LexJAMALUDDIN versus STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2011] 11 S.C.R. 690 JAMAL UDDIN v. STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 8093 of. 2004) SEPTEMBER 29, 2011 [J.M. PANCHAL AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] Social Status certificate - Candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes - Seeking age C relaxation -:- On facts, appellant's application for the post of Munsif in the Scheduled Tribe Category rejected since the appellant was overage - High Court not relaxing the age of appellant - Held: Order passed by the High Court is justified - If there is no age relaxation in the Rules, the same cannot D be brought in ·by any judicial interpretation - Advertisement of the Public Service Commission issued in the year 2002, required the persons concerned to be of less than thirty five years of age at the relevant time - There was no age relaxation in favour of the candidates belonging to the E Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, though there was a q antum of reservation provided for them - Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Judicial) Recruitment Rules, 1967. Appellant belongs to Scheduled Tribe. He was appointed as an adhoc Munsif in the Jammu & Kashmir F Judicial Service. A Notification was issued by the Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission on 04.12.2001 for regular appointment whereby person should not be more than thirty five years of age as on the 1st January of the year in which the Notification was issued. The appellant G applied for the post of Munsif in the Scheduled Tribe Category. The appellant's application was rejected since he was overage by eleven months. The appellant filed a writ petition. The Single Judge dismissed the petition H 690 JAMALUDDIN v. STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND 691 ORS. since he was overage. The Division Bench also ·A dismissed the appeaL Therefore,· the appellant filed the instant appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 In the instant case the advertisement of 8 the Public Service Commission issued in the year 2002, required the persons concerned to be of less than thirty five years of age at the relevant time. That age limit applied to all the candidates. There was no age relaxation in favour of the candidates belonging to the Scheduled C Castes or Scheduled Tribes, though there was a quantum of reservation provided for them. Therefore, the earlier resolution of the Full Court of the High Court passed in February 1982 has to be read as providing only for the quantum and not for any age relaxation. If there is no age D relaxation in the Rules, the same cannot be brought in by any judicial interpretation. In the circumstances, there is no error in the judgment of the Single Judge or that of the Division Bench of the High Court. [Para 15] [700-C-E] 1.2 There is some kind of anomaly in the sense that there is no age relaxation at the level of Munsifs, though E it is so provided at the level of entry into the Higher Judicial Service. Although, there is no inclination to interfere with the order passed by the High Court on the F judicial side, it is felt that the High Court on its administrative side should examine the issue as to whether age relaxation should be provided to the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes appearing for the Judicial Service Examination at the Munsif level as is G provided to the candidates appearing for the Higher Judicial Service Examination. [Paras 13 and 16) [699-A; 700-F-G] State of Bihar vs. Bal Mukund Sah and Ors. AIR 2000 H 692 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 11 S.C.R. A SC 1296: 2000 (2) SCR 299; Umesh Chandra Shukla vs. Union of India and Ors. 1985 (3) SCC 721: 1985 (2) Suppl. SCR 367 - referred to. Riyaz Ahmad Gada vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir 8 JK:.I (HC)(Suppl.) 2009 600; Syed Shamim Rizvi and Ors. vs. State of Jammuand Kashmir 2010 (1) SLJ 281 - cited. Case Law Reference: JKJ (HC) (Suppl.) 2009 600 Cited C 2010 (1) SLJ 281 2000 (2) SCR 299 Cited Para 9 Para 9 Referred to. Para 13 1985 (2) Suppl. SCR 367 Referred to. Para 14 D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. E 8093 of 2004. From the Judgment & Order dated 24.2.2004 of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in LPA No. 133 of 2003 arising out of S.W.P. No. 994 of 2002. Ambrish Kumar, Dr. Pooja Jha, M.A. Rahman and Rameshwar Prasad Goyal for the Appellant. Gau.rav Pachnanda, Sr. AAG, Sunil Fernandes, Sidhant F Goel, Yawar Ali, Bharat Sangal, R.R. Kumar Verni
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.