news details |
|
|
| Diversion of direct quote for Sessions Judges order kept in abeyance | | | EARLY TIMES REPORT
Jammu, Nov 29: J&K High Court Jammu Wing today in two writ petitions challenging the diversion of direct recruitment quote of Higher Judiciary (Sessions Judges), ordered that diversion shall remain in abeyance till further orders.
Justice Hasnain Massodi of J&K High Court Jammu Wing today in two writ petitions filed by Rajesh Thappa Ex-General Secretary of BAJ and intervention application by BAJ Jammu through its Secretary Vikram Sharma challenging the diversion of direct recruitment quote of Higher Judiciary (Sessions Judges) ordered that diversion shall remain in abeyance till further orders.
Justice Hasnain Massodi while issuing notice to the respondents and admitted the petitions for hearing observed that Ist National Judicial Pay Commission in its report did not recommend diversion of the direct recruitment quota in the event none of the candidates appearing in one or two successive written examinations conducted for direct recruitment gets selected for the advertised posts. There is prima facie merit in the argument that the diversion of direct recruitment quota in terms of section 5(1) (c) proviso J&K Higher Judicial Services Rules 2009 on the face of it may offend section 109 Constitution of J&K and the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 & 16 Constitution of India. The constitutional validity of the Rule, in the circumstances, deserves to be examined in depth.
Justice Massodi further observed that Rule 5(1) (c) proviso J&K Higher Judicial Services Rules 2009, whereby the posts set apart for direct recruitment are to be filled up by promotion from amongst the Civil Judges (Senior Division) in the event suitable candidates are not available for direct recruitment under Rule 5(1) (c) and also not so available in the next sessions, shall remain in abeyance till further orders. The respondents shall also accord consideration to extension in duration of the examination as prescribed under Rule 8(i) (a) having due regard to the length of the question paper i.e. number of questions the examinees have to reply in the written examination.
The petitioners are practising advocates and aspirants for the posts of District Judges advertised vide Advertisement Notice No.501 dated 1.8.2011, required to be filled up by direct recruitment from Advocates in terms of Jammu & Kashmir Higher Judicial Service, Rules 2009. The petitioners question validity of Rule 5(1)(c) proviso whereby posts reserved for the direct recruitment may be filled up by promotion in case suitable candidates are not available for the direct recruitment on holding competitive examination for such recruitment and are not so available even when the posts are re-advertised and second competitive examination held. The petitioners also challenged Rule 8(ii) whereby only candidates in General Category who obtain 60% or more marks and in Reserved Category who secure 50% or more marks in the written examination are to be called for viva-voce test in the ratio of three candidates for one available vacancy. The petitioners’ case is that Rule 5(1) (c) proviso is in conflict with section 109 constitution of J&K and also offends Articles 14 and 16 Constitution of India. It is insisted that quota set apart for a source of recruitment cannot be shifted to other source even where candidates from such source are not available. The petitioners challenge to Rule 8(ii) J&K Higher Judicial Service Rules, 2009, seek quashment of Advertisement Notice No. 501 dated August 1, 2011 whereby the applications have been invited from eligible Advocates to fill up 13 vacancies of District Judges by direct recruitment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
