Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Hilal Ahmad Sofi vs State Of J&K & Ors on 3 June, 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR LPA No. 77 of 2010 IA No. 133 of 2010 Hilal Ahmad Sofi Petitioners State of J&K & ors Respondents !Mr. Asif Ahmad Bhat, Advocate ^Mr. I. Sofi, Advocate Honble Mr. Justice Dr. Aftab H. Saikia Chief Justice, Judge Honble Mr. Justice Gh. Hasnain Massodi, Judge Date: 03/06/2010 :J U D G M E N T:
1. Heard Mr. Asif Ahmad Bhat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant as well as Mr. I. Sofi, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 5.
2. This letters patent appeal witnesses challenge to the judegment and order dated May 17, 2010 passed by the Writ Court.
3. In disposing of the writ petition, the learned Single Judge observed as under:
The only issue which arises for determination in this case is whether the age of a candidate seeking appointment/engagement under Rehbar-e-Taleem Scheme is to be taken as on 1st January of the year in which the selection is made or on the date of advertisement.
On going through the scheme, I find that provisions of CSR apply in such cases which provide that date of birth should be determined as on 1st January of the year when selection is made. On that basis, I do not find any merit for admission of the writ petition. Dismissed.
Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated.
4. For proper adjudication of the issue involved herein and in light of the judgment passed, as quoted above, a close perusal of the relevant provisions of the law is highly necessary.
5. The law referred to herein governing the point agitated is Article 37 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations (for short CSR) which is extracted hereunder:
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 the 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.
37(2) 37(3) Notwithstanding anything otherwise contained in Articles 37(1) and 37(2) the following maximum age limits shall apply (and shall always be deemed to have applied from 16.12.1988) in respect of direct recruits to Government service in all the subordinate and Gazetted services on the first day of the January of the year in which the competitive examination is held or nomination is made in respect of the vacancy to which direct recruitment is made:-
Category Maximum age
(i) General candidates 35 years
(ii) Physically handicapped 37 years
(iii) Members of SC & ST 38 years
(iv) Candidates already in 38 years
Govt. service
Provided that the age limits as shown above against each category may be relaxed by the competent authority in respect of any individual case on the merits of each case;
Provided further that the Government may in respect of any particular service prescribe a different age limit. (Highlighting and emphasis supplied)
6. The above provisions of law would manifestly indicate that for any direct recruitment to the Government service either in a subordinate or a Gazetted service, the age of a competing candidate shall be determined on first day of January of the year in which the selection is made. Government order No. 396 Edu of 2000 dated April 28, 2000, issued with regard to Rehbar-e-Taleem Scheme to ensure peoples participation in the management of education at grass roots level, in clause IV under the caption Eligibility clearly stipulates that the candidate shall, as far as possible, fulfil the age qualification as prescribed by the State Government.
7. In view of the above position of law and also having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length, we are of the view that the age has to be determined not on the date of issuance of the advertisement, as claimed by the learned counsel for the appellant, but as on 1st of January of the year in which the selection is made.
8. That being so, we do not find any merit in this appeal.
9. The appeal is dismissed.
(Gh. Hasnain Massodi) (Dr. Aftab H. Saikia)
Judge Chief Justice
Srinagar
03.06.2010
Yasmeen