Srinagar: The High of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh on Monday held that courts cannot be a signatory to the wrongs done by the official respondents after noting that the law cannot come to the rescue of the government authorities in having extended a benefit in favour of certain employees in disregard of rules.
A Bench of Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey and Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul upheld the writ court judgment wherein the government was directed to re-frame the seniority of the prosecuting officers by placing them at an appropriate place permissible under rules and in consequence thereof necessary benefits including promotion, that accrue due, be granted.
Today the bench while pronouncing the judgment in an appeal filed Ravinder Kumar and another candidate challenging the write court judgment held that there is no material even for a namesake which may suggest that there existed reasons or a necessity was created by the circumstances to disturb the seniority of the appellants and the respondent the way it existed at the time of their appointment or even at a subsequent stage of their promotion as Senior Prosecuting Officers.
“If such a scenario would have existed, the court was required to only see whether the applicability of the reservation rule, pursuant to which the existing seniority got disturbed, has been done in accordance with law or not. But that is not at all the case of the appellants or of the official respondents,” the court recorded.
The Court even presuming that if there existed such a situation and the appellants were extended the benefit of Article 16 (4-A), yet the appellants would not figure senior to respondent no. 4 as the law on the subject is no more res integra that the Articles
16 (4) and 16 (4-A) are enabling provisions and it gives discretion to the government to consider providing reservations, if the circumstances warrant.
“Therefore, the action taken by the official respondents in the instant case is unwarranted as there were absolutely no circumstances that warranted such exercise of power,” the court held.
It was remarked by the bench that the benefit under the said Articles is further unavailable in respect of the appellants for the reason that the said articles cover reservation benefit in respect of scheduled caste and scheduled tribe candidates and the appellants do not fall in any of these categories. Hence the exercise made by the official respondents in placing the appellants ahead of respondent 4 does not have any legal sanctity, it said.
The court while giving reference to Supreme court directives held that Article 16 (4) and 16 (4-A) do not confer fundamental right to claim reservations in promotion.
“Having regard to the above narration, we uphold the view of the Single Judge and dismiss the appeal as meritless along with connected CMs. Respondents are directed to comply with the directions of the Writ Court without further wastage of time,” the bench said.

NUSRAT SIDIQ