news details |
|
|
| HC disposes of bunch of petitions about regularisation of Rehbar-e-Ziarat | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Oct 14 : High court judge Janak Raj Kotwal today decided bunch of petitions regarding regularization of Village Agriculture Extension Assistants and disposed of all the petitions with various directions.
According to the petition, the state government in 2007 engaged all the unemployed agriculture graduates in the State as Rehbar-e-Zirat (for short ReZs). The government has now formulated a policy for their regularization as Village Agriculture Extension Assistants.
Dispute involved in these seven writ petitions arises from the process of regularization. Justice Kotwal, after hearing the two sides, observed that petitioners are Agriculture Graduates (B.Sc. Agriculture). They had completed their graduation in different years up to the year 2006 and like many others were unemployed.
In the year, 2006, the government vide Cabinet decision No. 248/14 dated 23.10.2006 (for short Cabinet Decision dated 23.10.2006) took a decision to engage all the Agriculture Graduates unemployed as on October, 2006 under the Rehbar-e-Zirat Scheme and pursuant to this decision Principal Secretary to Government, Agriculture Production Department, issued Government Order No. 20-Agri of 2007 dated 06.02.2007.
In his judgment, Justice Kotwal observed that it had never been the policy nor it was decided that in the event of regularization of ReZs, basis of preparing the merit list or drawing seniority will be the year of obtaining eligibility qualification of B.Sc. Agriculture. Cabinet rather took a decision to regularize all the ReZs in three phases to be completed in three years and directed preparation of select list giving weightage to higher qualification on pro rata basis. No change of policy can be said to have been made. Doctrine of legitimate expectation on this score is not attracted.
The court observed that arbitrariness or unfairness in giving weightage to higher qualification neither is apparent not can be found. Petitioners' contention in this regard is not tenable. It needs to be pointed out in this relation that as per the Government Order dated 28.11.2013 issued pursuant to Cabinet decision dated 04 .08. 2011 read with the Government Order dated 10.08.2011 weightage is to be given to the qualification obtained on or before 31.10.2006, that is, the date of first Cabinet decision, whereby decision to engage ReZs was taken.
Giving weightage to higher qualification in a recruitment process is well recognized and cannot be said to be arbitrary. Question can be posed to the petitioners how it would have been arbitrary and unfair had all the candidates been appointed on regular basis in the year, 2007, that is, at the time of their engagements as ReZs and higher qualification of the eligible candidates would have been given weightage? That would have not been arbitrary or unfair. Giving weightage to higher qualification obtained on or before the date of initial engagement is no way arbitrary or unfair. Question might have arisen if weightage was to be given to the higher qualification acquired by some candidates after their engagement as ReZs.
It, however, needs to be noted that respondents have not addressed petitioners' apprehension that some of them are about to cross the upper age limit and they may be relegated down if selection list is prepared by giving weightage to higher qualification and may thereby be deprived of the fruit under the regularization policy.
This apprehension has specifically been made in ground (ii) in SWP no. 498/2014. Respondents have said nothing in their reply in this regard. This apprehension, however, is a bit misconceived and farfetched for the reason that regularization policy has to apply to all the candidates engaged as ReZs for which equal number of posts have been created. Neither the policy nor the government orders dated 10.8.2011 & 28.11.2013 provide or even indicate that a candidate having crossed the maximum age prescribed for entry into government service shall not be regularized.
With these observations, the court dismissed the petitions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
