JEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF J AND K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal arises from SWP No. 1172-A/2000 preferred by the appellants seeking two fold relief -(a) to permit the appellants No. 1 6 to sit in the examination directly without undergoing training course and (b) to promote them as Head Assistants without insisting upon the conditions laid down in Secretariat Training Course Examination Rules 1993. The appellants also questioned the promotion of respondents 4 and 5, namely, Dwarka Nath and Sushil Kumar on the post of Head Assistant. The writ petition having been dismissed by the learned Single Judge, they have come in appeal before the Division Bench. As far as promotion of said respondents on the post of Head Assistant is concerned, their deputation for the training course not having been questioned by the appellants, they cannot be allowed to do so at a belated stage. We are also of the view that relief (b) mentioned hereinabove cannot be granted because passing Secretariat Training Examination is mandatory in terms of the Secretariat Training Course Examination Rules 1993. We are, however, of the view that in terms of the amended Rules, 1993, vide amendment dated 25-06-1993, such of the appellants who cross/ have crossed the age of 50 years are not required to undergo the requisite training. Rule 4 of the Rules provides for pre-examination, six months training, which may be extended in particular case by one month. Rule 6 provides for exemption to those who attain the age of 50 years on or before the date of issue of the order. By amendment dated 25th June 1993, Rule 6 was deleted and the relevant provision was inserted as part of Rule 4. Rule 4, as amended, reads as under:- ?..Those sr. Assists. Who have crossed the age of 50 years may not undergo the requisite training & instead may either directly sit in the examination as & when notified or undergo capsule course for a period of one moth before appearing in the said examination to be conducted by ARI (Trgs) GAD: From a bare reading of the above rule, it is clear that Senior Assistants who have already crossed the age of 50 years need not undergo training, they may either sit directly in the examination or do so after capsule training of one month. As indicated above rules rule 6 contained similar exemption.

(2.) It was submitted on behalf of the respondents that the amended rule contemplates option to be exercised by the incumbent for appearing in the examinationdirectly without undergoing training course or undergoing capsule course for a period of one month before appearing in the examination. In as much as the appellants did not exercise the option either to sit in the examination or to undergo capsule course, they are not entitled to seek any relief.

(3.) We do not find any merit in the argument. The Rule is clear. It does not contemplate any option nor it contemplates that the persons who are willing to appear in the examination would be compelled to undergo capsule course for a period of one month. Needless to say that rule grants concession, also granted earlier, to those who have completed the age of 50 years for appearing at the examination. Thus the appellants are entitled to relief (a) as mentioned above.