Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 365 (JK)

Sat Paul Sharma & ors. v. State of J&K & ors.

2016-07-16

RAMALINGAM SUDHAKAR

body2016
JUDGMENT 1. The writ petition is of the year 2001. 2. The writ petition is filed for the following relief: (a) It is, therefore, prayed for the reasons submitted herein above and those to be urged at the time of arguments, respondents may very kindly be directed to remove disparity in the J&K Accounts (Gazetted) Service in the category of promotees by calculating 50% vacancies as it stood on 5th October 1994 .e. the date of issuance of the date of notification, by the issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus. (b) To command and direct the respondents to fill-up the vacancies in J&K Accounts Gazetted Service 50% in each category from amongst the promotees and 50% from the direct recruits as per essence and spirit of the of the rules applicable to the services, by the issuance of a writ, order of direction in the nature of mandamus. (c) To command and direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner w.e.f. the dates vacancies in the promotion categories have become available either due to retirement of the promotees or on account of creation of new posts from dates these posts have become available, by the issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus. (d) To command and direct the respondents to fill-up the posts in the J&K Gazetted Services on the basis of the State Level Seniority List of the feeding category maintained in the department, by the issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus.” 3. Petitioners at the time of filing of writ petition in the year 2001 were promotee Accounts Officers in the State Government in various Departments. According to them, their service condition is regulated under J&K Accounts (Gazetted) Service 1972. In terms of these Rules, it is the grievance of the petitioners that the said post according to them is governed under Clause (ii) of Rule 6 which provides that the appointment by direct recruitment and promotion to Junior Scale of the service shall be made in proportion of 1:2 upto end of September 1972. The ratio between direct recruitment and recruitment by promotion with effect from 21st September 1972 was amended to 50 : 50. 4. The ratio between direct recruitment and recruitment by promotion with effect from 21st September 1972 was amended to 50 : 50. 4. It is grievance of the petitioners that respondents have not followed the statutory quota prescribed under Rule 6(ii) for the purpose of fulfilling of the post in the Department. The Department also not followed SRO 290 dated 05.10.1994 read with SRO 83 which prescribes that number of persons recruited for the post shall not exceed 50% in each category of the service. 5. Based on seniority list published on 21.05.1999, it is pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner that the number of direct recruits is far higher than the promotees. Further the ratio is not maintained in the retirement vacancy where also direct recruits are placed and thereby denying the benefits to promotees. 6. Several other issues relating to service condition, seniority, promotion are raised as a matter of dispute in this writ petition. 7. At this juncture, I m not inclined to go into the details of those factual aspects. It has been clearly stated by the petitioners that in relation to the disparity alleged in respect of the promotional avenue to the promotees which according to the petitioners has been taken away by the direct recruitees, they have made a representation to the authorities concerned. Since no response has been shown to the same, the writ petition has been filed. 8. Objections have been filed stating that the claim may have to be considered in the light of eligibility of the petitioner as regards the claim of the direct recruits. In respect of each one of the issues raised by the petitioners. Such representation has been filed, which representation admittedly has not been placed on record in this writ petition. This Court expressed the view that factual issue will not be gone into at this stage. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners pleaded that they should be permitted to make further representation and a direction may be issued for considering the same. 10. If a representation, as stated above, is made within four weeks from the receipt of copy of this order before the authorities concerned, shall consider such issue raised and pass appropriate orders on its own merits within eight weeks thereafter. 11. Writ petition is disposed of as above.