Tanveer Ayub Mandoo & Anr vs State Of J&K & Ors on 23 May, 2019

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench

Tanveer Ayub Mandoo & Anr vs State Of J&K & Ors on 23 May, 2019

1. The principal grievance of the petitioners projected in this writ petition relates to the disputation and denial on the part of the respondent, Commissioner/Secretary to Government, Public Health Engineering, Irrigation and Flood Control Department, J&K, to treat the petitioners‟ Degrees of Bachelor of Technology in Civil (Construction Management), awarded to them by Indira Gandhi National Open University in pursuit of their Distance Mode Education, as recognised Degrees under the Jammu and Kashmir (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 1997, and consequently, the rejection of the petitioners‟ claim for their inclusion in the seniority list of Degree holder Junior Engineers.

2. The petitioners, being Diploma holders in Civil Engineering at the relevant time, were appointed as Junior Engineers (Civil) Grade-II in the Public Health Engineering, Irrigation and Flood Control Department, J&K 2 (hereafter, PHE & I&FC Department) in terms of Government order no.262- PW (PWD) of 2007 dated 29.08.2007. Prior to their appointment as such, they had sought admission to the Bachelor of Technology (Civil) Course in Engineering Department of Indira Gandhi National Open University by Distance Education Mode (hereafter, IGNOU) in the year 2006 and 2004, respectively. According to the petitioners, at the time of their appointment, they had completed part of the theory and practical course undertaken at National Institute of Technology, Srinagar, (NIT) with which IGNOU is stated to have an affiliation. It is further stated that for purposes of undertaking practical part of the course, viva voce and project work, the petitioners were taken on Rolls of the NIT. On successful completion of the course, they were awarded the requisite Degrees by IGNOU in May 2011 and September 2011, respectively.

3. It is relevant to mention here that in 2011 itself, the Government, vide order no.442-GAD of 2011 dated 13.04.2011 read with order no.558-GAD of 2011 dated 13.05.2011, had constituted a Committee to examine and make recommendations as to the validity of Degrees obtained through Distance Education Mode. The Committee made its recommendations which were approved by the Government in the Higher Education Department in terms of Government order no.252-HE of 2012 dated 30.05.2012 pursuant to Cabinet Decision no.104/14/2012 dated 16.05.2012 passed in that behalf. The aforesaid Government order, inter alia, provided that the degree awarded through Distance Education Mode by the Central Universities, established under the Act of Parliament and having jurisdiction to extend their activities in the entire country shall also be recognised. In clause a(vi) of the said Government order dated 30.05.2012, it was further stated that the degrees 3 awarded by the Universities in Science Stream, where practicals are part of the curriculum, shall not be considered as equivalent to the corresponding degrees awarded through regular mode by the State Universities. However, degrees in such of the Distance Education Council approved science subjects where practicals are part of the curriculum and are conducted from within the respective campuses of the University Grants Commission recognized Universities, established by an Act of the Parliament or the State Legislature, shall also be recognized.

4. It is averred in the petition that the above Government order was implemented and given effect to by the Government in the Public Works (R&B) Department (HRM Branch) in terms of Government order no.417- PW(R&B) of 2013 dated 25.10.2013 whereby seven Diploma holder Junior Engineers (Civil) were treated as Degree Holders from the dates shown against each. Not only that, it is also stated that in the PHE and I&FC Department as well, one Shri Abdul Hamid Bhat, Works Supervisor, Irrigation & Flood Control Division, Handwara, who had acquired higher qualification, was placed on a higher post as Incharge Junior Engineer in terms of Government order no.206-PW (Hyd) of 2014 dated 11.06.2014. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner no.1 also made a representation for extending such benefit to him and fixation of seniority in the seniority list of Degree holders. His representation was initially taken cognizance of and processed, inasmuch as a notice was published in the local English Daily, Greater Kashmir, in its issue dated 06.08.2012 by the Commissioner / Secretary to Government, PHE, I&FC Department, inviting objections in the following manner:

"Whereas, the case has been examined in this department with reference to the rules and on the basis of verification of the degree certificate from the concerned institution/University, it has been decided to fix his inter-se seniority in the cadre of Junior Engineers (Degree holders) from the date (of) passing of degree i.e. B. Tech. in Civil Construction Management.

Now, therefore, before the orders for the fixation of seniority of Sh. Tanveer Ayoub Mandoo, Junior Engineer (Civil) at appropriate place in the seniority list of Junior Engineers (Degree holders) is issued, all the concerned likely to be affected are called upon to file their objections, if any, within a period of 21 days from the date of publication of this notice in print media failing which it shall be presumed that no body has any objection and necessary orders to this effect shall be issued accordingly."

It is stated that petitioner no.2 also made a similar representation, but in his case no such steps were initiated.

5. However, according to the petitioners, the respondents did not do anything beyond publication of the above notice. They, feeling aggrieved by such inaction on the part of the respondents, filed writ petition, SWP no.2005/2015. That writ petition was disposed of by the Court, without expressing any opinion with regard to the merits of the claim of the petitioners, at admission stage by order dated 27.12.2016 with direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in light of Government order no.252-HE of 2012 dated 30.05.2012. The Court, however, observed that in case petitioners were found similarly situated as the persons who have been accorded benefit in terms of order dated 25.10.2013, the same benefit be extended to them.

6. By the impugned order, viz., Government order no.41-PW(Htd) of 2017 dated 27.01.2017, purported to be issued pursuant to the aforesaid Court direction, respondent no.1 has rejected the claim of the petitioners for inclusion of their names in the seniority list of Junior Engineers (Degree holders), stating, inter alia, that the Degree obtained by them through 5 IGNOU is not the same as acquired through regular mode, and is also not covered under / provided for in the provisions of the J&K Engineering (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 1997. The petitioners have challenged the said order in the present writ petition.

7. Respondents in their reply/objections have stated that the petitioners‟ „claim was not considered as the degree in the science subject obtained through Distance Mode even awarded by any recognized institution are not treated valid and equivalent to the degrees obtained through regular mode or AMIE Section A&B as per the provision of the J&K Engineering (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 1997 issued vide SRO 180 dated 26.05.1997‟. It is averred in the reply/objections that the department, vide communication no.PW/PHEK/137/2015-WP dated 18.10.2017, took up the matter with the Registrar, IGNOU, for providing details of attendance, both theory and practicals, of the petitioners, but the department did not receive any reply from the University.

8. I heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter.

9. At the outset, it may be mentioned that from the impugned order it appears that the claim of the petitioners had earlier been rejected while considering their case pursuant to the interim direction of the Court dated 20.07.2016 vide Government order no.339-PW(Hyd) of 2016 dated 08.12.2016, but that order was not brought to the notice of the Court while the petitioners‟ earlier writ petition, SWP no.2005/2015, was heard by the Court and disposed of on 27.12.2016, though the respondents were duly represented before the Court by Ms. Mokhsa Qazmi, AAG, on that date. That Government order has also not been brought on record of this petition, 6 though a mention thereof is made in the reply/objections filed on behalf of the respondents. In any case, since the Government has reiterated its grounds of rejection of the claim of the petitioners in the impugned order and it is stated therein that the case of the petitioners‟ was re-examined pursuant to the final Court order dated 27.12.2016, the earlier Government order dated 08.12.2016 thus stands merged in the impugned order.

10. Coming to the impugned Government order dated 27.01.2017, it appears therefrom that the claim of the petitioners has been rejected principally on the ground that the Degrees awarded by the universities, whether situated within or outside the State, through Distance Mode in the subjects falling in the Science Stream, where practicals are part of the curriculum, are not held as equivalent to the corresponding Degrees awarded through regular mode by the State Universities. In this regard, in the impugned order, support is sought to be derived from Government order no.252-HE of 2012 dated 30.05.2012 issued by the Higher Education Department, in the following words:

"Whereas, the plea of the petitioners was also found to be without any substance in terms of Government Order No.252-HE of 2012 dated 30.05.2012 issued by the Higher Education Department, wherein the Degrees awarded by the Universities, whether situated within or outside the State, through the distance mode in the subjects falling in the Science Stream, where practicals are part of the curriculum, are not held as equivalent to the corresponding degrees awarded through the regular mode by the State Universities; and Whereas, the standing Committee of ARI & Trainings Department and the Committee constituted by the General Administration Department for the purpose have also recommended that the analogous degree / qualification of AMICE cannot be held as equal to a degree acquired through regular mode;"

As to the fact that Government order no.252-HE of 2012 dated 30.05.2012 was implemented and given effect to in terms of Government order no.417- 7 PW(R&B) of 2013 dated 25.10.2013 vis-à-vis certain Junior Engineers of the Public Works Department, it is stated in the impugned order that the plea of the petitioners is devoid of merit as PHE/I&FC and Public Works (R&B) are two separate Departments and the orders issued by one cannot be held binding upon the other.

11. Given the fact that the Government in the Higher Education Department have issued an order, being Government order no.252-HE$ of 2012 dated 30.05.2012 based on a cabinet decision, on the subject of validity of Degrees obtained through Distance Mode of Education, I am of the opinion that reference to any recommendations made by either the Standing Committee of ARI and Trainings Department or any other Committee constituted by the General Administration Department for the purpose is irrelevant. Any recommendations or report made by any authority, contrary to, and in face of, what is contained in Government order no.252-HE of 2012 dated 30.05.2012, which is founded on a Cabinet Decision, do not have the force of law and cannot be relied upon for controverting the claim of the petitioners based on the said Government order dated 30.05.2012. Respondent no.1 was obliged to consider the case of the petitioners, with or without a Court order, on the principles laid down in Government order dated 30.05.2012, not on any recommendation or report of any Department. Respondent no.1, having chosen not to go by the said Government order no.252-HE of 2012 dated 30.05.2012, and, instead, having proceeded to rely on some recommendation or report of the Standing Committee of ARI & Trainings Department or the Committee constituted by the General Administration Department, has fallen into a grave error. It is not the case of respondent no.1, nor could it be, that Government order no.251-HE of 2012 8 dated 30.05.2012 is not applicable to, or binding on, the PHE/I&FC Department. In fact, respondent no.1 is bound to follow and obey the said Government order as any other Department of the State, especially so because the decisions reflected therein have been ordered to be carried in the relevant recruitment rules.

12. The statement that PHE/I&FC Department and Public Works (R&B) Department are two separate departments and that the orders passed by one Department are not binding on the other demonstrates that respondent no.1 has misconstrued the matter. It is not the case of discretion whether to follow the orders passed by a sister Department, but a matter of mandatory obligation cast on the State and its all functionaries to ensure, vis-à-vis its employees, equality before the law, the equal protection of laws and the equality of opportunity in matter of public employment guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is one thing to say that the two Departments are different, but it is another to say that the employees of the two Departments constitute two different classes. It is not the case of the respondent that the employees of the PHE/I&FC Department constitute a different class than those working in the Public Works (R&B) Department. In fact, till recently, Public Works (R&B) Department, Mechanical Engineering Department and the PHE, I&FC Department, also known as the Hydraulic wing, constituted one single Department, i.e., the Public Works Department. It was pursuant to Government order no.250-PW(Hyd) of 2009 dated 16.07.2009 that segregation of cadres of PHE, I&FC Department and R&B Department was ordered to facilitate the disposal of business in the two departments independently and expeditiously. However, the subordinate staff of the two Departments continue to be governed by the same set of Rules, 9 namely, the Jammu and Kashmir Engineering (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 1997. No doubt, the aforesaid Government order dated 16.07.2009 provided that the two departments shall process the Recruitment Rules after mutual consultation in consonance with the specific technical, logistic, administrative and work requirements of each department. However, it was provided that till the process was completed and appropriate notification was issued, both the departments shall be governed by the existing Recruitment Rules as the basic eligibility criteria for selection to the post of an Engineer shall almost be the same in both the departments. It was further provided therein that the seniority of Junior Engineers / draftsmen shall be reckoned within the respective departments from the date of their recruitment. It is not the case of the respondent that the employees of the PHE, I&FC Department are governed by any other Rules. In fact, it is their admitted case that the employees of the two Departments are governed by the same Rules. So, for all practical purposes, the employees of the two Departments, being governed by one set of recruitment rules and their eligibility criteria for selection to the post of an Engineer being the same, constitute a single class and, therefore, they cannot be treated differently in the matter of application of the Rules and/or the Government order under reference. If, as in the present case, they are treated differently, that would amount to discrimination within the meaning of law. On that count such action is rendered arbitrary, hit by the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

13. In the penultimate para of the impugned order, it is stated that the Degree obtained by the petitioners through IGNOU is not same as required through the regular mode and is not covered / provided for in the provisions 10 of the Jammu and Kashmir Engineering (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 1997 (hereinafter, the Recruitment Rules). In this regard, let the Recruitment Rules be examined.

14. In terms of Rule 1 thereof, the Recruitment Rules apply to all the wings of Public Works Department, including the Hydraulic Department. Rule 3 of the rules speaks of constitution of a single Service, namely, the Jammu and Kashmir Engineering (Subordinate) Service, though, as mentioned above, the two Departments stand segregated now. Rule 5 of the Recruitment Rules deals with qualifications and method of recruitment. It states that no person shall be eligible for appointment or promotion to any post in any class, category or grade in the service unless he possesses the qualifications as laid down in the Schedule II-A and II-B annexed to the Rules and fulfils other requirements of recruitment as provided in the rules and orders for the time being in force. It be seen that this Rule does not refer only to the requirements of recruitment as provided in the rules, but also specifically says „and orders for the time being in force‟. So, going by the mandate of Rule 5 of the Recruitment Rules, recruitment to any post in any class, category or grade in the Service, either by appointment or promotion, is governed by the Recruitment Rules and any orders for the time being in force. Therefore, it is not only the Recruitment Rules which are relevant, but also the Government orders having bearing on the subject. By virtue of this provision in the Recruitment Rules, respondent no.1 was and is obliged to follow and abide by what was provided by the Government in its order dated 30.05.2012. In other words, this Government order has to be read as a part of the Rules. This is one aspect of the matter. The other aspect is that, apart from Rule 5, there is no provision contained in the Recruitment Rules, 11 speaking about the qualifications for recruitment. The Schedule II-A appended to the Recruitment Rules, which deals with the executive staff and is relevant here, as against Class I, category A post, namely, Junior Engineer Grade-I (Civil), Mechanical, Electrical, the qualification prescribed is B. E. Civil/AMIE Section A&B / 3 years Diploma in Civil and Mechanical Engineering from recognized Institute. However, as mentioned above, in terms of Rule 5 of the Recruitment Rules, the qualification mentioned in Schedule II-A has to be read with Government order no.252-HE of 2012 dated 30.05.2012. Not only is so said in Rule 5 of the Recruitment Rules, clauses a(x) of the aforesaid Government order also says the same thing in the following words:

"x) the changes in the Recruitment Rules in line with the above decision to be effected by all the Departments to obviate the possibility of litigation;"

Not only that, in terms of Clause „b‟ of the aforesaid Government order dated 30.05.2012, approval was also granted to the necessary changes in the Recruitment Rules to be effected by all the Departments.

15. Now, the question is what does the aforesaid Government order provide for in this regard? In that connection, it would be appropriate to extract the said Government order hereunder.

"Government of Jammu and Kashmir Higher Education Department Civil Secretariat, Srinagar.

Subject: Validity of Degrees obtained through Distance Mode of Education.

Reference: Cabinet Decision No.104/14/2012 dated 16-05-2012.

                   Government Order No. 252-HE of 2012
                   Dated:-                  30-05-2012
             Sanction is accorded for:

a) approval to the recommendations made by the Committee constituted, vide Government order No.442-GAD of 2011 dated 12 13.04.2011 read with Government order No.558-GAD of 2011 dated 13.05.2011, reproduced below:

i) the degrees obtained through distance education mode, which have been approved by the Distance Education Council and awarded from their headquarters by University Grants Commission recognized Universities, established by an Act of State Legislature, shall be recognized for the purpose of employment as it is the prerogative of the employer to prescribe the eligibility for any post or service;

ii) the degree awarded through Distance Mode by the Central Universities, established under the Act of Parliament and having jurisdiction to extend their activities in the entire country shall also be recognized;

iii) ...

iv) ...

v) ...

vi) the degree awarded by the Universities, whether situated within or outside the State through distance mode in the subjects falling in Science Stream, where practicals are part of the curriculum, shall not be considered as equivalent to the corresponding degrees awarded through regular mode by the State Universities. However, degrees in such of the Distance Education Council approved science subjects where practicals are part of the curriculum and are conducted from within the respective campuses of the University Grants Commission recognised Universities, established by an Act of the Parliament or the State Legislative, shall also be recognised;

vii) ...

viii) ...

ix) ...

x) the changes in the Recruitment Rules in line with the above decision to be effected by all the Departments to obviate the possibility of litigation;

xi) for the purpose of granting promotions to the in-

service candidates on the basis of the additional qualifications acquired through distance mode of education after satisfying all procedural requirement and subject to the fulfilment of the principles / conditions laid down hereinabove, the concerned administrative departments or the authorities competent to place / promote them in the next higher grades, shall put in place a mechanism, as they deem fit, to assess the standards of the degrees so obtained in order to treat them equivalent to the degrees awarded by the Universities through regular mode of 13 education. The said mechanism can be akin to the written test that has been decided to be conducted by the recruiting agencies in respect of eligible aspirants to the advertised posts; and

b) approval to the necessary changes in the Recruitment Rules to be effected by all the Departments.

By order of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir."

16. It is thus seen that clause a(ii) of the aforesaid Government order unambiguously provides that the degrees awarded through Distance Mode by the Central Universities, established under the Act of Parliament and having jurisdiction to extend their activities in the entire country shall also be recognized. There is no dispute that the IGNOU is a Central University, established under the Act of Parliament and having jurisdiction to extend their activities in the entire country. Therefore, in terms of the said clause of the Government order under reference, the degrees offered by IGNOU have been ordered to be recognised. In fact, the petitioners have brought on record copy of communication no.HE/Gen/B-Tech/IGBNOU/2014 dated 03.01.2014 of the Under Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, concerning the application of one Shri Jag Mohan Singh, Junior Engineer (Civil) for appearing in B-Tech in Civil Engineering from IGNOU, whereby the Commissioner / Secretary to the Government, PHE / I&FC Department, has been informed that the degrees offered by IGNOU are recognized by the J&K State Government. It is true that in clause a(vi) of the Government order dated 30.05.2012, it has been said that the degree awarded by the Universities, whether situated within or outside the State through distance mode in the subjects falling in Science Stream, where practicals are part of the curriculum, shall not be considered as equivalent to the corresponding degrees awarded through regular mode by the State Universities. However, the clause does not end there; it further continues to 14 say that „degrees in such of the Distance Education Council approved science subjects where practicals are part of the curriculum and are conducted from within the respective campuses of the University Grants Commission recognised Universities, established by an Act of the Parliament or the State Legislative, shall also be recognised‟. In so far as respondent no.1 in the impugned order has referred to and relied on only the first part of the aforesaid clause, saying that in terms of Government Order No.252-HE of 2012 dated 30.05.2012 issued by the Higher Education Department, the Degrees awarded by the Universities, whether situated within or outside the State, through the distance mode in the subjects falling in the Science Stream, where practicals are part of the curriculum, are not held as equivalent to the corresponding degrees awarded through the regular mode by the State Universities, it becomes manifest that respondent no.1 has not applied its mind to the actual and full wording of the clause in question. It is rather mischievous to rely on part of the clause and ignore the relevant portion thereof. The condition imposed in the first part of the clause a(vi) of the Government order is qualified by its second part, saying that degrees in such of the Distance Education Council approved science subjects where practicals are part of the curriculum and are conducted from within the respective campuses of the University Grants Commission recognised Universities, established by an Act of the Parliament or the State Legislative, shall also be recognised. It is the case of the petitioners that they conducted the practical curriculum of their study course at the NIT, Srinagar, with which IGNOU has an affiliation. It is not the case of the respondents that NIT is not affiliated to the IGNOU, or that NIT is not established by an Act of the Parliament, or that NIT does not fall within the category of „campuses of the 15 University Grants Commission recognised Universities, established by an Act of the Parliament‟. The respondents have also not brought anything on record to demonstrate that the petitioners did not participate in the conduct of any practicals at the NIT, as has been asserted by them. So, it is thus established that respondent no.1 has not properly applied its mind to the relevant clauses of the Government order in question.

17. Furthermore, in their reply/objections the respondents have made a passing reference to the communication dated 18.10.2017 written by the Under Secretary to Government, PHE/I&FC Department, to the Registrar, IGNOU, seeking details of attendance in theory and practical of the petitioners while prosecuting B. Tech course, saying that no reply has been received by the Department. It is stated that the object behind writing to the IGNOU to furnish the attendances both in theory and practical was to ascertain the actual position and the total time spent by these petitioners while carrying out their studies. In this regard, it would suffice to say that non-receipt of reply from IGNOU, by no plausible standards, can impact the genuineness of the degree certificates of the petitioners. In fact, it may be reiterated here that in terms of the publication dated 06.08.2012 made in Greater Kashmir on the subject of fixation of seniority in the seniority of degree holders in respect of petitioner no.1, it was clearly stated that the case has been examined in the department with reference to the rules and on the basis of verification of the degree certificate from the concerned institution / University, and that it has been decided to fix his inter se seniority in the cadre of Junior Engineers (Degree Holders) from the date of passing of degree, i.e., B. Tech in Civil Construction Management. So, the degree certificate of one of the petitioners stood duly verified. It is not 16 understandable what was the requirement to obtain the above information from IGNOU and, if it was really important, why did the Department not pursue the matter with the IGNOU. It is not the case of the respondents that, pursuant to clause a(xi) of the Government order dated 30.05.2012, any mechanism was devised, placed or laid down which required to have information about the total time spent by a candidate while carrying out his studies by distance education mode for assessing the standard of the degrees so obtained through distance mode of education, and that it was in that connection that such information was required and sought from IGNOU. In any case, if that was the case, it was for the respondent concerned to pursue the matter with the IGNOU and wait till such information was obtained. Non- receipt of such information from IGNOU, with which the petitioners had nothing to do, would not connote, by any principle, that the total time spent by the petitioners while carrying out their studies fell short of any standard fixed by the respondent. In fact, no mechanism or standard, devised or laid down by respondent no.1 in terms of clause a(xi) of the Government order dated 30.05.2012 was either spoken of or brought to the notice of the Court on behalf of the respondents. In that view of the matter, non-receipt of information from IGNOU would not supply a reason or a ground to respondent no.1 to draw an inference against the petitioners‟ degrees and deny to them the benefit of Government order dated 30.05.2012. In fact, it may be mentioned here that such is not the ground of rejection of the claim of the petitioners in the impugned order. It, therefore, seems to be an after- thought on the part of the respondents in an attempt to add some weightage to the disputation sought to be raised with regard to the petitioners‟ degrees, which, however, is, and turns out to be, nothing more than a damp squib. 17

18. It be further seen that clause (b) of the aforesaid Government order clearly grants approval to the necessary changes in the Recruitment Rules to be effected by all the Departments pursuant to the decisions made and reflected in the said Government order. Though such changes have not actually and practically been carried out in the Recruitment Rules, but that fact by itself would not nullify what is approved and ordered by the Government. As already said in this judgment, the Recruitment Rules have to be read with this Government order not only in terms of clauses a(x) and (b) thereof, but also as provided in Rule 5 of the Recruitment Rules, referred to earlier hereinabove.

19. The crux of all what has been said and discussed above is that the impugned order cannot withstand the scrutiny of law, being a product of non- application of mind, and being violative of the Recruitment Rules read with the terms of Government order no. 252-HE of 2012 dated 30.05.2012, and hit by the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It, therefore, deserves to be quashed.

20. Now, the question is what further relief can be granted in favour of the petitioners. It is seen that the only ground on which the petitioners‟ claim was rejected by respondent no.1 is that the B. Tech. Degrees obtained by them through Distance Education Mode are not held as equivalent to the corresponding degrees awarded through regular mode by the State Universities. This ground, as noticed above, is contrary to clauses a(ii) and a(vi) of the Government order dated 30.05.2012 and falls flat. No other ground was taken or pressed into service during the course of arguments. However, this Court in its extra ordinary writ jurisdiction cannot declare the 18 degree certificates obtained by the petitioners through Distance Education Mode as equivalent to those obtained through regular mode. This Court can, at best, say that, as discussed above, such degree certificates are duly recognised under the Rules and that there was no legally tenable reason or justification for respondent no.1 to have refused to honour these certificates and rejected the claim of the petitioners. Therefore, the respondent no.1 is bound to reconsider the case of the petitioners strictly in light of the Recruitment Rules read with government order dated 30.05.2012, keeping also in mind that similarly situated persons in the Works Department have been granted such benefit and that no discrimination can be meted out to the petitioners in this regard on any count, whatsoever, unless, of course, there was any definite information / proof with the Department that the petitioners had not done any practicals during their course study or their attendance in such practicals and theory was short of the requirement. I may, however, hasten to point out that till this date respondent no.1 has failed to plead, establish or bring to the notice of the Court that the petitioners had not undergone any practicals or that they had spent a shorter period than required by any mechanism on the course study comprising theory and practicals .

21. This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned Government order no.41-PW(Hyd) of 2017 dated 27.01.2017 is quashed. Respondent no.1 is directed to re-consider the case of the petitioners in furtherance of publication dated 06.08.2012 for fixation of their seniority in the seniority list of Degree holders.

23. This judgment will also govern the disposal of the connected MP. Interim direction, if any, passed and subsisting shall merge in the final judgment.

24. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

(Ali Mohammad Magrey) Judge Srinagar, 23.05.2019 Syed Ayaz, Secretary.

SYED AYAZ HUSSAIN 2019.05.23 12:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench