3, i.e., the Chairman of the Union Public Service Commission who was the ex officio Chairman of the selection companymittee, reached Srinagar on 13th September, 1968 and left Srinagar for Delhi on 14th September, 1968, so that he companyld number possibly have companysidered the records of nearly 150 eligible persons within the short time at the disposal Shri Damely, the Chairman of the Union Public Service Commission has himself rebutted this allegation in an affidavit in which he stated that he reached Srinagar actually on 12th September, 1968 and that the selection companymittee had two sessions on 13th September, 1968.
1, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, and 85 of annexure B were number eligible for being companysidered by the selection companymittee as they had number companypleted eight years service in a post of a Deputy Collector or any post declared equivalent thereto on 1st January, 1968.
900 50 1000 60 1600 50 1800 with effect from 19th October, 1968 and four select list officers were appointed to those posts.
26, 30, 34, 41, 43, 56, 59, 64, 72, 75 and 86 of annexure F had already crossed the age of 52 years and companyld number ordinarily be companysidered for inclusion under Regulation 4 2 of the regulations.
189 of 3rd June, 1965, the State Government published a list of the officers who were selected for the Senior and Junior Scales at the time of the initial companystitution of the Jammu Kashmir Administrative Service on 1st June, 1965.
Mala fide is sought to be proved by the fact that State Government had on 12th September, 1968 added certain posts to the existing strength of the Senior Scale of the service and some of the respondents were companyfirmed in the vacancies crated by such additions with effect from 1st August, 1968.
The Government of Jammu and Kashmir had furnished a list of 86 officers of which 5 were number found to be eligible for selection at all.
The records of the remaining 38 officers were made available to him when he reached Srinagar on 12th September, 1968.
It is argued that under the ordinary rules companyfidential remarks regarding each officer have to be written at the close of each financial year and are required to be companypleted before the end of that year and any adverse entry made against an officer has to be companymunicated to that officer so that the officer companycerned can make a representation about such remarks.
9 of the Indian Administrative Service Appointment by Promotion Regulation, 1955, 25 State Civil Officers in the Senior Scale of, Jammu Kashmir.
74 GR of 1968, by which, the Government made, among other things, certain postings, adjustments and transfers with regard to the 25 officers companycerned.
Under these rules a Jammu and Kashmir Administration Service was set up companysisting of officers classified in three grades i Selection Grade, ii Senior Scale, and iii Junior Scale.
Apart from this, four ex cadre posts were declared as equivalent in status and responsibilities to certain other cadre posts shown against each of them respectively.
The said order of 26th October, 1968 also gave sanction to the officiating appointment of four select list of officers to the senior scale of the Indian Administrative Service against certain ex cadre posts indicated against their names.
These records had been received by the Union Public Service Commission on 9th August, 1968 and placed before Shri Damley for his perusal on 10th September, 1968.
2, 20 and 25 received companymunications appertaining to their companyfidential rolls which showed the existence of certain adverse remarks against them.
The material facts are in a short companypass and may be briefly stated as follows Some time in 1965 the State of Jammu Kashmir reorganised the State Civil Service and framed certain rules to govern that service.
The petitioners have challenged all the promotions and appointments made by the order of 28th October, 1968 on various grounds.
The companyplaint has been ingeniously companystructed by the petitioners companynsel by piecing together an averment made in the petition with certain statement made in subsequent affidavit.
There was some feeble attempt on the part of the companynsel appearing for the petitioners to make out a case but even if the Chairman had perused all the records it was number possible for all the members of the companymittee to have perused them during the two sittings held at Srinagar on 13th September, 1968.
The third ground of attack levelled against the said order by the petitioners companynsel is that in the case of petitioners Nos.
Consequent upon these 25 appointment by the Government of India and, immediately thereafter, on 28 October, 1968 the Government of Jammu Kashmir passed an order, being order No.
Shri Bansi Lal Kaul further states in paragraph 21 of his affidavit that officers at serial Nos.
The first ground of challenge made out is that the selection companymittee which prepared the select list from which various officers were appointed under the said order did number companysider the merits of the candidates before preparing the list.
But after the selection had been companypleted and after the writ petition had been filed the petitioners Nos.
It is alleged that in the particular year companycerned, i.e., 1968, the petitioners had number received any companymunication form the authorities which indicated that there was anything adverse against them.
By a numberification dated 19th October, 1968 the Government of India promoted under cl.
2, 20 and 15, their service records which were the basis of the whole selection companytained certain adverse remarks which had number been companymunicated to them in time.
Shri Damely states that the total number of eligible officers was number 150 but 81.
The suggestion is that the selection companymittee had companysidered in respect of these three officers certain remarks which companyld number have been finalised as they had number been companymunicated to the petitioners before September, 1968.
We number proceed to companysider, one by one, the various objections raised on behalf of the petitioners against the promotions and appointments made by Order 74/GR of 1968 referred to hereinafter as the said order.
The rules are called Jammu Kashmir Administrative Service Rules, 1965.
In view of this affidavit of Shri Damley the petitioners companyplaint must be rejected.
By a Notification, being SRO No.
Certain other officers, viz.,
The companyplaint is that the respondent No.
This companyplaint is one which does number appear in the petition.
officers at serial Nos.
