A A AKHOON Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENTS Nos. 7 to 14 were selected and appointed to K. A. S. (Junior) by two orders of the Government dated 13th December, 1969 and 20th February, 1970 respectively forming annexures ËœAâ„¢ and ËœBâ„¢ to the petition. The petitionersâ„¢ grievance is that they being the employees of the Revenue Department and being senior to respondents 7 to 14 were eligible for promotion and selection to the KAS as against these respondents. These appointments were made in violation of the statutory provisions and also in disregard of the seniority, merit, ability and efficiency of the petitioners and also the recommendation of the Head of the Department to the Selection Committee made under Rule 15 of K. A. S. Rules. The impugned orders have the effect of visiting the petitioners with evil consequences in so far as their seniority and other rights are concerned. They have been denied the equality of opportunity and also the right of equality before the law. The petitioners seek to quash the impugned orders on the ground that these are not speaking orders for they do not make any mention as regards the comparative merit, ability and seniority of the respondents as against the petitioners. Also that these orders are arbitrary, nepotic and mala fide and violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India as also Art. 16 of the said Constitution. They also amount to punishing the petitioners without following the due process of law.

(2.) THE Secretary, General Department, has in his reply affidavit sworn to the following facts: - It is admitted that the petitioners are employees of the Revenue Department but it is contended that a joint writ cannot be filed by the petitioners as all questions of fact and law are not common to the case of the petitioners. It. is however, admitted that the petitioners namely S/Shri D. N. Trisal, Mohd Yasin and Bashir Ahmad were recommended as within 20% of eligible officers by the Head of the Department for consideration by the Selection Committee in terms of Rule 15 of K. A. S. Rules of 1965 but the other petitioners were not so recommended. Even otherwise the cases of all eligible candidates including those of the petitioners were also considered by the Selection Committee. The petitioners were not selected not because of any mala fides or nepotism on the part of the Selection Committee or the appointing authority which is vehemently denied but on the ground that they were not found to possess the requisite qualities of merit and suitability. Under Rules Selection to K. A. S. (Junior) has to be based on merit and suitability alone and as respondents Nos. 7 to 14 were found to possess such qualification they were, therefore, selected. The Selection Committee, the Public Service Commission and the Government considered the cases of all eligible candidates including those of the petitioners, but did not find the petitioners to possess the requisite merit and suitability to warrant the inclusion of their names in the said list. Hence they were dropped. The petitioners could not be judges of their own merit and suitability. The impugned orders, it is denied, are not speaking orders, and even if the said orders cannot be said to be speaking orders there is contemporaneous material relevant to the issue which can be taken into consideration by the court. No question of denial of equality of opportunity or violation of any fundamental right of the petitioners arises in the case. It is submitted that the petition may be dismissed on merits.

(3.) I have heard the arguments in the case.