NAZIR AHMED AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants have assailed the order dated 02nd of March, 2017 of the writ Court, passed in SWP No. 339/2017 by the medium of this LPA on the premise, inter alia, that the learned writ Court, while passing the impugned order, has erred in law, inasmuch as, the same has been passed without considering the length of service rendered by the appellants as Junior Scale Stenographers in the Office of the Respondent No.3 - the Advocate General, as a consequence of which, the appellants have stagnated on one and the same post, which they have been holding for the last 2/3 decades approximately. Learned counsel for the appellants - writ petitioners states that the rule, which is questioned in the writ petition, is discriminatory, inasmuch as, no Government Department, other than the office of respondent No.3 has taken shelter under such a rule, which prescribes a shorthand/type test for promotion to the next higher post (Senior Scale Stenographer).

(2.) It has further been pleaded that the finding returned by the learned writ Court that the rule, which is under challenge in the writ petition, has been framed in the year 1990 and the appellants - writ petitioners have approached the Court after an inordinate delay of 27 years, makes it manifestly clear that they were content with the rule that prescribed 05 years experience in the Class II, Category C, post of the Junior Scale Stenographers and the test in shorthand and type writing with a minimum speed of 80 and 90 words per minute respectively and, therefore, they cannot be allowed to turn around and ask for striking down the Rule. The appellants - writ petitioners have pleaded that except for the Office of the respondent No.3, all other departments of the Government of J &K including in the GAD, the rules framed for appointment and promotion to the post of Senior Scale Stenographers prescribe an experience of 03 years only in the feeding category of the post, i.e. Junior Scale Stenographers. The stand so taken by the respondent-Department is violative of the rights of the appellants-writ petitioners enshrined in Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants - writ petitioners has further submitted that the appellants - writ petitioners have been deprived of the right to be promoted by the operation of the impugned clause contained in the said Rule and in the application of the rule as against them, they have been discriminated invidiously with the similarly circumstanced Government employees. It is further pleaded that there is no rationale behind placing a bar in the impugned rule for the appellants-writ petitioners, who have already rendered more than 20/30 years of service as Junior Scale Stenographers in the office of the respondent-Department. Learned counsel states further that a precarious situation is allowed to take place by asking the seniors under the official hierarchy to work under the juniors in case of their failure in qualifying the prescribed test.