Back
2007 Supreme(J&K) 25
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR
Nirmal Singh,Mansoor Ahmad Mir, JJ.
Surjeet Singh Bali - Appellant
Versus
State Of J&K & Ors. - Respondent
LPA(SW) No. 649/1999
Decided On : 14 March, 2007
Advocate For Respondent: B.S. Salathia
Advocate For Respondent: A.V. Gupta
Advocate For Respondent: D.C. Raina
Advocate For Respondent: Pranav Kohli
The interpretation of rules regarding reservation, particularly SRO 126/94, should be beneficial and helpful to the candidates belonging to the reserved categories.
Headnote:
RBA Certificates - Jammu and Kashmir Judicial Service Examination - Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Judicial) Recruitment Rules, 1967 - Rules 1-1, 15, SRO 126/04 - The court discussed the eligibility of candidates under RBA category, the purpose and interpretation of SRO 126/94, and the legal reasoning behind the acceptance of RBA certificates after the cut-off date. Key legal provisions include Rules 8, 11, and 12 of the Recruitment Rules and SRO 126/94.
Fact of the Case:
Appellant challenged the selection of private respondents in the Jammu and Kashmir Judicial Service Examination based on the acceptance of RBA certificates after the cut-off date. The court analyzed the eligibility of the private respondents and the interpretation of relevant rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that private respondents were eligible to appear in the examination as per the academic qualifications and the provisions of SRO 126/94. The court upheld the impugned judgment, stating that the appeal fails.
Issues: The eligibility of private respondents under the RBA category and the acceptance of RBA certificates after the cut-off date were the main issues.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the academic qualifications specified in Rule 8 of the Recruitment Rules and the provisions of SRO 126/94 to determine the eligibility of the private respondents. The purpose and interpretation of SRO 126/94 were crucial in the court's decision.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned judgment was upheld.
1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dt. 20th of Oct 99, passed
by the learned Single Bench of this Court whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant bearing SWP No. 1540/1997 came to be dismissed (for short the impugned judgment).
2. Appellant appeared in an examination of Jammu and Kashmir Judicial Service, which
came to be conducted by respondent No.4 in terms of notification dt. 14th of May 96. He was not selected which constrained him to challenge the selection of private respondents 5 to 10 on
the grounds taken in the writ petition aforementioned. During the pendency of the writ petition, appellant gave up his claim vis-a-vis private respondents 5, 8 to 10 and only contested the selection of private respondents 6 and 7.
3. The sole ground which is the bone of contention in this appeal and which was also the
bone of contention in the writ petition filed by the appellant is whether respondent No.4 was within its powers and jurisdiction to entertain and accept the RBA certificates of private respondents 6 and 7 after the cut-of date fixed by it for the submission of application forms.
4. Appellants had taken a ground in the memo of writ petition that the application forms of respondents 6 and 7 were not complete in all respects for the reason that they submitted their RBA certificates after the cut-of date. Thus were not eligible. Respondent No.4 had to reject their application forms.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant while dwelling upon his arguments referred to Rules l-l and 15 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Judicial) Recruitment Rules, 1967 (here-in-after called the Recruitment Rules), and pressed into service what its words in all respects means. His main thrust of arguments was that the aforesaid private respondents had not submitted the RBA certificates within time and thus were in-eligible to compete in the examination. It is thus stated that the selection of said private respondents is liable to be quashed and the appellant be selected in the RBA category. In support of his arguments, he has cited the judgments of the Apex Court reported as 1993 Supp (2) SCC 611, Ashok Kumar Sharma and another Vs. Chander Sheikher and another, (1994) 1 SCC 175, State of Punjab and others Vs. Renuka Sinla and others (1997) 4 SCC 18, Ashok Kumar Sharma and others Vs. Chander Sheikhar and another, (2000) 3 SCC 699, State of U.P. Vs. Ram Swamp Saroj, (2002) 3 SCC 219, Jawahar Lal Sazawal and others Vs. State of J&K and others and other judgments reported as AIR 1994 Jammu and Kashmir 42, Naresh Singh Vs. Stale of J&K and others, AIR 1998 Punjab and Haryana 18, Kabul Prabhakar Vs. Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar and others and AIR 1999 Punjab and Haryana 319, Indu Gupta Vs. Director, Sports Punjab. Chandigarh and another.
6. Mr. D. C. Raina, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for respondent No.4 while rebutting the arguments submitted that the RBA category certificate only determines the status keeping in view the residence of candidate who belongs to the said category and the said certificate does not determine the eligibility of a candidate. The eligibility is to be determined as per the academic qualification. It is stated that the Public Service Commission was well within its powers to entertain and accept the RBA certificates of private respondents which came to be presented by them though after the cut of date but before the examination was conducted. It is further stated that the said respondent not only accepted the RBA certificates of the private respondents but of other candidates also who appeared in the examination and this was done before the examination was conducted.
7. Learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 also submitted that the impugned judgment is well reasoned and needs no interference.
Heard.
Considered.
8. The crux of the matter is whether private respondents 6 and 7 were eligible to appeal in the examination?
9. We are of the considered view that the said private res
