STATE OF J&K Vs. SUNIL GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these appeals are directed against order dated 31.3.1998 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby appointment of respondent No. 4 Nauman Thakur as Deputy Superintendent of Police has not been disturbed, but the State has been directed to consider the case of the three writ petitioners on the same lines as was done in the case of respondent No. 4 Nauman Thakur. State appeal is limited only to the extent whereby the State has been directed to consider the case of the writ petitioners on the same line as was done in the case of respondent No. 4 Nauman Thakur. Other appeals have been preferred to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge whereby the appointment of respondent No. 4 has not been disturbed.

(2.) IN brief the facts are that four writ petitions came to be filed calling in question the appointment of respondent No. 4 as Deputy Superintendent of Police on the basis of a report dated 1. 8. 1995 published in Daily Kashmir Times under the caption "Return of Prodigal Son, Dons Uniform". In the writ petitions allegations of favoritism, nepotism, arbitrariness were leveled by the writ petitioners against the respondents, especially the influence exerted the influence exerted by father of respondent No. 4, namely Mr. G. M. Thakur, who at the relevant time was stated to have held the post of Commissioner/Secretary to Government, General Administration Department, Jammu & Kashmir. Writ Petitioners further alleged that legal as well as administrative norms were thrown to wind for facilitating the appointment of respondent No. 4 as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the State Police Department and his appointment was through back - door entry because of the influence exercised by his father and that no examination or any selection process was initiated by the State Government in making the Recruitment of the Deputy Superintendent of Police. It was stated that last selection of the Deputy Superintendents of Ploice through Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission was made more than a decade ago. All the eligible candidates including the petitioners were waiting to participate in the selection process, but the State Government instead of making regular selection as per the law and statutes, has chosen to confer benefits on respondent No. 4 by pick and choose policy and for extraneous considerations. Further according to them, the alleged compassionate ground on the basis of which respondent No. 4 was appointed was very vague and no guide - lines whatsoever were laid as to category to which respondent No. 4 alleged to have belonged.

(3.) THE stand taken by the Government was that for over a decade the State could not make any selection of Dy. S. Ps through Public Service Commission as Jammu & Kashmir Police (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1984 (sanctioned under Notification SRO dated 19. 10. 1984) were kept in abeyance vide Notification SRO No. 166 dated 22. 4. 1985. Further according to the State, the notification dated 22. 4. 1985 was issued in view of Union Governments objection that the J & K Police (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1984 would militate against the scheme of All India Police Services. State also took a stand that since the State of Jammu and Kashmir had been passing through the critical phase due to the militancy and its related activities and it was under these peculiar circumstances the State Government had to exercise its executive power conferred to it under the Jammu & Kashmir State Constitution for making emergent appointments so as to run the administration and to meet the growing challenges of militancy related activities. It was stated that the appointment of respondent No. 4 was one of such cases. State denied that the appointment of respondent No. 4 was due to any extraneous considerations or because of influence of his father.