RATTAN CHAND Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the strength of grounds adapted in the petition, the petitioners seek following main relief:-

(2.) The main facts as stated in the petition are as under:- Petitioners came to be appointed as Patwaries in the respondents-department in the year 1999 and are performing their duties to the satisfaction of their superiors. Their service conditions were governed by the J&K (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 1973 and these rules were later amended vide SRO 74 of 2009 dated 31.03.2009. As per Schedule II-A of the 2009 Rules, the post of Patwari falls in Class-III wherein the method of recruitment for Patwari has been mentioned as 90% by direct recruitment from amongst those having undergone patwar training course from any Government institution and 10% by promotion of Junior Assistants with minimum qualification of graduation (with knowledge of urdu) and having undergone patwar training course from any Government recognized institution. As per Schedule II-A, the next post of promotion of Patwari is Girdwar and thereafter the Naib Tehsildar. It is contended that in the year 2003, the Government of Jammu and Kashmir issued a SRO No.339 dated 07.10.2003 by virtue of which framed rules, namely, the Jammu and Kashmir Revenue Service (Executive) Departmental Examination Rules, 2003 for conducting departmental examination. In terms of said rules of 2003, a person being a member of J&K Revenue (Subordinate) Service including others is eligible for appearing in the departmental examination. Petitioners being graduate and eligible, appeared in the departmental examination and passed the same in one attempt, however, the respondents have promoted ineligible Girdawars to the post of Naib Tehsildar, ignoring the claim of the petitioners on the ground that there is no such provision contained in Schedule II-A of SRO 74 of 2009. Feeling aggrieved by the inaction on part of the respondents, the petitioners have knocked the portals of this Court by way of instant petition seeking aforementioned relief amongst other prayers.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the writ record and also gone through the objections, filed by respondent No.2.