Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

BASHIR AHMAD AND ORS. versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Decided
22 March 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1996] 3 S.C.R. 815 · 1996 INSC 430
Also cited as
  • (1996) 8 SCC 697 (3 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Leave granted.

p. 815, margin F

This appeal by special leave arises .from the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Hacyana made on Febrmiry22, 1994 in CWP · No. 12838/93.Admittedly, the appellants had worked initially as cleaners and theroafter they were promoted as Drivers in Pouliry Department of the State of Punjab. Since they were found to be snrplus, they were . 815' retrenched. When the Government had notified for direct recruitment in the Department of Animal Husbandry, the appellants also had applied for direct recruitment. They were not selected on the ground that they did not possess the required educational qualifications. Consequently, they filed the writ petition which came to be dismissed. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

pp. 815–816, margin G

The learned counsel for the appellants has strenuously contended that this Court in C.A. No. 3496 of 1990 titled B.N Saxena v. N.D.M C., decided on July 25, 1990 read down the rule holding that after the initial appointments experience gained for a considerable length of time is itself a qualification for promotion and, therefore, requirement of further qualification was bad in law. He also relied upon another judgment in State of U.P. & Ors. v. J.P. Chaurasia & Ors., [1989] 1 SCC 121. Relying therrnn, it is contended that the rule prescribing educational qualifications as !me of the qualifications for direct recruitment must be read down. So ,:,ad down, since the appellants have the necessary experience, it must! be construed to be a qualification for recruitment. The view taken by the High Court and recruitment authority is bad in law. We find no force in that contention. It is seen that for the direct recruitment as a driver, the n'iles prescribe two qualifications, namely, light vehicle driving licence !.md knowledge of Punjabi language upto middle standard. The Rules also prescribe of 10% drivers from the lower rank of cleaner. Therein, is provided that apart from the qualifications prescribed for direct recr'.1itment, the cleaner also must have an experience of a niinimum period of 4 years. We are not concerned with regard to the promotion from the cadre of cleaners to the post of Driver within the quota of 10%. Therefore, the question of reading down the rule does not arise. We are concerned with the direct recruitment only. The Government in the rule have prescribed driving licence and also knowledge of Punjabi Language upto middle standard to be the qualifications. Therefore, anyone who possesses those qualifications has to be considered for recruitment. Since, admittedly, the appellants are not fulfilling the said criteria, the dismissal of the writ petition cannot be said to be illegal.

p. 816, margin B

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. R.P. Appeal dismissed.

p. 816, margin G