MOHD AMIN PANDIT Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition under section 103 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir. It is directed against Government Order No. 68 -ID of 1970 dated 21 -5 -1970 which reads as under: - "GOVERNMENT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR CIVIL SECRETARIAT INFORMATION DEPARTMENT. Sub : Creation of the post of Deputy Director of Information. Ref : Chief Secretaryâ„¢s No. CS -Misc/70 dated 23 -4 -1970. Government Order No. 68 -ID of 1970 Dated 21 -5 -1970 Sanction is accorded to the creation of an additional post of Deputy Director of Information (Public Relations and Publications) in the Directorate of Information in the scale of Rs. 500 -1100 by corresponding reduction of one post of Public Relations Officer (450 -900) and to the promotion of Shri G. N. Turi, Asstt. Director of Information, Kashmir (450 -900) thereto on a temporary basis subject to approval by the Public Service Commission, Shri S. L. Pir, Public Relations Officer, (450 -900) in the Directorate of Information is transferred and posted as Assistant Director of Information Kashmir in place of Shri Turi. This issues with the concurrence of the Finance Department conveyed vide their U. O. No. F. ll -18/70 -Inf/1257 dated 12 -5 -1970. By order of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir. (Sd.) G. D. Sharma, Secretary to Government, Information Department."

(2.) THE petitioners have challenged the order as being arbitrary, capricious and violative of the Powers of the Government under Rule 25(2) of the J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1956 (hereinafter called the ˜1956 Rules™). Their case is that, at the material time, they, like respondent No. 2, were holding the scale of 450 -900 in the gazetted cadre of the Information Department and were due to be considered for promotion to the next higher post of Deputy Director in the scale of 500 -1100 ; that the impugned order was made without their cases being considered alongside the case of respondent No. 2 ; and in any case the order was not a speaking order as it should have been under law . The respondent -State has put its case in reply in these words : "The appointment of respondent No. 2 was made when in the opinion of the Government an emergency had arisen and they were satisfied that it was in the public interest to fill the vacancy immediately and there was likely to be undue delay in making the appointment/ promotion in consultation with the Public Service Commission/ Departmental Promotion Committee. The Order of adhoc appointment made in anticipation of the Cabinet sanction was later referred to the General Department who conveyed the approval of the Cabinet in accordance with the procedure sanctioned for such cases under regulation 4(d) of the Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions Regulation 1957)".

(3.) IT is also stated that the regular appointment for the said post "was to be made on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee to whom the cases of the petitioners and other officers eligible for being considered have been referred."