Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Gurjeet Singh And Ors. vs . State And Ors. on 19 April, 2019
Author: Ali Mohammad Magrey
Bench: Ali Mohammad Magrey
Serial No. 68
Suppl.
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT SRINAGAR
SWP No. 847/2019
IA No. 01/2019
Date of order:- 19.04.2019
Gurjeet Singh and Ors. Vs. State and Ors.
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gulzar Ahmad Bhat, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) :
1. In the instant petition, petitioners pray for the following reliefs:-
"1. By issuance of writ of certiorari quashing the condition No. III to the extent it relates "selection of suitable candidates by way of screening done by the department" issued vide No. DSEK/Edu-I/226 dated 09.03.2019.
2. By issuance of writ of certiorari quashing the condition No. III of order dated 09.03.2019, to the extent it relates "selection of suitable candidates by way of screening done by the department."
3. By issuance of writ of certiorari quashing the communication issued by Directorate of School Education, Kashmir dated 01.04.2019.
4. By issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioners to continue as lecturers at 10+2 level till they are brought permanently on regular establishment.
5. By issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to frame the policy for permanent absorption of the petitioners in the School Education Department as 10+2 lecturers.
6. By issuance of order quashing the complaint/petition pending adjudication before the learned trial Court in aforesaid proceedings.
2. In terms of Government Order No. 78-Edu of 2019 dated 22.02.2019, sanction has been accorded for authorizing Director School Education, Jammu and Director School Education, Kashmir for temporary hiring of services of Lecturers on academic arrangement basis in the Jammu and Kashmir Division respectively for the academic session 2018-19 in winter zone and 2019-20 in summer zone strictly against the sanctioned but vacant posts under existing Higher Secondary Schools of the State, subject to following conditions:-
i) These posts shall be filled up initially for a period of three months which will be renewed subsequently strictly on need basis for another three months maximum upto completion of the Academic Session or till these posts are filled up by appointment/posting of regular incumbent whichever is earlier.;
ii) The lecturers so engaged on Academic Arrangement shall be paid remuneration of Rs.
14,000/- per month and Rs. 10500/- per month for zone III/ hard zone and plain area respectively;
iii) The clear vacancy status shall be obtained through concerned Principal, Higher Secondary Schools forthwith and their selection shall be made strictly on merit;
iv) Other terms and conditions as prescribed in Annexure "A" to Government Order No. 638-Edu of 2018 dated 26.04.2018 be complied with."
3. Consequent upon the decision of the Government for hiring of services of Lecturers on academic arrangement basis in terms of Government order (supra), Director School Education, Kashmir, invited applications on the prescribed format from the permanent residents of Jammu and Kashmir, having post- graduation in the relevant subject for engagement as Contractual Lecturers purely on Academic Arrangement (2019) in Government Higher Secondary Schools of various districts of Kashmir Division on district basis as per available vacancies on the terms and conditions stipulated in the advertisement notice, which are extracted as under:-
" 1. The engagement shall be made purely on Academic Arrangement at+2 level on monthly consolidated remuneration of Rs. 10500/- (Rupees Ten Thousand & Five hundred only) for plain areas and Rs. 14000/- (fourteen Thousand only) for III/Hard Zones per month for the session-2019.
2. The candidates will be engaged initially for a period of 03 months which will be renewed subsequently strictly on need basis for another 03 months maximum upto the completion of the Academic session or till these posts are filled up by appointment/posting of regular incumbent whichever is earlier.
3. The engagement thus made shall not have any preferential claim to the candidates for selection/absorption on regular basis. The selected candidates have to tender an affidavit/undertaking to this effect before issuing engagement orders in their favour. Applications should be supported by the self-attested photocopies of the following certificates/testimonials:-
Permanent Residence certificate.
Date of Birth Certificate (Matriculation) Marks sheet of post-graduation (All Semesters) M. Phil Certificate (if any) Ph. D Certificate (if any) Experience Certificate(s) of teaching at +2 level from Govt. Institution(s) along with performance report."
4. The Government in terms of Government Order No. 124-Edu of 2019 dated 08.03.2019, has further accorded sanction to the temporary re-hiring of interested eligible Lecturers, who have already rendered their services during the last academic year 2018-19, purely on Academic Arrangement Basis from 11.03.2019 subject to following conditions:-
i. The candidate fulfils the eligibility conditions prescribed under recruitment rules for the post of lecturers;
ii. The candidate shall give fresh affidavit/ undertaking as per prescribed procedure.
iii. Their hiring shall come to an end on 30.06.2019 or filling up of the posts by way of promotion or selection of suitable candidates by way of screening being done by respective Directors/Chief Education Officers of School Education Department, whichever is earlier."
5. Petitioners, who claim to have already rendered their services during last academic session 2018-19, purely on academic arrangement basis, are aggrieved of condition No. III of the Government order and challenge the same in the writ petition on the following grounds:-
I. That the conduct of screening test is discriminatory, as the same applies to the fresh candidates but not the ones who have already passed the screening test in the previous years and the screening is only aimed at verifying the documents/certificates. It is stated that the Government order and the communications making the screening mandatory are bad in law to the extent it lays down in condition for screening to be done by the department.
II. That the condition of screening is discriminatory, as no such condition has been pressed into service in Jammu Division and the candidates from Jammu Division are required to be engaged without screening, while as the petitioners continuously passed the screening from the last five years.
III. That the condition made in the communications by the Director School Education, Kashmir, under challenge for screening test and depositing of amount are against the policy and amounts to deprivation of the petitioners from absorption in the School Education Department as 10+2 Lecturers. The policy of the Government has caused prejudice to the interests of the petitioners, as they are highly qualified and have crossed age limit, required for Government job. IV. That the screening is introduced first time, as the same was not carried in Government order No. 638-Edu of 2018 dated 26.04.2018 and the condition being against the Government order is bad in law.
V. That the decision of the Government to the extent challenge in the writ petition is against Articles 12, 13, 14, and 16 of the Constitution of India.
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, considered the matter and perused the available records.
7. The policy of the Government, notified in terms of Government orders (supra) has reference to making academic arrangement of Lecturers in the Higher Secondary Schools of Jammu and Kashmir is not only legal but fair and justified policy. The object of the policy is to ensure that the students studying in the Higher Secondary Schools are provided full academic support with the availability of Lecturers in all disciplines by adhering to policy of making academic arrangements, as otherwise the filling up of post of Lecturers being a lengthy process undertaken under the Scheme of the Constitution by the Public Service Commission, may result in non-availability of Lecturers for the students, resulting in depriving the students from extracting benefit from the Lecturers.
8. As per settled position of law, hiring of services on academic arrangement basis is domain of the Government and the conditions of regulating such arrangement is further power of the Government, which cannot be by any stretch of imagination supplemented by the Courts. It is for the petitioners whether to compete the process of selection as per the terms and conditions or not. Court cannot supplement the terms and conditions of hiring of services against the academic arrangement and under the garb of such challenge cannot allow the petitioners to continue in the arrangement till they are absorbed.
9. Some of the similarly situated academic arrangement candidates had approached this Court for seeking regularization of their services under the touch stone of Jammu and Kashmir, Civil Services (Special) Act, 2010, but this Court in terms of Judgment rendered in SWP No. 306/2019 dated 20.02.2019, has dismissed the said writ petition by declaring that academic arrangements have no right to claim regularization or continuation. Paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the same Judgment being relevant are extracted as under:-
"9. The issue with reference to relief claimed by the petitioners is already settled in a similar case of academic arrangement reported in 2017 (1) JKJ 310 (HC) titled Rajani Kumari and Ors. Vs. State and Ors. Paragraph 7 being relevant is taken note of:-
"7. It is a separate and an independent method or manner by which appointment is made in a Government Department. Government in its wisdom has excluded the category of appointment made on academic arrangement basis for fixed term. The petitioners have no locus to challenge the wisdom of the Government in enacting such a provision. The language of Section 3 clearly provides that regularization will apply in respect of posts in the Government for which appointments are made on adhoc of contractual or consolidated pay. Therefore, it is referable to a particular post of a clear vacancy, whereas in these cases, petitioners have been appointed in Higher Education Department on fixed term on an academic arrangement basis. So, both cannot be equated on same terms. There is no arbitrariness in that as alleged. In any event, he implored upon the Court not to accept the interpretation as propounded by the petitioners. Mr. Sharma relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Union of India and Another Vs. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal reported in AIR 1992 SC 96, which was relied upon in a subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Satheedevi Vs Prasanna and Anr., reported in AIR 2010 SC 2777.
Their Lordships while dealing with the controversy in Deoki Nandan Aggarwal's case (supra), held in para Para 14 as under:
"We are at a loss to understand the reasoning of the learned Judges in reading down the provisions in paragraph 2 in force prior to November 1, 1986 as ―more than five years" and as ―more than four years‖ in the same paragraph for the period subsequent to November 1, 1986. It is not the duty of the Court either to enlarge the scope of the legislation or the intention of the legislature when the language of the provision is plain and unambiguous. The Court cannot rewrite, recast or reframe the legislation for the very good reason that it has no power to legislate. The power to legislate has not been conferred on the courts. The Court cannot add words to a statute or read words into it which are not there. Assuming there is a defect or an omission in the words used by the legislature the Court could not go to its aid to correct or make up the deficiency. Courts shall decide what the law is and not what it should be. The Court of course adopts a construction which will carry out the obvious intention of the legislature but could not legislate itself. But to invoke judicial activism to set at naught legislative judgment is subversive of the constitutional harmony and comity of instrumentalities. Vide P.K. Unni v. Nirmala Industries, (1990) 1 SCR 482 at p. 488 : (AIR 1990 SC 933 at p.936), Mangilal v. Sugamchand RAthi (1965) 5 SCR 239 : (AIR 1965 SC
101), Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhi v. The State of Bombay 1959 Supp. (1) SCR 489 : (AIR 1959 SC 459).
Smt Hira Devi v. District Board, Shahjahanpur 1952 SCR 1122 at p.1131 : (AIR 1952 SC 362 at p.365), Nalinakhya Bysack v. Shyam Sunder Haldar (1953 SCR 533 at p.545) : (AIR 1953 SC 148 at p. 152), Gujarat Streel Tubes Ltd. V. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha (1980) 2 SCR 146 : (AIR 1980 SC 1896), W. Narayanaswami v. G. Punnerselvam (1973) 1 SCR 172 at p. 182 : (AIR 1972 SC 2284 at p. 2289), N. S. Vardachari v. G. Vasantha Pai (1973) 1 SCR 886) :
(AIR 1973 SC 38), Union of India v. Sankal Chand Himatlal Sheth (1978) 1 SCR 423 : (AIR 1977 SC 2328) and Commr. of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Auriaya Chamber of Commerce, Allahabad (1986) 2 SCR 430 at p. 438 : (AIR 1986 SC 1556 at pp. 1559-60). Modifying and altering the scheme and applying it to others who are not otherwise entitled to under the scheme will not also come under the principle of affirmative action adopted by courts sometimes in order to avoid discrimination. If we may say so, what the High Court has done in this case is a clear and naked usurpation of legislative power."(Emphasis supplied) Further, in para 10 of Satheedevi's case (supra), their Lordships observed thus:
"Before proceeding further, we may notice two well recognized rules of interpretation of statutes. The first and primary rule of construction is that the intention of the legislature must be found in the words used by the legislature itself. If the words used are capable of one construction, only then it would not be open to the courts to adopt any other hypothetical construction on the ground that such hypothetical construction is more consistent with the alleged object and policy of the Act. The words used in the material provisions of the statute must be interpreted in their plain grammatical meaning and it is only when such words are capable of two constructions that the question of giving effect to the policy or object of the Act can legitimately arise - Kanai Lal Sur v. Paramnidhi Sadhukhan, 1958 SCR 30 360 : (AIR 1957 SC 907). The other important rule of interpretation is that the Court cannot rewrite, recast or reframe the legislation because it has no power to do so. The Court cannot add words to a statute or read words which are not therein. Even if there is a defect or an omission in the statute, the Court cannot correct the defect or supply the omission.--Union of India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 323 : (AIR 1992 SC 96) : 1991 AIR SCW 2754), Shyam Kishori Devi v. Patna Municipal Corporation (1966) 3 SCR 466 : (AIR 1966 SC 1678)."
On this premise, it is pleaded that the prayer to declare Section 3(b) as ultra vires should be dismissed.
10. The contention of the petitioners with reference to continuation of no more substitution is also dealt with in Judgment at paragraph 14 to 23. Same paragraphs being relevant are extracted as under:-
14. The next relief Sr. No.(D) to prohibit the respondents from replacing/substituting the petitioners by another set of contractual appointee or by transferring regularly recruited Lecturers from one institution to another till their cases for confirmation/regularization against the post of Lecturers are considered by the Empowered Committee constituted under Section 10 of the Act. This prayer has three aspects. One is the confirmation and second is the regularization. Ist two parts of the prayer are inapplicable in the case of these petitioners as their appointments were made on academic arrangement basis. The third aspect is replacing contract employees by another set of contract employees.
15. This Court has taken a view in case titled Vidhu Puri & Ors. Vs. State thr. Higher & Tech. Edu. Deptt. & Ors. and batch of cases (SWP No.209/ 2003 and connected matters) decided on 04-072016 on the basis of decisions considered and declined in Division Bench case titled State of J&K Vs. Afshan Majid, reported as 2008 (2) J.K.J. 550, which decision was again followed by the Single Judge, to be more specific in the case titled Suman Sharma Vs. State of J&K, reported as 2009 (2) J.K.J. 173. The same was followed in subsequent decisions. This Court also followed in its earlier decision in batch of writ petitions, lead case as SWP No.209/2003, Vidhu Puri & Ors. Vs. State thr. Higher & Tech. Edu. Deptt. & Ors., decided on 14-07-2016.
16. It is the case of respondents that they are not resorting to such a procedure of replacing contract teachers/lecturers by another set of contract teachers/lecturers. The engagement is need based. In any event, the lecturers on contract or engaged on academic arrangement cannot seek to restrain the government from engaging lecturers on contract engagement or academic arrangement as they themselves are beneficiary of such procedure. This issue becomes academic because petitioners are appointed on academic arrangement.
17. On this issue also, Courts have taken a view to safeguard ousting of contract engagements only for the purpose of accommodating new incumbents on contract basis.
In this regard, it will be useful to refer judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled State of Haryana Vs. Piara Singh and Others reported as AIR 1991 SC 223 referring to the following observations:
"............. In State of Haryana Versus Piara Singh, 1992 (4)SC 118 of 152, this Court had held that the normal rule is recruitment through the prescribed agency but due to administrative exigencies, an adhoc or temporary appointments may be made in such situation, this Court held that efforts should always be made to replace such adhoc or temporary employee by regularly selected employees, as early as possible.
Temporary employees also would get liberty to compete along with others for regular selection but if he does not get selected, he must give way to the regularly selected candidates. Appointment of the regularly selected candidates cannot be withheld or kept in abeyance for the sake of such an adhoc or temporary employee. Adhoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another adhoc or temporary employee. He must be replaced only by regularly selected employee."
18. The said ratio will apply to the petitioners only if they are sought to be replaced by another set of teachers/lecturers on academic arrangement.
19. The relief of prohibiting the respondents from replacing/ substituting the petitioners by transferring regularly recruited Lecturers from one institution to another till their cases for confirmation/regularization against the post of Lecturers are considered, has been dealt with by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Dr. Kishore Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported as 1997(1) 107 : 1997 (3) SCC 209, wherein their Lordships observed as under:
"It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since vacancies are existing the appointment of Dr. Solanki by transfer could not be used as a means to terminate the service of the petitioner. We fail to appreciate the contention. It is fairly agreed by the learned counsel that the petitioner has no right to the post and as soon as a duly selected candidate is posted in his place, he has to give place to the duly selected candidate. But his contention is that since Dr. Solanki was selected earlier to the order passed by the Tribunal and had been appointed on his transfer, it cannot be used as a means to terminate the services of the petitioner. His contention absolutely has no force. As soon as the duly selected candidate is posted, whether directly or by transfer, necessarily the petitioner has to give place to such a candidate. The petitions, therefore, do not merit interference.‖ Therefore, the said plea has no legal basis.
20. This Court hastens to hold that academic arrangement teachers/lecturers cannot seek to hold on to their post for ever. If they are found not to be up to the mark or efficient then their continuation will be a question mark. It is for the authorities to decide the best course of action in a non-arbitrary manner. If academic arrangement teachers/lecturers seek extension then they have to make a representation for considering the extension of service, which can be considered on its own merits.
21. In this regard, it will be useful to refer to the decision of this Court where a plea of retention when employed on contractual basis, Division Bench of this Court considered and declined the claim in case titled State of J&K Vs. Afshan Majid, reported as 2008 (2) J.K.J. 550, which decision was followed by the Single Judge, to be more specific in the case titled Suman Sharma Vs. State of J&K, reported as 2009 (2) J.K.J. 173.
22. In that in paragraph 18, it has been held as follows:
"18. For the reasons mentioned above and in view of the afore-quote observations made by the Division of this Court in cases referred to above, these petitions are disposed of with the following directions:-
I/ That the petitioners are not entitled to regularization of their services against the posts they have been engaged on contract/temporary basis as the said engagement has been done without following any procedure as provided for filling up the post belong to State-Cadre;
II/ That the petitioners shall be allowed to continue till the posts are filled up by a regular selection process. The State respondent, however, shall be free to continue this engagement of the petitioners only if there is requirement to engage them keeping in view the interest of students who are studying in particular colleges;
23. In the light of the above, petitioners appointed on academic arrangement have no legal right to seek regularization dehors the Act.
11. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners with reference to the claim in the writ petition, if accepted and relief granted, will of course be violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Needless to mention that the post of Lecturer in the Government Degree Colleges is borne on the services of the Jammu and Kashmir Education (Gazetted) College Service Recruitment Rules, 2008 and is a gazetted post to be filled up by direct recruitment of advertisement by the Public Service Commission.
12. Merely because the petitioners have rendered services on contract for academic session with reference to limited purpose, does not vest them with any indefeasible right of claiming continuation/seeking policy for regularization. The claim for regularization in such cases of arrangement is deprecated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi (3) and Ors. Paragraphs 45 and 48 of the Judgment being relevant are taken note of:
"45.While directing that appointments, temporary or casual, be regularized or made permanent, courts are swayed by the fact that the concerned person has worked for some time and in some cases for a considerable length of time. It is not as if the person who accepts an engagement either temporary or casual in nature, is not aware of the nature of his employment. He accepts the employment with eyes open. It may be true that he is not in a position to bargain -- not at arms length -- since he might have been searching for some employment so as to eke out his livelihood and accepts whatever he gets. But on that ground alone, it would not be appropriate to jettison the constitutional scheme of appointment and to take the view that a person who has temporarily or casually got employed should be directed to be continued permanently. By doing so, it will be creating another mode of public appointment which is not permissible. If the court were to void a contractual employment of this nature on the ground that the parties were not having equal bargaining power, that too would not enable the court to grant any relief to that employee. A total embargo on such casual or temporary employment is not possible, given the exigencies of administration and if imposed, would only mean that some people who at least get employment temporarily, contractually or casually, would not be getting even that employment when securing of such employment brings at least some succor to them. After all, innumerable citizens of our vast country are in search of employment and one is not compelled to accept a casual or temporary employment if one is not inclined to go in for such an employment. It is in that context that one has to proceed on the basis that the employment was accepted fully knowing the nature of it and the consequences flowing from it. In other words, even while accepting the employment, the person concerned knows the nature of his employment. It is not an appointment to a post in the real sense of the term. The claim acquired by him in the post in which he is temporarily employed or the interest in that post cannot be considered to be of such a magnitude as to enable the giving up of the procedure established, for making regular appointments to available posts in the services of the State. The argument that since one has been working for some time in the post, it will not be just to discontinue him, even though he was aware of the nature of the employment when he first took it up, is not one that would enable the jettisoning of the procedure established by law for public employment and would have to fail when tested on the touchstone of constitutionality and equality of opportunity enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
48. It was then contended that the rights of the employees thus appointed, under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, are violated. It is stated that the State has treated the employees unfairly by employing them on less than minimum wages and extracting work from them for a pretty long period in comparison with those directly recruited who are getting more wages or salaries for doing similar work. The employees before us were engaged on daily wages in the concerned department on a wage that was made known to them. There is no case that the wage agreed upon was not being paid. Those who are working on daily wages formed a class by themselves, they cannot claim that they are discriminated as against those who have been regularly recruited on the basis of the relevant rules. No right can be founded on an employment on daily wages to claim that such employee should be treated on a par with a regularly recruited candidate, and made permanent in employment, even assuming that the principle could be invoked for claiming equal wages for equal work. There is no fundamental right in those who have been employed on daily wages or temporarily or on contractual basis, to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. As has been held by this Court, they cannot be said to be holders of a post, since, a regular appointment could be made only by making appointments consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The right to be treated equally with the other employees employed on daily wages, cannot be extended to a claim for equal treatment with those who were regularly employed. That would be treating unequals as equals. It cannot also be relied on to claim a right to be absorbed in service even though they have never been selected in terms of the relevant recruitment rules. The arguments based on Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution are therefore overruled.
13. The relief with reference to declaring Section 3 (b) of J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 is ultra-vires to the Constitution of India is already declined by this Court while deciding the case of similarly situated academic arrangement incumbents titled Rajani Kumari and Ors. Vs. State and Ors., reported in 2017 (1) JKJ 310 [HC]. Paragraph 4 and 5 being relevant are extracted as under:-
" 4. The pith and substance of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the appointments made earlier to coming into force of the Act whether on ad hoc basis or on contractual basis and subsequently on consolidated pay after coming into effect the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, are denied regularization. The Government by design applying the Act is excluding petitioners on the ground that the petitioners' appointments are made on academic arrangement basis for a fixed term in a Government Department. This devious method deprives the petitioners of their right to be regularized. Whereas contract, ad-hoc and consolidated pay appointees are benefitted. The said provision is, therefore, arbitrary, illegal and constitutionally invalid. The petitioners' appointment is akin to that of appointment made on ad-hoc, consolidated pay or contract basis. Equals are treated unequally. The exclusion is discriminatory and malafide.
5. On this premise, the learned counsel pleaded that Section 3(b) of the Act, 2010 has to be held invalid and struck down. In support of this argument, it was primarily contended that the provision particularly clause (b) of Section 3 is a design to deny the benefit to the petitioners, who have been appointed and working in a post which is also in the nature of on adhoc or contractual appointment. It is a colourable exercise of power and, therefore, it has to be struck down.
14. The relief with reference to continuation of petitioners having worked for academic arrangement is already settled by the Division Bench of this Court in case titled State of J&K and Ors. vs. Afshan Majid and Ors., reported in 2008 (2) JKJ 550 [HC]. The Division Bench while disposing of the Letters Patent Appeal, filed by the State has held that contractual Lecturers engaged for a period not exceeding ten months on academic arrangement and at the end of the term the engagement comes to an end and for the next year/session every candidate is obliged to make fresh applications for selection and such arrangement evolved by the State Government cannot be held to be arbitrary, unreasonable or unjustified.
10. Viewed thus, the petitioners have failed to make out a case for admission, therefore, the writ petition is dismissed in limini along-with connected MP, however, without costs.
(Ali Mohammad Magrey) Judge Srinagar 19.04.2019 Mohammad Yasin Dar MOHAMMAD YASIN DAR 2019.04.21 17:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document