# STATE OF JAMMU KASHMIR v. MIR GULAM RASUL - **Citation:** [1961] 3 S.C.R. 969 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1961 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1957 - **Bench:** P. B. Gajendragadkar, A. K. Sarkar, K. N. Wanchoo, K. C. Das Gupta, N. Rajagopala Ayyangar - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-jammu-kashmir-v-mir-gulam-rasul-1956 - **Pages:** 5 ## Headnote Fundamental rights-Equality before law-Breach of law, if amounts to violation of equal protection of law-Writ Petition-No fundamental right involved-Duty of High Court-Constitution of India, Arts. I4, 32(2A). The Government of J ammu and Kashmir on the basis of the report of the commission of enquiry set up by it demoted the respondent who had been suspended earlier .. The respondent moved the Jammu and Kashmir High Court under Art. 32(2A) of the Constitution of India as applied to the State of Jammu and Kashmir for a writ, inter alia, questioning the validity of the order suspending and demoting him, alleging violation of rules of natural justice by the commission of enquiry and breach of statutes and rules of service. Articles 226 and 3n(2) of the Constitution of India had not been applied to the State of Jammu Ftbrttary 23 !J70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1961] 1961 and Kashmir. The High Court acting under Art. 32(2A) set aside the orders suspending and demoting the respondent. State oj Held, that the High Court had no powers to act under Jammu and Art. 32(2A) of the Constitution of India as the writ petition did l\n;hmfr not disclose a violation of any fundamental right. NF G 1v. R 1 Held, further, that the breach of a Jaw by the Government, if i_r .ii ani asu any, did not amount to a denial of the equal protection ·Of the laws, as it had not ever been alleged by the respondent that the benefit of that Jaw had been designedly denied only to him. Sarkar]. ## Text ' ' ' 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 969 at the time of the de'.l.th of the testator and not later 1961 and that the appellant would get an interest under Kastud cl. 12 only if the widow of the testator pre.deceased v. the testator and there is no adoption by the testator Ponnammal before his death. If that be so, the appellant cannot claim any right or title on the strength of cl. 12 be- Gajend,agadkar I· cause at the relevant time it was not intended to be operative at all. In the circumstances the appellant's rights are provided for by cl. 11 alone, and those rights cannot come into existence unless and until he is adopted by respondent 1. On that view there is a possibility of intestacy and there is postponement of vesting; but that cannot be avoided. That is the view taken by the courts below, and having carefully considered the argument urged before us by Mr. Sastri on behalf of the appellant we see no reason to interfere with the said conclusion. Th.e result is the appeal fails; there would be no ordQr as tu c.osts. Appeal dismissed. STATE OF JAMMU KASHMIR v. MIR GULAM RASUL. (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR, K. N. WANCHOO, K. C. DAS GUPTA and N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.) Fundamental rights-Equality before law-Breach of law, if amounts to violation of equal protection of law-Writ Petition-No fundamental right involved-Duty of High Court-Constitution of India, Arts. I4, 32(2A). The Government of J ammu and Kashmir on the basis of the report of the commission of enquiry set up by it demoted the respondent who had been suspended earlier .. The respondent moved the Jammu and Kashmir High Court under Art. 32(2A) of the Constitution of India as applied to the State of Jammu and Kashmir for a writ, inter alia, questioning the validity of the order suspending and demoting him, alleging violation of rules of natural justice by the commission of enquiry and breach of statutes and rules of service. Articles 226 and 3n(2) of the Constitution of India had not been applied to the State of Jammu Ftbrttary 23 !J70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1961] 1961 and Kashmir. The High Court acting under Art. 32(2A) set aside the orders suspending and demoting the respondent. State oj Held, that the High Court had no powers to act under Jammu and Art. 32(2A) of the Constitution of India as the writ petition did l\n;hmfr not disclose a violation of any fundamental right. NF G 1v. R 1 Held, further, that the breach of a Jaw by the Government, if i_r .ii ani asu any, did not amount to a denial of the equal protection ·Of the laws, as it had not ever been alleged by the respondent that the benefit of that Jaw had been designedly denied only to him. Sarkar]. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1957. Appeal from the judgment and order dated September 27, 1955, of the Jammti and Kashmir High Court in Misc. Application No. 23of1955. J aswant Singh, Advocate-General for the State of . Jammu and Kashmir and R. H. Dhebar, for the appellant. S. N. Andley, J.B. Dadachanji, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra,.for respondent. 1961. February 23. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKAR, J.-The respondent is a Civil Engineer who held various positions under the appellant, the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. On September 8, 1954, while the respondent was holding the post M Development Commissioner, he was placed . under suspension by an order made by the a.ppellant ·. on that date. Later, the appellant passed another order on February 12, 1955, demoting the petitioner to the post of a Divisional Engineer. On May 12, 1955, the respondent moved the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir under Art. 32(2A) of the Constitution of India as applied to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, for a, writ directing the appellant not to give effect to the order dated February 12, 1955, and to 'recognise him as the Chief Engineer. the substantive post held by him when he was suspended, with effect from the date of suspension and with all the emoluments of that office. The High Court issued. the writ as prayed. The State appeals from the judg14ent of the High Court, < I J .... 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS !l71 In the view that, we think, must be taken of this 1961 case, it is unnecessary to go into the facts a great State •! deal. At one stage of his career under the appellant, fammu a•d the respondent held a job of some responsibility in Kashmir what was called the Sindh Valley Hydro Electric v. Scheme. This Scheme wi.s for generating electric Mir G"lam Rasul power by dams erected in theSindh water course and for using the water for irrigation purposes. The work on this Scheme seems to have commenced some time ago. The respondent was connected with the Scheme from 1949 till he was transferred from the work in 1953. It appears that the appellant was dissatisfied ~ with the progress of the work and the manner in which it had been carried out and decided to establish a Commission of Inquiry (a) to investigate into the reasons. for (i)·progressive rise in the estimates, (ii) the defective planning and the delay in the execution of the work and (iii) the other irregularities and (b) to fix responsibility upon the persons concerned and make appropriate recommendations. Pending the investigation various officers associated with the planning and execution of the Scheme including the respondent, were placed under suspension on September 8, 1954. Thereafter on October 20, 1954, a commission was set up by the appellant consisting of various persons. The Commission made certain enquiries and eventually submittlld its report to· the· appellant. The appellant then · made the order demoting the respondent purporting to act on \he basis of the report. It is not necessary to set out the facts any more. · The respondent, in his application for the writ, questioned the validity of the. orders suspending and demoting him on these grounds. He alleged that the Commission did not conduct the enquiry according to the rules of natu,ral justice. He said that he was not even informed of the charges against him nor given a proper hearing and that if he had been given proper opportunity, he would have proved that he bad not been at fault at all. He also said that the appoint- . " ment of the Commission could only have been made under s. 2 of the Public Servants (Inquiries} Act, 1977 Sarkar /. 972 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1961] (Kashmir era), and must, therefore, be deemed to have State of been so made. He corn plained that the provisions of J•mmu and this Act were not observed by the Commission in l(ashmir making the enquiry. Lastly, he said that the responv. dent could be reduced in rank only in accordance with Mir Gula>• Rasul th d 1 "d d . th K h . c· ·1 s . . __ e proce ure a1 own m e as m1r 1v1 erv1ce Sarkar J. Rules passed by the State Council Order No. 81-C of 1939 and this procedure had not been followed. In the High Court, the question as to whether these Rules had the status of law seems to have been debated at great length. The High Court took the view that they had. We will proceed on the basis that the High Court was right and the allegations made by the respondent in his petition had been substantiated. Now, the High Court was moved to exercise its powers under Art. 32 (2A) of the Constitution. The order made by it cannot be upheld if it was not justified by that provision. This is not in dispute. That provision is in t!;tese terms: Art. 32(2A). "Without prejudice to the ·powers conferred by clauses (1) and· (2), the High Court shall have power throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction io issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases any Government within those territories, directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part." The High Court can then exercise its powers· under Art. 32 (2A) only " for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part". The Part referred to is Part III and the rights conferred by it are the fundamental rights. Therefore, the High Conrt can act under cl. (2A) of Art. 32 only to enforce a. fundamental right. The only fundamental right, however, on the violation of which !'earned counsel for the respondent could rely in support of the order of the High Court was that conferred by Art. 14, namely, the right to the equal protection of the la..ws. He said that the . ' . -. 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 973 respondent was entitled to have the procedure prescribed by the Kashmir Civil Service Rules fo!lowed Stale of before the order demoting him could be made and as Jammu ••d that procedure was not followed, his client had been I