Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 418 (JK)

V. N. Gupta v. State

2010-07-29

Sunil Hali

body2010
1. The petitioners were inducted in the Kashmir Administrative Service vide Government order No. 1532-GAD of 1997 dated 23.09.1997. The date when said order was issued, the petitioners already stood superannuated from service. After lapse of four years, vide communication dated 12.07.2001, the petitioners were informed that their induction in the KAS was not made in accordance with the rules. Perusal of the said communication reveals that the Selection Committee accorded consideration to the officers of different feeding services, who were in service as on 1.1.1996 for their induction/ appointment in the Kashmir Administrative Service. The selection process could not be completed before 22.09.1997 on account of some inter se dispute regarding seniority of various officers of different feeding services. On the date the selection/ appointment process was completed, the petitioners had already been superannuated. It is contended by the respondents that names of the petitioners have erroneously been included in the list of officers inducted/ appointed in the Kashmir Administrative Service and subsequently, vide order dated 09.10.2001, their names were deleted from the Government order No. 1532-GAD of 1997 dated 23.09.1997. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. Nobody has appeared today on behalf of the respondents to contest this petition. 4. The plea taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners were eligible for induction in the KAS on 01.01.1996, the date when the selection process was initiated by the respondents under Rule 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Administrative Service Rules, 1979. The process could not be completed in view of the inter se dispute between various officers of different services. This, according to the petitioners, cannot deny them their right for being inducted/appointed in the KAS after the selection process was initiated. 5. The petitioners have placed on record Government order No. 895-GAD of 1991 dated 18.9.1991 and Government order No. 882-GAD of 2004 dated 09.07.2004, which reveal that induction in the Kashmir Administrative Service has been allowed in favour of some officers, who had not only retired but had expired. 6. The short question that arises for consideration is as to whether right for induction in the KAS arises on the date when appointment orders were issued or the date when the vacancies became available. In order to appreciate this controversy, it is necessary to examine the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Administrative Service Rules, 1979. 7. 6. The short question that arises for consideration is as to whether right for induction in the KAS arises on the date when appointment orders were issued or the date when the vacancies became available. In order to appreciate this controversy, it is necessary to examine the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Administrative Service Rules, 1979. 7. The Rule 8 of aforesaid rules contemplates that Selection Committee shall prepare a list of officers from the members of services on the basis of their merit for being inducted in the Kashmir Administrative Service. The process of selection is to be concluded and appointment orders under Rule 9 of the said rules are required to be issued thereafter. The import of Rule 8 clearly mentions that if the selection process has been started and on the basis of selection so made, the Government has to issue appointment orders. This implies that the selection is being contemplated on the basis of availability of the posts. The Rule 9 of aforesaid rules only requires issuance of appointment order on the conclusion of the process of selection. Once selection process is initiated, it contemplates that posts are available, which are required to be filled up by the respondents. It cannot be said that posts against which appointment was to be made become available on the date of appointment. 8. The respondents clearly understood this fact while issuing order dated 23.09.1997, by which the orders of appointment were issued in favour of the petitioners in pursuance of Rule 9 holding them eligible and entitled for being inducted in the KAS on the basis of vacancies which were available on 01.01.1996. 9. The stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit that the petitioners cannot be inducted in the KAS as they had already retired from service, cannot be accepted. On their own showing, the process for induction of the petitioners in the KAS was initiated on 01.01.1996 and on that date, the petitioners were in-service. It be also noted that respondents have allowed this benefit by virtue of orders mentioned hereinabove, whereby benefit has been given to some, officers who had not only retired, but had expired also. 10. In view of above, this writ petition is allowed order dated 09.10.2001 is set aside. It be also noted that respondents have allowed this benefit by virtue of orders mentioned hereinabove, whereby benefit has been given to some, officers who had not only retired, but had expired also. 10. In view of above, this writ petition is allowed order dated 09.10.2001 is set aside. The respondents are directed to restore the benefit in favour of the petitioners, which was given to them in terms of Government order No. 1532-GAD of 1997 dated 23.9.1997. 11. Connected CMP(s) shall also stand disposed of.