RANJIT SINGH BROCA Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LPA (SW) No. 404/2001 and LPA (SW) No. 122/2002 arc directed against the order date 23 -04 -2001 of the learned Single Judge passed in SWP No. 2249/99 SWP No. 2559/1999 and SWP No. 1513/2000 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed SWP No. 229/1999 and SWP No. 1513/2000 being without merit and SWP No. 1513/2000 has been disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.

(2.) IN brief the facts are that private respondents were appointed Accounts Officers pursuant to the competitive examination conducted by the competitive examination conducted by the J&K Public Service Commission . They belong to the batches of the years 1992. 1993 and 1994 and respondents Manzoor Ahmed Geelani, Mohd Shafi Khan . Amarjit Singh and Rattan Chand are of 1984 batch. They were appointed as Account Officers against recruitment quota. As per Jammu and Kashmir Accounts Service (Gazetted) Rules, promotees and direct recruits have quota in the ratioof 50:50. Appellants ( writ petitioners ) are promotees and have been promoted against their quota. They are aggrieved of the appointment regularisation of the private respondents namely, the direct recruits because of the issuance of Govt. Order No .218 of 1998 dated: 29 -07 -1998. The direct re -cruits were put on probation for period of two years in the first instance, which was subsequently extended by two years more. As per the rules the probationers were supposed to qualify the compulsory departmental examinations i.e. SAC Part -1 and SAC Part - II as laid down in the J&K Accounts Sendee (Gazetted) Rules. The rules provide that at least two chances each are to be availed of for qualifying (lie said examinations. As such direct recruits during the period of their probation were supposed to be given minimum four chances to qualify SAC Part -1 and SAC Part -II examination. The Public Service Commission which is responsible for conducting the examination could not conduct the same within the period of probation. Rules also provide that if within the prescribed period of probation the probationer fails to pass departmental examinations or acquire such qualification the government shall order termination of the services of such probationer. Accordingly action was initialed and show cause notice was issued and the probationers were asked to show cause as to why their services be not terminated on their failure to pass qualify the departmental examination within the prescribed period of probaliona us provided under Rule 22 of the J&K Accounts Service (Gazetted) Rules. The direct recruits represented to the government that they could not qualify the prescribed departmental examinations within the period of probation due to belated conducting of the examination by the Public Service Commission. Some probationers of 1992 batch from Kashmir valley also represented that they could not receive required/ theoritical practical training comprehensively due lo disturbances prevailing in the valley. The repesentations made by the probationers were examined by the Finance Department and the plea of the probationer relating to the belated conducting of examination by the Public Service Commission and delay in imparting of training due to the disturbed conditions in the Kashmir valley was accepted. Accordingly, sanction was accorded to the rcgularisation of the probationers without their having qualified the departmental examination. The government made clear in Order No. 218 -Fofl998 dated: 29 -07 -1998 that this relaxation would be one time exception and shall not apply to any other officer who will be or has been appointed after the issuance of Govt. Order dated 14 -06 -94. The appellants being aggrieved of the order dated 29 -7 -1998. (Sic) regularising the service of the probationers ( direct recruits) without they having qualified the departmental examination filed writ petition out of which present appeal has arisen. Learned single judge relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in state of Maharashtra Vs. Jagan Nath, AIR 1989 SC 1133 has dismissed the writ petition holding that the decision taken by the government cannot be faulted.

(3.) IN these appeals the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that five private respondents had appeared in the examination beyond the period prescribed including the extended period of four years and that some of the private respondents have not passed the departmental examination even beyond the prescribed period, yet their services have been regularised. Further according to the learned counsel some other probationers who were required to pass the examinations have not passed the examinations, yet they have been regularised retrospectively over and above the persons who have duly qualified the departmental examinations . Precise submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the regularisation of the private respondents with retrospective effect and the placement of the private respondents over and above the appellants is totally illegal, in as much as the regularisation of the private respondents depended on their qualifying examinations within the period prescribed.