- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Chairman, Public Service Commission, J&K And Another v. Sudarshan Singh Jamwal And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
Rule 7 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service (Judicial Recruitment) Rules, 1967 set an upper age limit of 35 years as on the first day of January preceding the year of the recruitment examination conducted by the appellant-Commission. The first respondent, being over-age, invoked a Government order dated 14-2-1985 that granted a specific relaxation of “two years, eight months and twenty-three days” in his favour.
The appellant resisted this reliance. The first respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir, which allowed the petition on the basis that the State Government was competent to relax the age bar.
Previously, Rule 9-A of the 1967 Rules had provided a mechanism for exemption from Rules 7 and 9 by the Governor on the recommendation of the Court, but this provision was deleted by an amendment in August 1974. The appellant sought review before the High Court, pointing out the deletion of Rule 9-A. The High Court dismissed the review, holding that the Government possessed inherent power to relax the age limit and relied upon the Supreme Court decision in Sampat Prakash v. State of J&K.
On appeal, the higher court examined whether the Government’s order could validly relax the age bar in light of the deletion of Rule 9-A and the scope of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act as understood in Sampat Prakash.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, after the deletion of Rule 9-A, the State Government retained authority to relax the upper age limit prescribed by Rule 7 of the 1967 Rules for recruitment to the Judicial Service.
- Whether Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, as discussed in Sampat Prakash v. State of J&K, permitted the Government to issue an individual exemption/relaxation order without following the “like manner” and “like sanction and conditions” applicable to the making of the Rules.
- Whether the Government’s order dated 14-2-1985 validly entitled the first respondent to appear in the recruitment examination.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Sampat Prakash v. State of J&K, AIR 1970 SC 1118; (1969) 2 SCR 365 | Explains the operation of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act: a conferral of power to issue notifications, orders, rules, or bye-laws includes the power to add to, amend, vary, or rescind them, exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like sanction and conditions. | The Court held reliance on this case and Section 21 to be misplaced because the age-relaxation order was not issued in exercise of the rule-making power and not in the “like manner” nor subject to the “like sanction and conditions” required for making the Rules. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court began by noting that Rule 7 imposed a strict upper age limit for recruitment. Rule 9-A had earlier allowed exemptions from Rules 7 and 9 by the Governor on the recommendation of the Court, but this exemption mechanism was deleted in August 1974.
The High Court had upheld the Government’s relaxation order on the premise of inherent governmental power, purportedly supported by Section 21 of the General Clauses Act as discussed in Sampat Prakash. The Court clarified that Section 21 provides that a power to issue rules or orders includes the power to amend or rescind them, but crucially, such power must be exercised “in the like manner” and subject to the “like sanction and conditions” as the original power.
Applying this principle, the Court found that the relaxation order was not issued in the exercise of the power to make or amend the Rules and was not made following the same procedural manner or subject to the same sanctions and conditions applicable to rule-making. Consequently, reliance on Section 21 and the precedent in Sampat Prakash was misplaced.
Given the deletion of Rule 9-A and the absence of a valid exercise of rule-making power in the prescribed manner, the exemption order could not confer entitlement upon the first respondent to sit for the recruitment examination.
Holding and Implications
Appeal allowed. The order under appeal is set aside and the writ petition filed by the first respondent is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Implications: The immediate effect is that the Government’s relaxation order does not entitle the first respondent to appear in the recruitment examination. The opinion does not discuss broader implications, and it sets no new precedent beyond applying the requirement that any modification to rules or exemptions must be exercised in the like manner and subject to the like conditions as the original rule-making power.
1. Rule 7 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service (Judicial Recruitment) Rules, 1967, provided that no person should be recruited to that service who was more than 35 years of age on the first date of January preceding the year the examination for recruitment was conducted by the appellant-Commission. The first respondent was age-barred, but sought to rely upon an order dated 14-2-1985 in the following words:
“Sanction is accorded to the relaxation of upper age bar by two years, eight months and twenty-three days in favour of Shri Sudarshan Singh Jamwal, Librarian, High Court of Jammu and Kashmir.
By order of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir.
(Secretary to Govt. Law Department)”
Meeting with resistance from the appellant, the first respondent moved the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in a writ petition. The writ petition was allowed on the basis that the State Government was competent to relax the age bar.
2. The said Rules had earlier provided for such relaxation in Rule 9-A, which read thus:
“9-A. Notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 7 and 9 of these Rules, the Governor may, on the recommendation of the Court, exempt any person who holds any post under the Government by virtue of which he has kept himself in touch with and gained sufficient experience in the knowledge and application of law, from the operation of Rules 7 and 9.”
The appellant moved the High Court in review pointing out that Rule 9-A had been deleted from the said Rules by reason of an amendment made in August 1974. The High Court rejected the review petition holding, “Even if the provisions of Rule 9-A would have been placed before us, in our opinion it would not have any effect on the judgment as the order on the basis of which the age bar was relaxed is passed by the Government in exercise of its inherent powers, which always exists with the Government for which we can safely place reliance on the authority of their Lordships of the Supreme Court reported in Sampat Prakash v. State of J&K AIR 1970 SC 1118, (1969) 2 SCR 365 paras 11 and 12.”
3. The decision in the case of Sampat Prakash AIR 1970 SC 1118, (1969) 2 SCR 365 speaks of the application of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act. Section 21 of the General Clauses Act says that where by any Central Act or Regulation a power to issue notifications, orders, rules, or bye-laws is conferred, then that power includes a power, exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like sanction and conditions (if any), to add to, amend, vary or rescind any notifications, orders, rules or bye-laws so issued. The order, upon which the first respondent relied, was, according to the High Court itself, issued in the exercise of the State Government's inherent power, meaning, apparently, the power derived from Section 21 of the General Clauses Act. The order was not issued in exercise of the power to make the said Rules and power was not exercised in the like manner and subject to the like sanction and conditions which operated for the making of the said Rules. Reliance upon the judgment in the case of Sampat Prakash AIR 1970 SC 1118, (1969) 2 SCR 365 was, therefore, misplaced as also reliance upon Section 21 of the General Clauses Act. The exemption order did not, therefore, entitle the first respondent to appear at the recruitment examination.
4. The appeal is allowed. The order under appeal is set aside and the writ petition filed by the first respondent is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Alert