FAROOQ AHMAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PROCESS of selection relating to contractual appointments initiated by the Deputy Commissioner Doda vide advertisement notice No.1124 -62/ARA/2003 dated 04.08.2003, inter alia, for the posts/vacancies of Junior Engineers in Civil/Mechanical in district Doda, came to be clinched by a recommendation made to the Government, followed by an order of appointment vide Government Order No. 169 -PW of 2003 dated 24.09.2003. It is the said order which is sought to be set at naught by the petitioners mainly on the ground that the appointment is de hors the rules. To bring home the point reliance is placed on Note: 3 of Schedule II -A appended to the rules called the Jammu & Kashmir Engineering (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 1995 notified vide SRO 180 extracted hereunder for facility of reference.

(2.) NEXT is the challenge thrown to the criteria of weightage. Dealing with the contention it is averred by the Respondent -State in its reply supported by an affidavit that the petitioners and the selectee -respondents have been treated alike. The stand has not been countered. Thus it emerges that no prejudice is caused to the petitioners.

(3.) THIS brings me to the contention that SRO 255 will have no application to the appointments in question because of the fact that advertisement notice was issued on 04.08.2003 whereas SRO 255 was notified on 05.08.2003. In essence the contention of the learned counsel is that SRO 255 cannot be applied retrospectively. The contention needs to be appreciated in the light of the guidelines issued by the Government for contractual appointments vide Order No. GAD(Adm)186/2003 -V dated 30.07.2003. A perusal whereof reveals that essentially the guidelines have prescribed the eligibility and has brought into being a Selection Committee. How to make the appointments guideline (6) assumes significance, which reads: