VIKAS KANT Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GOVERNMENT orders No. Home 133(P) of 2002 dated 13th March, 2002, whereby respondent No. 5 has been appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the grade of Rs.7,500 - 12,0007 - in Jammu & Kashmir Police Department in relaxation of method of recruitment is the subject matter of challenge in this petition.

(2.) PETITIONER No. 1 is stated to have obtained Bachelors Degree in Science in the year 1997. Thereafter, having pursued the prescribed of study for three years, he has also been admitted to the Degree of Bachelor of laws (Professional) by University of Jammu in the year 2000. Petitioner No.2 has obtained the Degree of Bachelor of Arts from University of Jammu in the year 2000. It is stated by them that they are eligible for competing for selection and appointment against the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police but the respondent State in total disregard of the constitutional mandate under Articles 14 and 16, the established law and the relevant Rules have appointed respondent Nos.5 as Deputy Superintendent of Police against the direct quota post, thereby not only impinging upon the fundamental rights of the petitioners but also showing total disrespect to the judgment of the Apex Court in Suraj Prakash Gupta Vs. State of J & K (2000) 7 SCC 561.wherein the Supreme Court, apart from other directions, specifically directed the State of Jammu and Kashmir that no relaxation of the basic recruitment rules shall be made for direct recruitment through Public Service Commission or for purpose of regular recruitment by transfer. Petitioners have prayed for quashment of the impugned order and a direction to the official respondents to refer the said post of Deputy Superintendent of Police to the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission for selection in accordance with the law.

(3.) THE official respondents in their counter affidavit have stated that respondent No.5, while serving as an Army Officer in the Indian Army, was taken on deputation in the Police Department initially for a period of two years. In this regard the matter was taken up by the State Home Department with Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Defence, for according no objection to the appointment of respondent No.5 initially on deputation basis for two years and then on permanent absorption basis. The Army Authorities conveyed their no objection in relieving the said respondent. He was appointed on deputation basis for a period of two years in terms of Government Order No. Home - 97 (P) of 1999 dated 9th March, 1999. The case of the official respondents is that, in view of the on going militancy, the State Government in its wisdom thought it expedient and proper to utilize the services of an outstanding Army Officer in order to impart training to the various Police Officers recruited from time to time to effectively fight the militancy. Since respondent No.5 was released from Army in April, 1999, his appointment on deputation basis was reviewed and he was appointed on contractual basis for a period one year vide Government Order No. Home - 321 (P) of 1999 dated 14th July, 1999. The period of contractual appointment was subsequently extended for a further period of one year in terms of Government Order dated 28th April, 1999 and finally he was appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police in relaxation of method of recruitment vide Government Order No. Home - 133 (P) of 2002 dated 13th March, 2002. It is denied that the case falls within the purview of the judgment of the Apex Court in Suraj Prakash Gupta Vs. State of J & K (supra). It is stated that respondent No.5 after joining the Police Department has successfully completed the probation period and efficiently discharged his duties in imparting training to various newly recruited Police Officers. The claim of the writ -petitioners that their fundamental/ legal rights have been violated is denied. Further, it is stated that the appointment of respondent No.5 was purely in the exigencies of the situation and not for any other consideration.