The main legal point established in the judgment is that government orders must be supported by valid, legal, and just reasons, and must not suffer from non-application of mind, to be considered legal and valid.

Muzaffar Hussain Attar, J.

1. Advertisement notice No. 04/DDCB/2006 dated 18th October, 2006, was issued by District Development Commissioner, Baramulla, where under, applications were invited as per the format (annexure A) of the said notification from eligible candidates of District Baramulla for filling up of Class-IV vacancies in various departments of District Baramulla. The petitioners responded to the said notification and sought consideration for being selected and appointed on notified Class-IV posts.

2. The petitioners have submitted in the writ petition that they were subjected to selection process, in as much as, interviews were conducted for adjudging their merit. It is also the case of the petitioners that while they were waiting for publishing of the selection list, the respondent No. 1 issued Government Order No. 664/GAD/2013 dated 23rd April, 2014, wherein, the respondent No. 1 directed that the selection process will be conducted afresh in a strictly time bound manner, only for the candidates who had applied in pursuance to notification of the year 2006. It was also provided that relaxation in upper age limit of candidates shall be deemed to have been granted.”

3. It is this order which is called in question in this writ petition.

4. Respondent No. 1 who has passed the impugned order has filed objections/reply affidavit.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the selection process was concluded there was no reason for initiating the selection process afresh.

6. Learned counsel submitted that no reason has been given in the impugned order or in the reply affidavit to justify the passing of the impugned order.

7. Mr. B.A. Dar, learned AAG, defended the Government Order on the ground that the selection process initiated in the year 2006 remained inconclusive due to various reasons and also suffered from many infirmities.

8. Learned counsel submitted that because of the aforesaid reasons the impugned order was passed by the Government for initiating fresh selection process which, however, was restricted to the candidates who had applied in pursuance to the advertisement notice of the year 2006.

9. The selection process initiated for filing up of Class-IV vacancies in District Baramulla was brought to the stage of interviewing the candidates. Some of the eligible candidates were interviewed by the selection committee for adjudicating their merit.

10. It appears that the writ petition SWP No. 590/2011 was filed by some persons of District Rajouri in which the Court directed the respondents to conclude selection process initiated in pursuance to advertisement notice dated 22nd March, 2006 within a period of eight weeks. It was also directed that in the event the decision of the authorities goes against the petitioners, then petitioners shall be allowed to file applications seeking selection for being appointed on the posts. It was also provided in the selection process that it shall be deemed that they are within age and the upper age shall be relaxed in their favour.

11. The advertisement notice issued in respect of District Baramulla is No. 04/DDCB/2006, dated 18th October, 2006, and for District Rajouri is No. 01/2006 dated 22nd March, 2006.

12. The Court passed the order on the basis of the pleas taken in SWP No. 590/2011 filed by the residents of District Rajouri. The advertisement notices are of different numbers and of different dates in District Rajouri and District Baramulla. The order passed by the court in the writ petition is of resident of District Rajouri would not be applicable to the selection process initiated in District Baramulla. The court had provided that in the event decision goes against the petitioners in SWP No. 590/2011 then they shall be allowed to file their applications. It has been specifically directed that posts may be notified and applications of those candidates who had cross the upper age limit shall also be entertained.

13. The direction passed by the Court in