THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & ORS. versus SHAHEENA MASARAT & ANR.

THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & ORS. versus SHAHEENA MASARAT & ANR.

The Division Bench correctly held that the upper age limit of 35 years specified in the advertisement dated 29.11.2002 is mandatory and that SRO 30 of 2003 (relaxing age limits from 01.01.2003) could not be applied to a selection process initiated by the 29.11.2002 advertisement; accordingly Respondent No.2 was...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors.; Respondents: Shaheena Masarat & Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
29 September 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Disposal by Supreme Court on Appeal From High Court Judgment Dated 13.04.2010
Legal Topics
Appointment to Public Posts, Age Limit for Appointment, Interpretation of 'as Far as Possible', Articles 14 and 16 Equality and Public Employment
Service Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Appointment to Public Posts Age Limit for Appointment Interpretation of 'as Far as Possible' Articles 14 and 16 Equality and Public Employment

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors.

Appellant

Shaheena Masarat & Anr.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Disposal by Supreme Court on Appeal From High Court Judgment Dated 13.04.2010

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the upper age limit of 35 years prescribed in the Rehbar-e-Taleem advertisement dated 29.11.2002 was mandatory for eligibility for appointment as Re-T
  2. 2 Whether SRO 30 of 2003 relaxing upper age limit could be made applicable to a selection process initiated by advertisement dated 29.11.2002
  3. 3 Whether the phrase 'as far as possible' in the scheme/advertisement made the age qualification directory rather than mandatory

Ratio Decidendi

The Division Bench correctly held that the upper age limit of 35 years specified in the advertisement dated 29.11.2002 is mandatory and that SRO 30 of 2003 (relaxing age limits from 01.01.2003) could not be applied to a selection process initiated by the 29.11.2002 advertisement; accordingly Respondent No.2 was ineligible and the High Court rightly directed appointment of Respondent No.1, but the High Court erred in directing continuance of Respondent No.2 on the same post, so that continuance direction was set aside and Respondent No.2 was to be accommodated in any other vacancy without retrospective benefits except salary/allowances already paid.