) Rules 1969-Selection for promotion of teachers to JJOtlS of Jieadmaster and higher posts-Selection to be on merit-c="'eniority basis--Selection on basis of interview only without ·taking into aceount .character roll and confidential reports of candidates and by adopting o very ·/ow curting score cannot he upheld. Jammu & Kashmir Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Restl"' vation Rules) 1910-Backward clarses, what are-Principles for deter- ·mining-Rules whether violative A.rt. 16(4), Constitution of India. On 14·6-1956 the State of Jammu & Kashmir promulgated the Jammu & Keshmir Civil Services (Classification O>ntrol & Appeals) Rules 1956. Rule 19 provided that re,.rvation was permitted to be made in favour of any backward class which in the opinion of the Government, was not adequately represented in service, Rule 25(2) related to promotions which were to be made on merit-cum-seniority 'basis. The State, relating Muslims a8 a backward clasa gave them a reservatio,n of 50% in the matter of promotion of teachers to the post of headmasters. This Court in Triloki Nath v. State of Jam1nu &: Kashmir, [1967] 2 S.C.R. 265 and Makhan/al Woza & Ors. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors,, [1971] 3 S.v.R, 832 held that the promotions of muslims to the posts of headmasters or· teachers· in-charge were made on the basis of a communal policy and against the aforesaid 1956 Rules, After the decision in Mak/Jan/al Maza's. case the State by an order dated 23·2-1971 reverted all those teachers who had officiated as headmasters or had been designated as teachers-in-charge. A Departme:ntal Promotion Committee was appointed in accordance with the rules and the Committee was directed to interview the candidates. The interviews were held ~rom March to July 1971. The selections were to be made in accordance with the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Clossification Central and Appeals) Rules 1969 which had replaced the old rules of 1956. Meanwhile In accordance with the recommendations of the Backward Cldsses Committee the State Governme'llt had also issued on April 18, 1970 the Jammu & Kashmir Scheduled Castes & Backward Cfasses (Reservation Rules) 1970. Later, on August 8 .• 1970, a further order was passed known as Jarnmu & Kashmir Scheduled Castes & Backward Classes (Reservation of appointment by Promotion) Rules 1970. The present petitioners were adversely affected by the selections made by the aforesaid Departmntal Promotion' O>mmittee In 1971. l:n their petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution the ques· lions that fell ful- consideration were : (i) whether the selections made after interviews were improper and ·illegal and should be set aside; (ii) whether the Rules of reservation of posts in favour of backward classes are in violation of Art, 16 of the Constitution and should be set asic1t:. HELD : (i) Undoubtedly wht!ll> appointments to higher posts are ·-made it may be perfectly legitimate to test the candidates at a properly •conducted interview. But interview cannot be made the aole test lll A B c E F G H A B c D E F G J, P, PAll!MOO V, J, & K. STATE 237 cases of this kind. The efficiency of a teacher and hi~ qu~catio~ to be appointed as Headmaster depend on several cons1derations. HIS character, his teachi:ng experience, ability to manage his class, his popularity with, the students and the high proportion of successful students be is able to produce are all matters which must be necessarily taken into consideration before a selection is made. For this any Committee which desires to mnke a seLection after interview should insist that the character roll and the service record of the teacher should be befdre it. In the present case however the Comm:ittee did ~t have before it either the character rolls or service records of the teachers nor any confidential reports about them. They had to go merely by the result of the interview. The Committee was wrong in undertaking to ## Text _Characters 0–39,715 of 73,324. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39715 for what follows._ 236 JANKI PRASAD PARIMOO & ORS. ETC. ETC. v:. STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR & ORS. January 10, 1973 {S, M. SIKRI, C.J., A. N. RAY, D. G. PALEKAR, M. H. BEG AND S. N, DWIVEDI, JJ.] The Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services Classification Control and Appeals) Rules 1969-Selection for promotion of teachers to JJOtlS of Jieadmaster and higher posts-Selection to be on merit-c="'eniority basis--Selection on basis of interview only without ·taking into aceount .character roll and confidential reports of candidates and by adopting o very ·/ow curting score cannot he upheld. Jammu & Kashmir Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Restl"' vation Rules) 1910-Backward clarses, what are-Principles for deter- ·mining-Rules whether violative A.rt. 16(4), Constitution of India. On 14·6-1956 the State of Jammu & Kashmir promulgated the Jammu & Keshmir Civil Services (Classification O>ntrol & Appeals) Rules 1956. Rule 19 provided that re,.rvation was permitted to be made in favour of any backward class which in the opinion of the Government, was not adequately represented in service, Rule 25(2) related to promotions which were to be made on merit-cum-seniority 'basis. The State, relating Muslims a8 a backward clasa gave them a reservatio,n of 50% in the matter of promotion of teachers to the post of headmasters. This Court in Triloki Nath v. State of Jam1nu &: Kashmir, [1967] 2 S.C.R. 265 and Makhan/al Woza & Ors. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors,, [1971] 3 S.v.R, 832 held that the promotions of muslims to the posts of headmasters or· teachers· in-charge were made on the basis of a communal policy and against the aforesaid 1956 Rules, After the decision in Mak/Jan/al Maza's. case the State by an order dated 23·2-1971 reverted all those teachers who had officiated as headmasters or had been designated as teachers-in-charge. A Departme:ntal Promotion Committee was appointed in accordance with the rules and the Committee was directed to interview the candidates. The interviews were held ~rom March to July 1971. The selections were to be made in accordance with the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Clossification Central and Appeals) Rules 1969 which had replaced the old rules of 1956. Meanwhile In accordance with the recommendations of the Backward Cldsses Committee the State Governme'llt had also issued on April 18, 1970 the Jammu & Kashmir Scheduled Castes & Backward Cfasses (Reservation Rules) 1970. Later, on August 8 .• 1970, a further order was passed known as Jarnmu & Kashmir Scheduled Castes & Backward Classes (Reservation of appointment by Promotion) Rules 1970. The present petitioners were adversely affected by the selections made by the aforesaid Departmntal Promotion' O>mmittee In 1971. l:n their petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution the ques· lions that fell ful- consideration were : (i) whether the selections made after interviews were improper and ·illegal and should be set aside; (ii) whether the Rules of reservation of posts in favour of backward classes are in violation of Art, 16 of the Constitution and should be set asic1t:. HELD : (i) Undoubtedly wht!ll> appointments to higher posts are ·-made it may be perfectly legitimate to test the candidates at a properly •conducted interview. But interview cannot be made the aole test lll A B c E F G H A B c D E F G J, P, PAll!MOO V, J, & K. STATE 237 cases of this kind. The efficiency of a teacher and hi~ qu~catio~ to be appointed as Headmaster depend on several cons1derations. HIS character, his teachi:ng experience, ability to manage his class, his popularity with, the students and the high proportion of successful students be is able to produce are all matters which must be necessarily taken into consideration before a selection is made. For this any Committee which desires to mnke a seLection after interview should insist that the character roll and the service record of the teacher should be befdre it. In the present case however the Comm:ittee did ~t have before it either the character rolls or service records of the teachers nor any confidential reports about them. They had to go merely by the result of the interview. The Committee was wrong in undertaking to make the selections on the basis of mere interviews. [246 D] Further, the expert adviser had advised 50% as the cutting score)> but the Committee adopted 30% as the cutting score.· The expert found that there were ma:ay candidates who could not score even 30% marks and so the Committee decided that even candidates who got only 20% marks from the expert may be considered. In this way those who got more than 30% marks from the Committee and more than 20% marks from the expert were declared eligible for selection. This was indeed a travesty of selection. A selection made on such a poor basis cannot be called a selection at all. (248 H] ' For the reasons given above the whole process of selection must be held to be Mong ali:d unsatisfactory. (ii) 'Art. 15(4) speaks about "socially and educationally backward classes citizens" while Art. 16(4) speak only of "any backward classes of citizens". However it is now settled that the expression "backward class of citizens" i;n Art. 16( 4) m011ns the same thing as the expression "any socially and educationally backward class of citizens" in Art. 15(4). It is social and educational backwardness of a class which is material for the purposes of both Articles 15(4) and 16(4). [249 G] Mere pov~rty cannot be the test of backwardness because in this country except for a small percentage of the population the people are ge;nerally poor-some being more poor, others less poor. In the rural areas some sectors of the population are advancing socially and educa~ tiona1ly while other sectors are e.pathetic. These sectors require to be goaded into the social stream by positive efforts by the State. That accounts.for the raison d'etre of the principle explai:oi.!d in Balc.ji's case which pointed out that backward classes for whose improvement specifil provision was contemplated by Art. 15(4) must be comparable to Sche· duled Castes and Scheduled Tribes who are standing examples of backwardness socially and educationally. If those examples are steadily kept before the mind the difficulty in determinin2 which other classes should be ranked as backward classes will be considerably lased (252 DJ Jn identifying ba>kward classes one has to guard oneself against including therein sections which are sociaUy and educatio.nally advanced because the whole object of reservation would otherwise be frustrated. [253 D] H M. R. Balaji and Ors. v. State of Mysore, [1963] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 439. State of Andhra Pradesh v. P. Sagar, [1968] 3 S.C.R. 595 and R. Chitralekha & Anr. v. Smte of Mysore. [1%4] 6 S.C.R. 368 referred to. 238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1973] 3 S.C.R. (iii) The Jammu & Kashmir Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation Rules) 1970 were defective ood incapable of being given effect to for the follow~g reasons : (a) Several of the occupations mentioned as traditional in Rule 4 Chapter I cannot be regarded as traditional. An agricultural labourer is just a labourer whose services are utilised wherever unskilled labour is required. His occupation cannot be identified as a traditional occupatiom. Similarly it is difficult to say that the occupations mentioned in items (5), (7), (11), (20), (21), (23), (29), (48), (51), (53), (58) and (62) of Rule 4 are traditional. These occupation do not require special skills developed by tradition and can be resorted to by any body with the requisite resources. (b) Priestly classes listed at Serial Nos. 34 and 56 though following a traditional profession can hardly be regarded as socially and educationally backward. (c) The definition of 'traditional occupation' in rule 2(j) is open to serious objection. Under it if a person wants the special advantage as a member of the backward class it is enough for him to show that bis grand father was following a traditional occupation. His father may not be following the traditional occupation at all. If the father of the person who claims special treatment uinder Articles 15 ( 4) ood 16( 4) has given up his low income occupation and become a trader or Government Servant it will be wrong to give the persons the special benefit merely on the ground that his grandfather was following a certaiin traditional occupation. (d) It was not known on what basis the Government in Rule 5 had included cast.es mentioned at serial Nos. 20 to 23 as socially and educationally backward. ( e) The designation of cultivators of la."'1 as backward on the basis of the sire of the holding, as bad been dooe in Chapter III of the Rules must be held to be erroneou_s. The error in such a case lies in placing economic considera~ion alone above considetations wb.'ich go to show whether a particular class is socially and educationally backward, (f) The same error is repeated in Chapter IV wherein the dependent .of a peinsioner is supposed to belong to the backward class if such pensioner has retired from certain Government posts m~tioned in Appendix I and if the maximum of the scale of pay of these wsts did not exceed Rs. 100/. p.m. In days when sources of employment were few many people though socially advanced might have accepted low paid jobs. (g) Although the resideu>ts of certain areas specified in Chapter V and VI of the Rules are rightly da.ignated as backwa;rd, Rules 10 Gnd. 11 have been ~ framed that the advantage. is likely to be misused · by unporters. Outsiders who, in the course of their trade or business happened to live in these areas for 10 years out of the pa.st 20 years would be able to claim the benefit. This loophole must be plugged and till that is done, tbe production of a certificate from tbe Tehsildar as fo the backwardness of any person will be of little avail. Ln view of the abGve findings the selections made by the Departmental Promotion Committee must be set aside. [260 CJ A B c D E F G H A B c J. "· PAR!MOO v. J. & K. STATE (Palekar, J.) 239 [Since it would take time to revise the rules and to make new selections the Court gave directions to be followed by the State authorities]. _ ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petitions Nos. 175, 359 and 360 of 1971. Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of fundamental rights. A. K. Sen, Naunit Lal and I. N. Shroff, for the Petitioners (in all the petitions) S. V. Gupte, 0. C. Mathur, P. C. Bhartari and Bhuvanesh Kumari, for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (in W. P. Nos. 175 and 359) 0. C. Mathur, P. C. Bhartari and Bhuvanesh Kumari for respondents Nos. 1 & 2 (in W.P. No. 360). M. C. Chagla and S. N. Prasad, for respondents Nos. 3-5, D 8-10, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20-24, 31-34 (in W.P. No. 175) · E F G H E. C. Agarwala, for respondents No 6, 27 (in W.P. No. 175) Jagmohan Khanna, for respondents No. 30 (in W.P. No. 175) The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P ALEKAR, J. These three petitions under Article 32 are a sequel to the action taken by the State of J ammu & Kashmir in pursuance of the order passed by this Court in Makhanlal Waza & Ors. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. on February 23, 1971. In order to understand the background of these cases it would be sufficient to state here in bare outline the facts which are given in greater detail in the aliove case reported in [1971](3) S.C.R. 832. Owing to historical reasons there was a large proportion of Kashmiri Pandits in the serviCes of the State, especially, in the teaching line, although that community is hardly 2 % of the totlll population of the State. In cours' of time other communities who were in a majority in the State agitated for a larger share in the services, with the result that prior to 1954 recruitment was made to the services in proportion to the population of the major communities in the State. ; In 1954 Part III of the Indian Constitution with some modi5cations was made applicable to the State. In spite of it representation in the services followed the communal pattern. On 14th June 1956 the State promulgated the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Classification Control & Appeals) Rules, 1956. Rule 19 provided that reservation was permitted to be made in favour 240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1973] 3 S,C.R. of any backward class which, in the opinion of the Government, was not adequately represented in the service. Rule 25 ( 2) related to promotions. It provided that promotions to a service or class or to a selection category or grade in such service or class shall be made on grounds of merit aQ.d ability and ~hall be subject to the passing of any tests that Government may prescribe in this behalf, seniority being considered only where the merit and ability are approximately equal. In other words, promotions were to be made by selection on merit-cum-seniority basis. Notwithstanding the rules, the State followed the communal pattern of appointments and promotions, reserving 50% of the posts for Muslims, 40% mainly to the Hindu of Jammu and the remaining 10% for Sikhs, Kashmiri Pandits and other minority communitie3. This led to an agitation, especially, by the teachers in the Secondary . High Schools of the State who comprised a large proportion of Kashmiri Pandits. They found that in spite of their seniority in the. service as teachers, promotions to the post of Head Masters and Tehsil Education Officers which are gazetted posts in the service, were being made· on communal basis and not in accordance with the law. In December 1965 Triloki Nath Tikoo and Shambu Nath filed Writ Petition No. 107 of 1965 in this Court alleging·that promotions to the posts of Head Masters had been made in contravention of Article 16 of the Constitution. The State admitted that 50% of the posts were filled by the Muslim of the State and 40% principally by the Hindus of Jammu. It was. however. claimed that this reservation was made on the ground that the Muslims of the State and Hindus of J ammu province constituted backward classes referred to in Rule 19 and such reservation was justified under clause ( 4) of Article 16. The Court found that there was no sufficient material before it to decide if the claim made on behalf of the State was justified and so by an order dated December 15, 1966 direct~d the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir to gather the necessary material and to report on it. · The decision is reported as Triloki Nath v. State of lammu & Kashmir.(') c 0 E p After the material. was collected the case again came before this Court for consideration and this Court held (See : Triloki Nath G v. State of J&K.}( 2) that on the material before it it was clear that there was no reservation as penhitted by Article 16( 4) but that the posts had been distributed on the basis of community or place of residence. The promotions were accordingly held to be invalid .. The order affected 81 teachers who had bCen promoted con~acy to the provisions. of Article 16 (l ) and ( 4) . Their pt!>- H motions were declared void. The Court observed "this will not, . (I) f1951] .2 S.C.R. 26S. (2) [1969] !S.C.R.103 A B c D E F G H J, P. PARIMOO v. J. & K. STATE (Palekar, J.) 241 however, prevent the State from devising a scheme, consistent with the constitutional guarantees, for reservation of appointments, posts or promotions in favour of any backward class of citizens which in the opinion of the State is not adequately represented in the services under the State." This order was passed by the Court on April 23, 1968. In view of the order. the above mentioned 81 teachers had to revert. Along with them some others who had been promoted in the meantime had also to revert. All of them were, however, designated as teachers-in-charge because actually they held the charge of the schools. There is a difference between the parties before us as to whether there was any actual reversion. It is alleged on behalf o' th~ petitioners that teachers-in-charge were, for all purposes, includi'.1g pay, Head Masters while, on the other hand, it is stated for the State that they were entitled 0nly to the grade pay as teachers and not as Head Masters. In any case there seems to have been an anomalous situation which gave rise to the second Writ Petition by the teachers. That is Writ Petition 108/1969 filed by Makhanlal Waza and 10 Others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir already referred to. To this petition a large number of so called teachers-in-charge were made parties. Actually there were about 249 teachers who wern made respondents. This Court found that al! the promotions of the respondents in that case were made not purely on m.erit as requiroo by rule 25 referred to above but had been made on account of the communal policy which had been declared invalid by this Court in Triloki Nath Tikko's case. The Court further observed "in the absence of any rule lawfully promulgated for employment of backward cla~scs, promotions could be made only in accordance with rule 25 and there can be no manner of doubt that there was absolutelv no compliance with the provisions of that rule. Promotions thus made of all the respondent teachers were illegal and unconstitutional being violative of Article 16 of the Constitution. They have, therefore, to be set aside. All the promotions made to the higher posts or the higher grade pursuant to the communal policy would have to be revised and reconsidered and appropriate orders must be passed by respondents 1 and 2 with regard to them as also the petitioners in accordance with the law". This order was passed on February 23, 1971. In view of the above decision the State had to take steps for making proper selections on the basis of merit to the gazetted posts of Head Masters and Tehsil Education Officer, from the eligible teachers. As a preliminarv to the same the State reverted by an order dated 23-2-1971 all those teacher.s who had officiated as Head Masters or had been designated as teacher;··in-charne. All of them were asked to hand over' charge to the second teacher 17-l~l!SupCT/73 24 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1973] 3 s.c.R. in the school. Nearly 1,100 teachers were found eligible for promotion and all of them, including those who were officiating Head Masters, were required to appear for an interview. A Departmental Promotion Committee was appointed in acc0rdance with the rules and the Committee was directed to interview the candidates. These interviews were held from March to July, 1971. But before the interviews were over the first of the Writ Petitions before us namely Writ Petition 175/71 was filed by 7 Kashmiri Pandit teachers who had been affected by the order reverting them on 23-3-1971. They were senior teachers who were officiatiiig as Head Masters being appointed between 1960 and 1964 and had not been directly affected by the two Writ Petitions already referred to. They alleged that while they were promi"tlY reverted respondents ·3 to 34 who were all junior to petitioner No. 1 and also to some of the other Petitioners had not been so reverted nor were they asked to appear for the interview. Therefore, they claimed, the petitioners should be either restored to their former posts or the respondents should be reverted like them in which case alone, all of them could be regarded as having been equally treated. They justified their refusal to appear for the interview on the ground that respondents had been exempted from the interview and continued in their former posts. Writ Petitions 359 and 360/1971 were filed after the interviews were over and selections made by the Committee. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 359 /71 are 37 in number and all of them belong to the Jammu region. Respondents 3 to 295 are some of the teachers selected for appointment to the higher posts by promotion. The grievance of the petitioners was that although they were seniors and had officiated as Head Masters for a number of years they had been deliberately dropped to make room for the respondents who were very much junior to them. They alleged that the selection by interview was a farce, the device being adopted to manipulate the selections in such a way that the old communal proportion was maintained. They further alleged that a large number of posts was claimed to have been reserved tmder the Rules for backward classes, but the whole exercise was merely to secure about 90% of the posts to Muslims. ln other words, the complaint of the petitioners was that the alleged selection after interview was not a genuine selection but a fraud. Similar allegations were made iri the other petition, namely, Writ Petition 360/ 71. This was filed by 13 Kashmiri Pandit teachers in a representative capacity on behalf of 400 other Kashmiri Pandits who had. boycotted the interviews on the ground that the interviews were bound to be a fraud. The respondents 3 to 3 25 are the teachers who had been selected at the interview. A 8 c D E F G H A B D E H ... J. P. PARIMOO v. J. & K. STATE (Palekar, !.) 243 It must be stated here that in 1967 the Government of Jammu & Kashmir had appointed the J ammu & Kashmir Commission of Enquiry under the Chairmanship of Dr. P. B. Gajendragadkar. Its report was submitted in November, 1968 and one of the recommendations of the Commission was to appoint a high-powered Committee to draw up a list of backward classes in the State of Jammu & Kashmir. Accordingly, the Backward Classes Committee was appointed under the Chairmanship of Shri J. N. Wazir, Retired Chief Justice of J ammu & Kashmir High Court, on February 3, 1969. This Committee made its report in November. 1969 recommending several classes of citizens who deserved to be described as socially and educationally backward. Acting substantially on the recommendations of the Committee the State Government issued on April 18, 1970 the Jammu & Kashmir Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservatioa Rules), 1970. These rules purported to make provision for reservations of appointments and posts in favour of certain classes of permanent resident of the State who were backward and not adequately represented in such services and posts. Later on August 8, 1970 a further order was passed by the State known as Jammu & Kash· mir Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation of appointment by Promotion) Rules. 1970. By these rules the principles laid down for appointments under the earlier rules were made applicable mutatis mutandis to promotions also. The net result of the recommendations of the Committee as accepted by the State was to make reservations in appointments and promotions to the extent of 8 % of the posts for Scheduled Castes and 42 % in favour of the Backward classes. - Since the above interviews had taken place after the application of the above named Reservation Rules, the Departmental Promotion Committee took these rules into consideration in making the selections. It is one of the complaints of the petitioners that though the Committee had professed to follow the principles laid down by this Court in several decisions, it had failed to determine the backward classes in accordance with the decisions of this Court. On the other hand, great anxiety was shown, according to the petitioners, to rope in as many persons from the majority communities as possible so that in the selections made thereafter a disproportionate share in the appointments and promotions would go to the majority communities in Kashmir and Jammu. In their affidavit in reply to the petitions the State denied all the allegations made by the petitioners. The principal points which were involved in these two petitions are ( 1 ) whether the selections made after interviews are improper 244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1973] 3 s.c.R. und illegal and should be set aside, (ii) whether the Rules of reservation of posts in favour of backward classes are in violation of Article 16 and should be set aside. Before dealing with these points, we shall dispose of the limited controversy involved in Writ Petition No. 175/71 although the conclusion on the above two points may indirectly affect the parties in the Writ Petition. The latter is filed by 7 Kashmiri Pandit teachers. They were all officiating Head Masters when they were reverted in 1971. Their grouse is that respondents 3 to 34 were junior to them when they were inthe teachers' grade from which the promotions were made to the Head Masters' grade, and, if the principle of equality applied, they should have been also reverted along with the petitioners and required to appe&r at the interview along with the petitioners. On account of this unequal treatment, it is alleged, the petitioners had refused to appear for the interview. It cannot be disputed that petitioner No. 1 was the senior-most in the grade of teachers from which the promotion is m!Jde to the post of the Head Master or Tehsil Education Officer. The other petitioners also are seniors to some of the respondents. But what happened is that owing to the communal distribution of seats the respondents 3 to 34 were all appointed as Head Masters in and before 1958. The petitioners had to wait their tum in the 10% seats earmarked for Kashmiri Pandits and others and, therefore, although they were senioi:s in the grade of teachers, their chance of appointment as Head Masters came much later. Petitioner No. 1 was appointed as an officiating Head Master in 1960. Petitioners 2 and 3 in 1962 and petitionern 4 to 7 in 1964. Thev all officiated as Head Masters till 1971 when they were reverted. In the case of respondents 3 to 34 not only were they promoted prior to 1958 but, except for respondents 26, 27 and 30, they had all been confirmed in the Head Masters' posts before 1961. Some of the respondents were further promoted as Principals and District Education Officer• which was a grade higher than that of Head Masters. Somehow it· appears respondents 26, 27 and 30, though holding such higher grade posts, had notbeen confirmed as Head Masters and they too were reverted as soon as this petition was filed. It is not necessary for us to investigate into the question why these 3 respondents had not been confirmed dlthough some other respondents who were junior to them had been confirmed as Head Masters. It might be simply an administrative omission or something also. But one thing is clear. All these respondents 3 to 34 had been appointed as Head Masters much before the petitioners and ;nost of them were also confirmed in the posts. There may be sonie substance in the petitioners' contention that the earlier appointment of these respondents, being based on the communal principle, was not a A B c E F G H B c D E r G H J, P. PAIUMOO v. ;J, & K. STATE (Palekar, I.) 245 valid appointment and, therefore, their confinnation may not affect the question. On the other hand, it is to be noted that the respondents seem not to have figured in Triloki Nath Tikoo's case (W.P. 107/1965) filed in 1965. It would not, !herefore, be proper to interfere with their appointments now, especially, as in the meantime they have been promoted to posts which are higher than of Head Masters. Indeed if any one of the respondents was a respondent in Writ Petition 107/1965 (Triloki Nath Tikoo's case) or in Writ Petition l 08/ 1969 (Makhanlal's case) in which his appointment as He<1_d Master had been set aside as invalid, his case will have to be treated like that of any other offi,ciating Head Master who had been reverted in 1971. Otherwise we do not think that it would be right to interfere, at the instance of the petitioners, with these respondents whose appointments as Head Masters had been made in or before 1958. We shall now tum to the two points referred to above arising out of Writ Petitions No. 359/71 and 360/71. The first point involves the question whether the selection by interviews held by the Departmental Promotion Committee between Mar. 15, 1971 and July 18, 1971 for the purposes of making promotions to the posts of Head Masters and Tehsil Education Officials was a valid and proper· exercise. The Department found more than 1100 teachers qualified for promotion and they were all called for interviews. The selection was to be made in accordance with the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeals)° Rules, 1969 which, it appears, had replaced the old rules of 1956. It appears to us that, there is no distinction between the two rules because even as under the 1956 rules the posts of Head Masters had to be filled on the merit-cum-seniority basis, under the 1969 rules also selections had to be made on that basis only. From the beginning, it appears, some of the senior teachers, mostly coming from the Kashmiri Pandit class, did not have any faith in this system of selection and actually more than 400 of them boycotted the interview. Several allegations have been made that even before and during the period when the interviews were going on many in high authority were giving assurances to some of the reverted teachers that whatever happens those who had been reverted would get their posts back if only they appeared fo• interviews. We are not concerned with these allegations. It was also alleged that the selections were stagemanaged with a view to maintain the old proportion of communal representation. It was pointed out that when previously the appointments were made on the communal basis, 178 posts had gone to Muslims and 134 to Jammu Hindus. Now after selection, 177 posts go to Muslims and 134 to Hindus. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that it could not have been 246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1973] 3 s.c.R. a mere coincidence that the same number of Muslims and Hindus could have been selected in any properly conducted system of selection. It is contended on behalf of the State that if only the Kashmiri Pandit teachers had taken part in the interview, it was very likely that the results might have been somewhat different. There is some substance in that contention also and, therefore, we shall not go merely by the coincidence that the same number of Muslims and Jam vi Hindus had been selected. There are, however, two important considerations which show that the selections by interview were thoroughly unsatis· factory. The candidates for selection included a large number of senior teachers many of whom liad officiated as Head Masters over long periods. They were asked to appear before a Com-·· mittee consisting of 4 officials. One was a Member of the Public Service Commission, the second was the Secretarv of the Education Department, the third was the nominee of the Chief Secretary and the fourth member was the Director of Education. The Committee was also assisted by an Educational expert from outside the State and this body was expected to make the selection after interviewing the candidates. Undoubtedly when appointments to higher posts are made it may be perfectly legitimate to A B c D test the candidates at a properly conducted interview. But it appears to us that the interview cannot be made the sole test in cases of this kind. The efficiency of a teacher and his qualifications to be appointed as Head Master depend upon several conE siderations. His character, his teaching experience, ability to manage his class, his popularity with the students and the high percentage of successful students he is able to produce ·are all matters which must be necessarily taken into consideration before a selection is made. For this any Committee which desires to make a selection after interview should insist that the character roll and the service record of the teachers should be before it. At the time of these interviews, however, the Committee did not have before it either the character rolls or service records of the teachers nor any confidential ·reports about