Judgment

1. The petitioner is a practising Advocate of this Court and is aggrieved of advertisement notice dated 11th of March, 2020, issued by the Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, inviting applications for engagement as Standing Counsel for various districts of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. The petitioner also feels aggrieved of the selection criteria indicated in the impugned advertisement notice. The petitioner, therefore, prays for a direction to the respondents to issue a fresh notification for engagement of Standing Counsels in various districts of Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir after framing selection criteria, which is fair, just and reasonable after framing selection criteria which is fair, just and rational.

2. The entire writ petition is predicated on the plea that the respondents have issued the impugned advertisement notification as per the Jammu and Kashmir Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service), Rules 2016 [“Rules of 2016” for short], promulgated vide SRO 98 dated 24th of March, 2016, and that SRO 98, which was issued by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir in exercise of powers conferred by Section 124 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir read with Section 492 of J&K Cr. P. C, stands abrogated and has ceased to be in existence after the promulgation of J&K Reorganization Act, 2019 and resultant repeal of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir and the State Criminal Procedure Code.

3. The other grievance of the petitioner, however, is directed against the selection criteria enumerated in the advertisement notice itself. Petitioner submits that allocation of 02 marks for PG Diploma, 03 marks for Post Graduation and 05 marks for Ph. D. in Law under the head “Education Qualification” is without any rationale and, therefore, per se arbitrary. The petitioner also finds fault with the weightage of 50 marks earmarked for “Number of institutions in last two years of civil suits or defending civil suits”, on the ground that the allocation is highly excessive and without laying down any yardstick for assessment and allocation of these 50 marks.

4. The petitioner claims that, on going through the criteria laid down in the impugned advertisement notice, he made a representation to the respondents on 16th of March, 2020, but the same was not heeded to by the respondents and the process was continued.

5. On being put on notice, the respondents have filed their objections through Mr. Aseem Sawhney, learned Additional Advocate General. In the objections, it is submitted that with a view to regulating the selection and appointment of Government Law Officers, the erstwhile Government of Jammu and Kashmir notified Rules of 2016. It is submitted that the Rules of 2016 were framed by the Government while the litigation on the issue was pending before the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & anr. v. Brijeshwar Singh Chahal and anr. (2016) 6 SCC 1. The plea of the petitioner that the Rules of 2016 have ceased to be in operation after the promulgation of J&K Reorganization Act, 2019, is also refuted by the respondents by relying upon the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019 read with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. It is urged that the Rules of 2016 are clearly saved and, therefore, would validly regulate the appointment and conditions of service of Law Officers in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir

6. The selection criteria adopted has been defended by the respondents by submitting that the Government is well within its right to devise any selection criteria for selection and appointment of Law officers and the same cannot be interfered with unless it is totally arbitrary, irrational and is found to have no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Allocation of 50 marks i.e. 02 marks for each institution of civil suit or defending civil suit in last two years, it is submitted, cannot be termed as arbitrary or irrati