RIAZ AHMAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner responding to the advertisement notice dated: 25 -05 -2001 inviting applications for the posts of ad hoc munsiffs issued by the Registrar General Jammu & Kashmir High Court applied for the post. He was called for interview but was not allowed to appear, consequently, this writ petition. To appreciate the controversy in -its right perspective reference to rule 42 -A of the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Service (Judicial) Recruitment Rules its proviso and the amendment made thereto vide SRO 63 issued under notification No. LA (A) 73/131 dated: 16 -02 -1973 becomes imperative which may be noticed:

(2.) IT is clear from a plain reading of the rule aforementioned that no person is eligible to be included in the ad hoc list who is more than 35 years of age on the first day of January of the year in which the list is sanctioned. There is no dispute that the petitioner had applied and his application was entertained but was not allowed to appear in the interview. Cause for refusal as gathered from the averments made in the writ petition is traceable to the scrutiny of the petitioners application which revealed that he had crossed the upper age limit of 35 years on the cut off date i.e. 01 -01 -2001, resultantly; he was declined appearance in the interview. The fall out being denial of consideration for appointment, the petitioner pleads violation of his constitutional and legal rights. His main thrust is on the expectancy of relaxation of the age bar. Although no documentary proof has been brought to the notice of the court to show that representation is under consideration before the Government yet I proceed on the assumption that the Government is seized of it but does it help him, certainly not because fact remains that there was no relaxation in his favour on or before the last date appointed for receipt of the application viz. 01 -01 -2001. The contention is otherwise also unsustainable in law in view of the fact that the process of ad hoc appointments to the posts of Munsiffs has been initiated in accordance with the statutory rules. This being the admitted position, the requirement relating to eligibility has to be met by a candidate before he can be accorded consideration. The eligibility being an essential pre -requisite condition, it is not open a candidate to stake claim to appear in the interview merely on the basis of a probability of relaxation of age. This, in my opinion, is the only view which this court can take to be in -line with the mandate of judicial pronouncement handed down by apex court in Ashok Kumar Sharma and others Vs. Chander Shekhar reported in 1997 (4) SCC 18 para 6 which reads:

(3.) TO controvert the aforementioned legal position the petitioner has made reference to a judgment of the apex court in Syed Khalid Rizvi and others Vs. Union of India and others reported in 1993 Supp (3) Supreme Court Cases 575. This is a case where Court has examined the scope of power -of relaxation of the Central Government under IPS (Recruitment) (Regulation of Seniority) (Appointment by promotion) and (Residuary Rules). These rules have no relevance to the case on hand and ration does not have any bearing on the point in issue.