JYOTI SAROOP Vs. STATE & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant writ petition has been filed on the ground that 01 Kanal 10 Marlas out of land measuring 03 Kanals 10 Marlas under Khasra No. 60 owned by the petitioner's father at village Garota, Jammu was acquired by the Education Department in the year 1988 and entry thereof was made in Khasra Girdawari attested in the year 2005 i.e. Annexure-B, that the acquisition of the land was on the promise to the father of the petitioner to provide employment to the petitioner. However, the assurance was not honoured whereupon representation was made to the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu by the petitioner's father, that Government had issued SRO 181 of 1988, dated 03.06.1988 i.e. Annexure-D which provided that one member of the family whose land had been acquired and which was left with less than 50% of their agricultural land on account of acquisition of land by the Government for public purpose would be appointed in the department which had acquired the land without any reference to the recruitment board concerned against a post available in the lowest rank of the cadre etc., that on failure of the respondents to honour the assurance held out to his father, the petitioner approached this Court by way of SWP No. 876 of 2006, which was disposed of vide order dated 19.04.2012 i.e. Annexure-E with a direction to the respondents to accord consideration to the appointment of petitioner in terms of SRO 181 of 1988, dated 03.06.1988 and to take a decision in the matter within six weeks from the date copy of the order was made available to the respondents.

(2.) That it is the stand of the petitioner that no decision was taken pursuant to the directions of Honourable High Court dated 19.04.2012 whereupon he approached the Minister for PHE, Irrigation & Flood Control, Jammu & Kashmir who vide order dated 02.04.2015 directed respondent No. 1 to issue orders of appointment in favour of the petitioner i.e. Annexure-F in terms of SRO 181 of 1988 dated 03.06.1988 of Education Department.

(3.) Plea of the petitioner in Paragraph No. 9 of the writ petition is that although SRO 181, had been replaced in 1991 vide SRO 214, but such repeal did not affect the rights of the petitioner as the land of the petitioner's father had been acquired before SRO 214, came into existence and SRO 214 of 1991, was violative of Art. 14 & 16 of the Constitution and the respondents were estopped from denying employment to the petitioner after taking his father's land, that the High Court in case titled 'Ali Mohd. Bhat & Anr. Vs. State of J&K & Ors.' reported in '2003 (3) JKJ 163 [HC]: 2003 SLJ 411 ' held that the Government which had taken over the land of a person was bound to provide employment to one of the family members and that the petitioner, who had now become overage, was seeking appointment under SRO 181, therefore, the same required relaxation in view of the changed circumstances, that the case of the petitioner had been rejected by the Director, School Education vide order dated 18.07.2013 on the directions of the Administrative Department but that order of rejection had been provided to the petitioner only three weeks ago.