HARBANS LAL BHAGAT Vs. STATE OF J& K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was working as Agriculture Extension Officer in the Agriculture Department vide Government Order No. 194 -GR of 1986 dated 27th June, 1986. He belongs to a Scheduled Caste category. The schedule attached to the Jammu and Kashmir Community Development (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1977, under SRO -515 of 1977, provides 30% of the posts of Block Development Officers to be filled up from Assistant Agriculture Extension Officers in the Agriculture/Horticulture Department by promotion out of 75% recruitment by selection of such Officers as are willing to be considered from the five categories indicated in the schedule and the rest of 25% posts of Block Development Officers to be filled up by direct recruitment. The petitioner claims to be adjusted to the post of Block Development Officers against one of the four available vacancies in Jammu Division on the basis of a communication dated 15th June 2000 addressed by Director, Rural Development, Jammu to Financial Commissioner, Agriculture and Rural Development Department. However, the petitioner was not adjusted. He filed a writ petition, SWP No. 1415/2000 seeking his appointment to the post of the Block Development Officers in Rural Development Department. The writ petition was allowed and the respondent were directed to examine the case of the petitioner on the basis of reply dated 15 -6 -2000 by Director, Rural Development Department, Jammu to the Financial Commissioner, Agriculture and Rural Development Department and take a final decision regarding the adjustment of the petitioner by passing a speaking order. That respondents vide Government Order No. 31 RD of 2002 dated 23 -01 -2002 turned down the claim of the petitioner for adjustment as Block Development Officer in Rural Development Department, which became the subject matter of challenge by the petitioner in this writ petition.

(2.) DETAILED counter has been filed by the respondents and submitted that this writ petition has been filed on the similar/identical grounds taken in earlier writ petition and is barred by the principle of res judicata. The plea put across by the respondents is that the petitioner is placed at Serial no.616 in the seniority list of Agriculture Extension Officer and there are 15 Scheduled Caste Officers figuring above the petitioner in the seniority list. Thus, the petitioner's claim found not falling in the consideration zone after examining his case in compliance to the Court direction in SWP No. 1415/2000, was rejected vide Government Order dated 23 -1 -2002 impugned in this writ petition. Further plea raised by the respondents is that eligibility alone is not the criterion for adjustment against the post of Block Development Officer, other factors like availability of posts and the placement in consideration zone are also to be taken into account. That mere a recommendation of the petitioner by DRD, Jammu by which he accorded no objection to the adjustment of the petitioner against one of the four available vacancies would not suffice, in view of the placement of the petitioner in seniority list of the Agriculture Extension Officers. The petitioner does not even fall within the consideration zone in the Scheduled Castes category as per his seniority in the said category. It was further submitted that as and even the vacancies arise and the petitioner falls in the consideration zone, his claim for adjustment as Block Development Officer would also be considered at appropriate time on its turn.

(3.) AS regards the applicability of the principle of res judicata vouched by the respondent 's advocate in his debate, it is pertinent to point out that the petitioner has fortified his claim for adjustment to the post of Block Development Officer in Agriculture Department on the basis of a recommendation made by DRD, Jammu in reply to the letter dated 25 -4 -2000 from Under Secretary to Government, Rural Development Department seeking his remarks on the application of the petitioner, Harbans Lal Bhagat, Agriculture Development Assistant. In earlier writ petition, which was heard without a counter by the respondents and, in such event taking the pleadings of the petitioner to be correct, disposed of the writ petition with the direction to the respondents to examine his case on the strength of the recommendation of DRD, Jammu and pass a speaking order. Whereas in this writ petition, Order dated 23 -1 -2002 stated to have been passed by the respondents in compliance to the directions of the Court in the earlier writ petition and turned down, the claim of the petitioner for adjustment to the post of Block Development Officer not only on the ground of the recommendation of the DRD, Jammu, but also on the grounds of seniority, entitlement to a benefit of reservation category and the relevant Rules governing the service of the petitioner, enumerated therein. In such circumstances, as a matter of fact, the grounds taken in earlier writ petition, therefore, cannot be said to be the similar grounds in this writ petition so as to attract the principle of res -judicata. There is, in my opinion, no substance in the plea put across by the respondents.