SUSHIL CHANDEL Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a practicing Advocate of this Court and is aggrieved of advertisement notice dated 11th of March, 2020, issued by the Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, inviting applications for engagement as Standing Counsel for various districts of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. The petitioner also feels aggrieved of the selection criteria indicated in the impugned advertisement notice. The petitioner, therefore, prays for a direction to the respondents to issue a fresh notification for engagement of Standing Counsels in various districts of Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir after framing selection criteria, which is fair, just and reasonable after framing selection criteria which is fair, just and rational.

(2.) The entire writ petition is predicated on the plea that the respondents have issued the impugned advertisement notification as per the Jammu and Kashmir Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service), Rules 2016 ['Rules of 2016' for short], promulgated vide SRO 98 dated 24th of March, 2016, and that SRO 98, which was issued by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir in exercise of powers conferred by Section 124 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir read with Section 492 of J& K Cr. P. C, stands abrogated and has ceased to be in existence after the promulgation of J& K Reorganization Act, 2019 and resultant repeal of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir and the State Criminal Procedure Code.

(3.) The other grievance of the petitioner, however, is directed against the selection criteria enumerated in the advertisement notice itself. Petitioner submits that allocation of 02 marks for PG Diploma, 03 marks for Post Graduation and 05 marks for Ph. D. in Law under the head 'Education Qualification' is without any rationale and, therefore, per se arbitrary. The petitioner also finds fault with the weightage of 50 marks earmarked for 'Number of institutions in last two years of civil suits or defending civil suits', on the ground that the allocation is highly excessive and without laying down any yardstick for assessment and allocation of these 50 marks.