Maharaj Krishan Bhatt & Anr vs State Of J.&K.; & Ors

2. The facts of the case in short are that under the Jammu & Kashmir Police Manual, certain posts of Sub-Inspector of Police (`PSI' for short) were to be filled in. The appellants herein were Constables. They made a representation on January 8, 1987 along with Mohd. Abbas, Mohd. Amin and Hamidullah Dar. A similar representation was also made on the same day by one Abdul Rashid Rather to Hon'ble the Chief Minister of the State of Jammu & Kashmir. In both the representations, a request was made to consider the cases of the respective applicants for appointment to the post of PSI by granting necessary relaxation in Rules against 50% direct recruitment quota as envisaged by Regulation 174 of Chapter VII of Jammu & Kashmir Police Manual. The representations made by the petitioners and other persons were sent by the office of the Hon'ble Chief Minister, Jammu & Kashmir for comments to the Director General of Police, Jammu & Kashmir by a forwarding letter dated 3 January 14, 1987. The then Director General of Police, Jammu & Kashmir, vide his letter dated January 23, 1987 recommended the name of Hamidullah Dar only for his appointment to the post of PSI under 50% direct recruitment quota. Accordingly, Hamidullah Dar, Constable was appointed as PSI vide order dated April 1, 1987. Remaining five persons including the appellants herein as also Abdul Rashid Rather were neither recommended for such appointment, nor appointed to the post of PSI. The appellants along with Mohd. Abbas and Mohd. Amin, filed SWP No. 351 of 1987 in the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir. The writ petition was disposed of on September 13, 1991 and a direction was issued to the Director General of Police, Jammu & Kashmir to consider the cases of the petitioners for appointment to the post of PSI by relaxation of Rules. Abdul Rashid Rather also filed a similar petition which was registered as SWP No. 519 of 1987 in the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Srinagar. The said 4 petition was also admitted and rule nisi was issued.

3. Pursuant to the direction given by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir (Jammu Bench) in SWP No. 351 of 1987, the Director General of Police considered the cases of the appellants, of Mohd. Abbas and of Mohd. Amin, but the prayer was rejected vide order dated December 13, 1991 without any reason. They, therefore, filed Contempt Petition No. 24 of 1992 before the High Court and once again, the High Court vide order dated September 16, 1992, issued direction to consider the cases of the applicants afresh. However, again the applicants were not granted benefit. Another Contempt Petition No. 162 of 1992 was filed in December, 1992 which was also disposed of on May 9, 1994. The appellants, in the circumstances, filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 45 of 1994 against the order dated May 9, 1994. The said appeal was disposed of on July 11, 1997. Pursuant to the observations made by the 5 Division Bench, the appellants filed fresh SWP No. 3735 of 1997 before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Srinagar which was subsequently transferred to Jammu Bench.

4. In the meanwhile, SWP No. 519 of 1987 filed by Abdul Rashid Rather, Constable came up for hearing before a Single Judge and the learned Single Judge allowed the said petition by judgment and order dated September 24, 1998. The appellants have annexed a copy of the said judgment in the present proceedings. The State, being aggrieved by the order of the Single Judge, preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 8 of 1999 before the Division Bench of the High Court, but the Division Bench dismissed the said appeal by judgment and order dated July 30, 1999. The decision in the Letters Patent Appeal is also produced by the appellants. The Government, thereafter, preferred Special Leave Petition in this Court but it was also dismissed by this Court and the order passed by the High Court attained finality.

6. In view of the above decision and the orders passed by the High Court and by this Court when SWP No. 3735 of 1997 filed by the present appellants came up for hearing before a Single Judge, it was allowed by judgment and order dated April 30, 2001 following the earlier judgment wherein the learned Single Judge, inter alia, observed that the cases of the appellants-writ petitioners were similar to the case of writ petitioner in Writ Petition No. 519 of 1987. Accordingly, a direction was issued to respondents to appoint the appellants and to grant all benefits which had been 7 granted to writ petitioner in Writ Petition No. 519 of 1987 (Abdul Rashid Rather).

8. On April 28, 2003, this Court issued notice to the respondents. Leave was granted on October 27, 2003. As per the order passed by the Bench presided over by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India, a direction was issued to the Registry on April 11, 2008 to list the appeals "during summer vacation". That is how the matter has been placed before us.

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, the Government of Jammu & Kashmir filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 466 of 2001 and the said appeal came to be allowed by the Division Bench. The judgment and order passed by the Single Judge was set aside and the Writ Petition was ordered to be dismissed. A review field against the said judgment was also dismissed by the Division Bench. The said order is challenged in the present appeals by the appellants.

18. For the foregoing reasons, the present appeals deserve to be allowed and are accordingly allowed. The judgment passed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal as well as Review Petition are set aside and the order passed by the learned Single Judge in SWP No. 3735 of 1997 is restored. The appellants are held entitled to all the reliefs which had been granted to Abdul Rashid Rather in pursuance of the judgment and order dated September 24, 1998 in SWP No. 519 of 1987. The respondent-State of Jammu & Kashmir will grant all the benefits as have been granted to Abdul Rashid Rather within a period of three months from today. 19

19. On the facts and in the circumstances, the appeals are allowed with costs.