STATE OF J. & K. Vs. SURINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this bunch of appeals, the appellants have assailed the validity of the judgment dated 15.05.2009, by which writ petitions preferred by the respondents have been disposed of. In order to appreciate the appellants- challenge to the impugned judgment, relevant facts need mention, which are stated infra.

(2.) On the basis of requisition made by the Public Works Department, J.&K. Service Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) initiated the process of selection for 162 posts of Junior Engineers (Mechanical) and 374 posts of Junior Engineers (Civil) vide Advertisement Notice dated 29.04.1997. It is pertinent to note here that at the time of issuance of Advisement Notice, no rules were in existence for selection/appointment of Junior Engineers. However, vide SRO 180 dated 26.05.1997, J.&K. Engineering Services Selection Recruitment Rules were promulgated by the State Government. The Note-3 appended to Schedule II (a) of the aforesaid SRO provided that degree and diploma holders shall be recruited in the ratio of 1:3. Thereafter, a fresh advertisement was issued by the Board vide Advertisement Notice dated 01.07.1997, by which it was provided that the candidates who have responded to the previous Advertisement Notice need not apply again. The Board initiated the process of selection of 162 posts of Junior Engineers (Mechanical) along with 374 posts of Junior Engineers (Civil) and 6 posts of Junior Engineers (Chemical).

(3.) During the pendency of the process of selection for the aforesaid posts, writ petition, namely, OWP No. 667/1997 was filed by one H. S. Sawhney and others, in which legality of Note- 3 contained in Schedule II (a) of SRO 180 was challenged. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by the learned single Judge of this Court by order dated 10.01998 with a direction to State Government to treat the writ petition as representation and to decide the same. The State Government preferred an appeal, namely, LPA No. 63/1998 against order dated 10.01998 passed by the learned single Judge. However, there was divergence of opinion between two Judges of the Division Bench with regard to the validity of Note-3 contained in Schedule II (a) of SRO 180. Thereupon, the matter was referred to a third Judge, who by an order 16.04.1998 held the aforesaid note, ultra vires the Constitution. Against the decision of the Division Bench, Special Leave Petition was filed before the Supreme Court, which was registered as SLP No. 4269/2003 and was disposed by the Supreme Court on 009.2003 on the following terms: