MOHD YUSUF DAR Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS who are seven in number challenge the Government Order NO. 458 -Agri of 1996 dated 09 -09 -1996(Annexure -P4) by virtue of which the grade of the post of Assistant Grading and Marketing Officers was released in favour of private respondents No.3 and 5 with effect from the date the posts were available or they were placed incharge of the posts, whichever be the later, on the ground that as per the seniority list the said private respondents are junior to them. Their grievance is that the seniority list of the service to which petitioners belong was issued by the second respondent vide his letter dated 28 -05 -1985(Annexure -P1) in which the petitioners figure at S. No. 16, 17,20,21,23, 24 and 35 whereas the private respondents 3 to 5 were assigned the seniority at S. Nos. 33, 34and 36 respectively The order of releasing the grade of Rs.2000 -3500 in their favour, according to the petitioners, being determental to the petitioners seniority, is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, liable to be quashed. Petitioners further grievance is that they are being denied promotions on the pretext of being Matriculates in contravention of the Recruitment Rules by promoting only Graduates, which is contrary to the Rules/They have thus sought the reliefs of: i) quashing Government order No. 458 -Agri of 1996 dated 09 -09 -19S6(Annexure -P4); ii) directing the respondents 1 and 2 to promote the petitioners to the next higher post retrospectively; and iii) to restrain the respondents 1 and 2 from implementing the Government order No. 458 -Agri of 1996 dated 09 -09 -1996 till the claim of the petitioners is settled.

(2.) ALTHOUGH this writ petition was filed in this court in October, 1996 and Shri R.A. Khan, learned Government advocate appeared for the respondents on 29 -09 -1997 when he sought three weeks time to file objections, but no such objections were ever filed. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of finally at this stage for the reasons which follow hereafter.

(3.) IT is an admitted fact that the representation submitted by the petitioners who are under -graduate Grading Inspectors was referred to the Administrative Department who after consulting the Department of Administration Reforms Inspection and Trainings conveyed the following opinion to the Director of Horticulture, Planning and Marketing J&K, Srinagar vide letter No. Agri/KPM/9/73RR dated 23 -08 -1989(Annexure -P2): - "1 am directed to refer your letter No. 1634 -KPM/12974 dated 27 -11 -1988 on the above noted subject. The department of Adm. reforms inspections Trainings and Grievances who were consulted in the matter had opined as under: -"The Rule 13 of the Recruitment Rules issued vide SRO 124 of 7th April, 1982 provides for appeal and savings and it is clear that the intention is to give legitimacy to those appointed before the Rules come into force. Therefore, the Grading Inspectors who are senior to others Inspectors, but have been denied promotion because they are matriculates, have been and continue to be eligible for promotion in terms of Rule 13 of the SRO 124 of 7th April, 1982."