Vikram Singh vs State of J&K and others

Arun Kumar Goel, Judge.

This petition has been taken up with the consent of parties for final disposal keeping in view the controversy involved in it. It may also be noticed

that Shri D. C. Raina, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 stated that looking to the factual position of this case it can be disposed of

without reply on the part of his client.

It may be noted here that SRO 126 dated 28th June, 1994 describes reserved categories notified by the State Government. Rule 9 and Proviso to

Rule 30 thereof prescribed that a person may be declared socially and educationally backward under different categories as notified by the State

Government. One such notified category is 'resident of backward area. Prior to 16th July' 98 income criteria was Rs.1 Lakh, thus where the

income was more than Rs.1 Lakh such person was not entitled to the benefits as available under SR0126 (Supra).

SRO 126 dated 28th June, 1994 came to be amended vide SRO No. 219 dated 16th July' 98 which is to the following effect.

GOVERNMENT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT

Notification

Srinagar, the 16th July, 1998.

SRO219. In exercise of the powers conferred by section 124 and other relevant provisions of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir read with

Articles 15(4) and other relevant provisions of the Constitution of India as applicable to the State, the Governor hereby directs that in rule 9 and in

the first proviso to rule 30 of the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules, 1994 for the words ""one Lakh"" wherever appearing, the words ""three

lakhs"" shall be substituted. By order of the Governor.

Sd/

Commissioner/Secretary to Government, General Administration Department.

Thus the income criteria of Rs.1 Lakh as orginally was there in SR0126 (supra) was increased by the above noted SRO No. 219 to Rs. 3 Lakhs,

meaning thereby that the persons having income of Rs. 3 Lakhs per annum were also included in the category of educationally and socially

backward class following under the category of 'Resident of Backward Area.'

In the instant case respondent No. 2 issued Notification No. 17/CAEE of 1998 dated 14th July, 1998. This was published in the news paper on

18th July, 1998 as is evident from Annexure ""B"" to the petition. Clause 1.15 thereof is to the following effect:

1.15 Candidates who apply for admission under the Open Merit Category including those who apply for admission to Medical/Engineering

Colleges outside the State and those belonging to the NonPermanent Resident Categories must have secured not less than 50% marks in the

aggregate in the Qualifying Examination. Candidates who apply under Reserved Categories as specified in SRO 126 Dated 280694 as amended

from time to time must have secured not less than 40% Marks in the aggregate in the Qualifying Examination."" (Emphasis Supplied).

Record of the case shows that after the notification was sent for publication and before it was published, SRO219dated 16th July'98 (supra) came

into operation. Respondent No. 2 declined the application of petitioner because according to it on the date of notification, SRO 126 of 1994 was

holding the field. This according to Shri Raina was legal and valid. Argument in support of this plea was that so far respondent No. 2 is concerned,

for it cut off date was 14th July' 98 and SRO 126 (supra) as it existed on that date was to cover the cases. In the instant case petitioner had

applied under the General Category in response to Notification dated 14th July 98 (Annexure ""B"" to the petition). Meanwhile SRO 219 (supra)

came into operation which allowed him benefit reserved for special category covered by SRO 126 of 1994. This happened before the publication

of notification vide Annexure ""B"".

Admittedly notification called for applications from all eligible persons in terms contained therein. Clause 1.15 thereof, reproduced hereinabove

speaks of SR0126 of 1994 as amended from time to time. On the date of publication of the notification admittedly the said SRO had already been

amended vide SRO 219 (supra). In this view of the matter benefit of such SRO could not be denied to the petitioner.

It may be noted here that learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 could not dispute that though the notification is of 14th July' 98 but on

the date of its publication SRO 219 of 1998 was in force. This being so as a consequence of this, case of the petitioner is squarely covered in view

of the Certificate dated 27th October' 98 issued by Tehsildar Billawar (Annexure ""C"" to the petition). Another reason to take this view is that on its

own showing respondent No. 2 had held out that candidates who wanted consideration for selection on the basis of their belonging to any reserved

category must attach with the application from the required category certificate as specified in SRO 126 of 1994 as ""amend ed from time to time.

In view of the aforesaid position it is held that since SRO 219 of 1998 was in force on the date of publication of Notification (Annexure ""B"" to

the petition), he was entitled to get his application considered against the seat meant for students belonging to reserved category in terms of SRO

126 of 1994 read with SRO 219 of 1998. Consequently respondent No. 2 is directed to entertain the application of petitioner and treat the same

for seat reserved for being a member of socially and educationally backward class following under the category of 'Resident of Backward Area',

subject of course to his fulfilling other conditions in accordance with law. It is further made clear that since more than four months have passed

when the Notification (Annexure ""B"" to the petition) was published, on the basis of this writ petition no other applicant shall be granted any benefit

as it would result in delaying the process of selection as well as will further lead to complications.