news details |
|
|
| DB impresses upon UT Admin to focus on reservation in judicial services | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Sept 3: In a petition filed by one Karan Sharma, who claims to be a person with permanent disability (Locomotor disability) to the extent of 50%, a Division Bench of Jammu & Kashmir High Court comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Puneet Gupta in a landmark judgment while disposing of the petition observed that it necessary to observe that providing reservations in favour of weaker sections of the society including the persons with disabilities is a constitutional mandate and each department and establishment of the Government including the judicial service of the state need to make adequate provisions to give effect to this social welfare measure envisaged by the framers of the Constitution to bring have-nots and the weaker sections of the society on par with those better placed and privileged. We hope and trust that the attention of the competent authorities would focus on the issue which we have discussed and noticed above and appropriate measures in consonance with Constitutional scheme shall be taken to make requisite provision or rules with regard to reservation for appointments in judicial service on par with those provided for the persons holding the civil posts in connection with the affairs of the UT of Jammu and Kashmir. For the present, we see no legal sanction to the reservations, if any, provided for the appointments to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Munsiff in the twin Union Territories of J&K and Ladakh.
DB after hearing Sr. Adv Abhinav Sharma for the petitioner whereas AAG Aseem Sawhney for the the Law Dept observed that indisputably, the reservation for different categories in the recruitment process is an integral part of the appointments to be made pursuant to such process and, therefore, for making reservation in the matter of appointments of the persons other than District Judges to the judicial service of the State, it is necessary for the Governor of the State to make rules after consultation with the PSC and with the High Court. The consultation with the High Court in the matter of appointments to the judicial service of the State other than the District Judges is necessitated to guard the independence of Judiciary.
DB is of the opinion that while we find no case made out by the petitioner to seek the benefit of reservation he claims, we leave it to the competent authority to take a call in this matter and in case it is desired or intended to provide the benefit of reservation for appointments in the judicial service of the erstwhile State now Union Territory, the mandatory procedure laid down in Article 234 of Constitution of India may be followed. It is only after a specific provision or rules in that behalf are made by the Lt. Governor after consultation with the PSC and with the High Court of the UT of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, it would be permissible to provide reservation for appointments in judicial service in question.
DB after hearing both the sides dismissed the petition and ordered that the respondents shall be free to fill up the reserved vacancy in accordance with law.
DB further makes it clear that this judgment will have only a prospective effect and shall not be construed to disturb the appointments of Munsiff so far made. All pending and future appointments to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Munsiff shall only be in accordance with the rules including rules of reservation framed in terms of Article 234 of Constitution of India.
—JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
