Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 167 (JK)

Shabir Ahmad Mir v. State & Ors.

2012-04-17

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2012
1. An Advertisement Notice came to be published on 1st January, 2011 in a Local Newspaper Tameel-i-Irshad bearing endorsement No. DIP JK No. 11235 dated 31st December, 2010, whereby applications were invited for engagement of Rehbar-e-Taleem Teachers in UPS Warson Kashmir and UPS Warson Gujran. 2. Corrigendum to the said Notice was issued vide No. ZEO/K/2847 dated 7lh January, 2011 and published in the same Newspaper in its issue dated 8th January, 2011, whereby time for submitting the applications was extended from 7th January, 2011 to 12th January, 2011. The corrigendum also provided that age of the candidates shall be reckoned on the 1st January, 2011 instead of 1st January, 2010 as provided earlier. 3. Consequent of the said corrigendum a representation was addressed to Chief Education Officer for its quashment, who in turn directed the Zonal Education Officer to complete the process as per the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement notice published on 1st January, 2011. 4. A panel was prepared vide Annexure-E to the writ petition. In the said panel Shabir Ahmad Mir-petitioner was figuring at serial number 2 but in remarks column, he was shown to be ineligible because of being under-aged as on 1st January, 2010. 5. Feeling aggrieved petitioner has filed writ petition seeking quashment of the panel so prepared, to the extent it relates to him and Shakeel Ahmad, who is figuring at serial number 4 in the said panel, on the grounds taken in the writ petition. 6. Precisely the case of the petitioner is that the age factor of the competing candidates had to be reckoned as on 1st January, 2011 and not on 1st January, 2010 being the date of publication of advertisement notice. 7. Respondents while coming up with the reply state that the advertisement notice issued in the instant matter did mention that the age of the candidates shall not be less than 18 years and more than 37 years as on 01.01.2010, besides admitting the date of publication of said notice to be 1st January, 2011. 8. Thus the controversy involved in this writ petition is as to whether the age of the competing candidates shall be counted as on 1st January, 2010 or as on 1st January, 2011? 9. This Single Bench, as well as the Division Bench of this court, in series of judgments, being LPA No. 168/2008 titled Ms. 8. Thus the controversy involved in this writ petition is as to whether the age of the competing candidates shall be counted as on 1st January, 2010 or as on 1st January, 2011? 9. This Single Bench, as well as the Division Bench of this court, in series of judgments, being LPA No. 168/2008 titled Ms. Shaheena Masarat v. State and Ors, LPA No. 20/2009 titled Altaf Ahmad Sheikh v. State & ors, and LPA No. 77/2010 titled Hilal Ahmad Sofi v. State & Ors and in SWP Nos. 1212/2009, 1220/2009 reported in SLJ (1) 2011, has held that Article 37 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations, for short CSR is applicable in such cases. It is apt to reproduce Article 37 of CSR herein:- "37. (1) Except in the case of direct recruits to (i) Kashmir Administrative Service (ii) Kashmir Police Service (iii) Kashmir Forest Service (iv) Kashmir Accounts Service, in which case the minimum and maximum age limits for recruitment, will be governed by the recruitment rules of the respective services, the age of direct recruits to Government service in the rest of subordinate and Gazetted Services shall on the first day of January of the year in which the competitive examination is held or the nomination is made in respect of the vacancy to which the direct recruitment is made, shall not be less than 18 years and shall not exceed 30 years. " 10. Admittedly the notification was published on 1st January, 2011, thus the age has to be reckoned on the 1st January, 2011. My view is fortified by the judgment of Single Bench passed in case titled Nissar Ahmad Naikoo v. State reported in 1997 SLJ 85. Thus the petitioner was not under-aged on 1st January, 2011. 11. In the given circumstances, the writ petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned panel, resultantly, so far it relates to respondent No. 5, is quashed. Respondents shall examine the case of petitioner with other eligible candidates and make a selection as per the merit position, within one month from the date the copy of the judgment is served upon them. 12. Record be returned.