news details |
|
|
| Seeking appointment of Munsiff under SRO 126/94 | | DB declines to give benefit of SRO retrospectively | |
JAMMU, JUNE 18- Division Bench of Jammu & Kashmir High Court, Jammu wing, comprising Justice Nirmal Singh and Justice JP Singh, while deciding a law point whether the SRO issued after the completion of selection process can be given retrospective effect?, observed that there is no such mention that the SRO 126/94 is to be given retrospective effect. When any statute or order is issued by the Government or legislature, the effect of the statute or order is prospective, if otherwise provided. Moreover, the process of selection in the present case was completed before the issuance of SRO 126/94; therefore, the benefit of the same, as prayed for by the appellant cannot be given, the Division Bench observed.
This LPA was filed against the judgment and order dated April 17, 2000 passed by the Single Judge. The case set-up by the appellant was that SRO 126/94 came into force on June 28, 1994 which provided three percent reservation for residence of Actual Line of Control with Roaster Point at 10. The grievances of the appellant is that he applied for selection to the post of Munsiff in the year 1992 through J&K PSC and appeared in the written test as also in the interview process but the benefit of the roaster point was not given to the appellant.
This judgment written by Justice Nirmal Singh for the Division Bench observed that after hearing Adv KJ Singh appearing for the appellant and perusing the record, the DB is of the considered opinion that the writ Court has not committed any legal or jurisdictional error in dismissing the writ petition of the appellant. The appellant MI Sherkhan filed writ petition No 285/94 claiming the relief that he be appointed as Munsiff under the category of ALC by giving retrospective effect to the SRO 126/94. The said writ petition was dismissed and the appeal preferred by the appellant in 1998 also came to be dismissed. The review petition filed by the appellant in the said LPA was disposed vide order October 15, 1999 with the aforesaid observations. The substantive prayer of the appellant is that by giving retrospective effect to SRO 126/ 94, he be given the benefit of roaster point 10. The counsel appearing for the appellant, however, failed to make out a case that effect of SRO 126/94 is retrospective. With these observations, the DB dismissed the appeal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
