Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 239 (JK)

Ab. Gani Pandit v. State Of J. &K.

2000-11-01

O.P.SHARMA

body2000
1. Admitted and taken up for final disposal with the consent of the counsel for the parties. However, consent should not be construed to mean that the proposed order is a consent order. The petitioners are members of the Jammu and Kashmir Fire Service whose conditions of service are regulated under Jammu and Kashmir Fire Force Regulations and Recruitment Rules 1990 framed in exercise of powers conferred u/s 37 of the Jammu and Kashmir Fire Force Act, 1967. These rules were notified vide SRO 159 dated: 19-04-1990. The petitioners who are 22 in number have challenged the vires of rules in so far as their promotion is made subject to the passing of the training course from National Fire Service College Nagpur (NFS). This condition according to the petitioners alters condition of service under which they were appointed. Further challenge to the rules is that NFS College Nagpur does not accept candidates who have crossed 40 years age and since some of the petitioners had already crossed the age of 40 years, therefore rules apply harshly to them. But some of the petitioners who were eligible for undergoing training at the time these rules were framed were not deputed by the respondents and, therefore, rules cannot be enforced against them because unless deputed they could not have undergone training. Moreover, according to the petitioners a number of employees similarly situated were promoted to the next higher grade without undergoing any training after the enforcement of the rules. The petitioners, therefore, seek similar treatment with those who were promoted vide order No. 263 of 1990 dated: 06-07-1990 and order No. 82 of 1991 dated: 15-04-1991. 2. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the officials respondents have picked up private respondents (4 to 7) and deputed them for the training as per telegram dated: 22-11-1995. This again has adversely affected the petitioners because their juniors will become eligible for promotion after undergoing training. It is, therefore, prayed that the telegram be quashed and petitioners promoted to the next higher grade in relaxation of rules. Alternately, it is prayed that respondents be directed to depute them for training to such Colleges where age is not a bar for undergoing training. In case the petitioners have to undergo training in NFS College, Nagpur in that case, Government should approach the institution for relaxation of the age in their favour. 3. Alternately, it is prayed that respondents be directed to depute them for training to such Colleges where age is not a bar for undergoing training. In case the petitioners have to undergo training in NFS College, Nagpur in that case, Government should approach the institution for relaxation of the age in their favour. 3. In the objections filed on behalf of the official respondents, it is stated that the rules do not adversely affect the service conditions of the petitioners because they have no vested right to promotion. So far as eligibility is concerned, it is stated that this has to be decided by the institution. Since the petitioners are overage, therefore, they could not be deputed to undergo training. Since the fire service training is a condition precedent for promotion, therefore, the petitioner, it is stated cannot be promoted as they are not eligible. So far as challenge to the vires of the Jammu and Kashmir Fire Service Regulations and Recruitment Rules 1990 is concerned, it is without any substance because the Government has the power to change Recruitment Rules even retrospectively. This, however, does not mean that a person who has already earned promotion can be reverted by amendment of the rules. (See State of Jammu and Kashmir Vs. Trilok Nath Khosa AIR 1974 SC 1). Since the petitioners were yet to be promoted when the rules were framed, therefore, their rights have not been adversely affected. 4. This takes us to the delay on the part of the respondents to depute the petitioners for the training. It is admitted that some of the petitioners were still under 40 at the time rules were framed. This is evident from the dates of birth mentioned by the petitioners in para-3 of the petition. So the failure on the part of official respondents to depute the petitioners immediately after the rules were notified adversely affected the petitioners. The bio-data of the petitioners indicate that at least petitioners 4, 5 to 9, 14 to 18, 20 and 21 below 40 at the time the rules were framed. It was thus incumbent for the official respondents to have taken steps to depute them for the training course if they were otherwise eligible for promotion. The other eligibility is that the candidates should be matriculate having five years service. It was thus incumbent for the official respondents to have taken steps to depute them for the training course if they were otherwise eligible for promotion. The other eligibility is that the candidates should be matriculate having five years service. So those of the petitioners who were matriculate and were below 40 at the time rules were framed had to be deputed for the training lest they are denied promotion on this ground. Those who had crossed the age however, had no right because rules so provide. It is in this background that reference to order dated: 15-04-1991 by virtue of which some similarly situated persons have been promoted becomes relevant because according to the petitioners they have been promoted without undergoing training. 5. The contention of Mr. Indrabi is that those of the petitioners who were under 40 ought to have been deputed for the training immediately after the rules were notified. He, therefore, submits that either they should be sent for undergoing the training and the institution persuaded by the Government to relax the age or the Government should consider them for promotion in relaxation of rules. There is substance in the contention because failure of the official respondents to depute the petitioners before they had crossed the age of 40 cannot be attributed to the petitioners. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the official respondents to either depute those of the petitioners who were below 40 in April 1990 and by persuading the institution to relax the age in their favour to enable them to undergo training or in the alternative to consider them for promotion in relaxation of rules provided they are otherwise eligible for promotion under rules. This consideration will be accorded within a period of three months unless the time is further extended on the application of the official respondents. I make the order accordingly.