Belated minor age shortfall objection invalid after judicially sanctioned appointment list inclusion; statutory relaxation warranted to prevent hardship.

ORDER

Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member

1. The SWP No.2813/2016 was transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.6551/2021 by the Registry of this Tribunal.

2. The present matter was filed before the Hon’ble High Court seeking following relief: -

a) Quashing the Govt. Order No. 132-Edu of 2016 dated 01.04.2016 issued by the respondent No.1.

b) Commanding and directing the respondents to grant of relaxation of 29 days in lower age limit in favour of the petitioner.

c) Commanding and directing the respondents to issue the formal order of appointment/ adjusted against Class IV in favour of the petitioner in compliance to Hon'ble High Court judgment dated 31.12.2007 passed in SWP 2-A/2003 and upheld by Hon'ble Division Bench judgment dated 30.07.2009.

d) Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble court may deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.

3. The facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioner in his pleadings are as follows: -

a) The present Transfer Application arises out of SWP No. 2813/2016, originally instituted before the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and subsequently transferred to this Tribunal and registered as TA No. 6551/2021. The applicant, Pawan Kumar, is a permanent resident of the erstwhile State of Jammu & Kashmir and seeks enforcement of his legal and statutory rights relating to appointment against a Class-IV post in the School Education Department.

b) The genesis of the dispute traces back to Advertisement Notice No. 1 of 1998 dated 21.04.1998, whereby applications were invited for filling up various Class-IV posts such as Peon, Safaiwala, Orderly, Library Bearer, Lab Bearer, etc., in different districts of Jammu Division. The said recruitment process was marred by serious irregularities, resulting in illegal and backdoor appointments. These illegal appointments were subsequently cancelled by the Director School Education.

c) Aggrieved candidates, including both ousted appointees and non-selected aspirants, approached the Hon’ble High Court. All such writ petitions were clubbed and decided by a common judgment dated 23.05.2000 in Satya Devi v. State & Ors., wherein the respondents were directed to re-examine the entire selection process and redraw the merit list strictly in accordance with law.

d) In compliance thereof, Advertisement Notice No. 1 of 2000 dated 26.09.2000 was issued, inviting fresh applications for Class-IV vacancies available as on 21.04.1998. The applicant duly applied pursuant to the said advertisement and disclosed his correct date of birth. However, instead of finalizing the selection, the Government issued orders whereby 417 persons—whose appointments had earlier been cancelled— were re-engaged on consolidated wages and later regularized through Government Orders dated 11.04.2002 and 04.04.2003.

e) These actions were again challenged before the Hon’ble High Court in a batch of writ petitions, including SWP No. 2-A/2003. The matters were finally decided by a common judgment dated 31.12.2007 in Adil Akhter Shah & Ors. v. State & Ors., wherein the respondents were directed to consider the petitioners for appointment on parity with similarly situated candidates. The judgment was partly modified by the Hon’ble Division Bench on 30.07.2009, which upheld the rights of the petitioners and observed that sufficient posts were deemed to be available for accommodatin