ALI MOHD BHAT Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner No. 1 was owner of land measuring 9 marlas comprising Khasra No. 178 situated at Kharbagh. Petitioner No. 2 is his son and a matriculate un -employed. The Education Department approached petitioner No. 1 for donation of land referred to above for construction of a Government School on the condition that the petitioners son i.e., petitioner No. 2 shall be given employment as Class IV employee with the Education Department in lieu of the land. It is the case of the petitioner that land was given to the Education Department in the year 1988 and a school building has been constructed thereon. Petitioners applied for employment in lieu of the land for petitioner No. 2 who was qualified to be appointed as Class IV. This was in terms of SRO 181 dated 3.6.1988. Despite repeated requests case of the petitioner was not settled. Petitioners approached various functionaries of the department, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar vide his communication dated 19.12.1992 requested the Deputy Director (P/S) directorate of School Eduction Kashmir to process the case of the petitioner No. 2 for employment in lieu of land donated by his father. No action was initiated on that basis. Another communication was addressed by Additional Commissioner, Srinagar to the same functionaries under his No. 158/LAC dated 2.6.2001 which reads as under:

(2.) NOTHING seems to have been done and the petitioners were informed that SRO 181 sands repealed by a subsequent SRO 214 dated 11th July, 1991 whereunder no fresh appointment can be made even in respect to cases which are under process at the time of the issuance of this SRO. On the denial of appointment to the petitioner No. 2, petitioners were constrained to approach this Court through the medium of the present petition seeking a direction to provide employment to petitioner No. 2 in lieu of land donated by petitioner No. 1 and also to relax the age bar as at the time of the filing of the petition, petitioner No. 2 was likely to cross the maximum age limit. A further writ of certiorari is asked for quashing SRO 214 dated 11th July, 1991 to the extent it deprives those persons whose cases were under process under SRO 181. In reply to petition respondents have not disputed the acquisition of land for purposes of construction of school from the petitioners. The stand of the respondents is that SRO 181 of 1988 stands rescinded and substituted by SRO 214 dated 11th July 1991, whereunder petitioner cannot be provided employment in lieu of the land. It is stated that the averments made in the writ petition are vague and it is not known whether school was constructed on the land or not.

(3.) IT have heard learned counsel for the parties.