GULZAR AHMAD MIR Vs. STATE OF J&K
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Gulzar Ahmad Mir
STATE OF JANDK
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THE petitioner father Sh. Hussain Mir while in duty as police head constable at Police Station Anantnag shot dead by terrorists on 18th of
March 1990. It was on compassionate considerations that the petitioner
got appointed as a constable in the grade of Rs. 900 -1500. This
compassionate consideration got reflected in appointment order issued by
Sr. Superintendent of Police Anantnag under his no. 213/90 dated 26th of
April, 1990. The petitioner was at the time of said appointment an under
matric in that he had not passed the matriculation examination. He passed
the matriculation/ secondary school examination after his appointment in
the year 1991. Having thus become a matriculate, the petitioner desired
to be promoted/ re -appointment as ASI in the police force. This desire
emanated from the fact that one Rattan Lal Koul, whose father a Head
Constable had been killed in terrorist violence was appointed as ASI in
the force. This appointment was made by the Government vide its Order No.
HOME/104 -P/94 dated 11th of April 1994, the Government in exercise of its
powers relaxed the upper age limit in his favour.
(2.) THE petitioner claims that having passed the matriculation in the year 1991 he had become eligible for his appointment as ASI and had
accordingly made request to the respondent but to no avail. His grievance
is that the Government ought to have on the analogy of Rattan Lal Kouls
case, relaxed the bar of educational qualification in his favour and
appointed him on the post of ASI. The complaint of discrimination in the
matters of compassionate appointment is projected which is sought to be
set at naught by the issuance of writ of mandamus directing the
respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of ASI in the force.
(3.) THE projected grievance of discrimination is met by the contention that said Rattan Lal Koul was a post -graduate and it was on
compassionate considerations that only he was appointed but the age bar
of more than two years was relaxed in his favour. Relaxation of
qualification bar in favour of the petitioner was on the other hand
neither sought nor granted, so the claim to parity on the analogy of
Rattan Lals case is labelled as baseless.
The petitioners compassionate appointment was ordered in the year 1990, when he had not passed the matriculation examination. He was
on that date educationally qualified upto 10th class. Under the rules
applicable qualification for appointment on a post of constable has to be
not below middle standard. True the police rules do not prescribe minimum
educational qualification for appointment above the rank of constable,
yet the practise has been that a person to be appointed on a post above
the rank of constable has to be atleast a matriculate.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.