FAROOQ AHMAD NENGROO Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DIFFERENT clauses of Article 37 of J&K Civil Service Regulations, 1956, (for short Regulations) have been worded and phrased differently by the rule making authority, which phraseology, not only appear to be creating anomalous situation, but also seem to be at logger heads with each other. When such type of provisions of law come up for consideration of the court, its first effort has to place purposeful construction on them. The court by applying judicial methodlogy has to harmonize and place such construction on them which would make them meaningful and effective. The Article 37 as it exists in the "Regulations" would require to be chisled in a manner which would make it purposeful and result oriented. Article 37 would require to be read down so as to being it within the frame work of Article 14 of Constitution.

(2.) IN our constitutional scheme not only jurisdiction but functions of three organs of the State viz executive, legislature and judiciary are delineated. Every organ of the State has to maintain diehard discipline in its functioning to ensure that it does not transgress its limits and usurp the powers and functions of one or other organ of the State. These organs of the State are like the creature of nature viz stars/planets, and have to strictly tread the path which has been delineated for them. Any deviation from natural course would result in collision of these organs of the nature and the consequences would be catastrophic. Likewise in democratic state like ours in which functioning of different organs of the State is regulated by the Constitution, any effort to breach the frontiers of other organs of the State would definitely have catastrophic effect on the body politic.

(3.) ON 13th August 2009 respondent No.4 issued advertisement notice whereunder applications were invited from eligible candidates for seeking consideration for being selected/appointed as ReT which had become vacant because of resignation of person who was earlier appointed on the said post. One of the terms and conditions of the advertisement notice was that the last date for filing the applications would be cutoff date for determining age/eligibility/qualification. This advertisement notice was withdrawn by notification dated 14th Dec. 2009. The respondent No.4, thereafter issued another notification dated 30th Dec. 2009 which was published in daily newspaper on 31st of Dec. 2009, whereunder the applications were invited from eligible candidates of the concerned revenue village having 10+2 and above qualification with Math and Science back ground, for engagement as ReT, besides in other schools in M.S Shumnag. One post was notified for being filled up in the said School. One of the condition contained in the re-advertisement notice was "the last date will be cutoff date for determining age/qualification/merit". The appellant as also respondent no.4 responded to the said notice and sought consideration for being selected/engaged as ReT in M.S. Shumnag. Provisional merit panel was prepared on 27th Jan. 2010, in which the appellant on the basis of his merit figured at Sr. No. 1 and respondent No.4 at Sr. No. 2. Selection list was issued on 4th Feb. 2010 by respondent No.3 whereunder the appellant was provisionally recommended for being engaged as ReT in M.S. Shumnag zone chadura. It was provided that any person having objection regarding the eligibility of the appellant shall file same with documentary proof within week's time from the date of publication of notice. The respondent No.4 filed objections in which he stated that on the first day of Jan. 2009 appellant was below 18 years of age and in terms of Article 37 of the "Regulations" was ineligible for being engaged as ReT. The objection raised by respondent No.4 found favour with the official respondents and respondent No.4 was selected and ultimately engaged as ReT on 28th Oct. 2010. It is this order, which was called in question in the writ petition by the appellant.