Serial No.15 Regular Cause list IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) No. 421/2023 1. Rafiq Ahmad Shah, Age 42 Years S/o Late KhazirMohd Shah R/o Bulbul Nowgam Tehsil and District Anantnag. 2. Ghulam Hassan Ganie Age 43 Years S/o Mohd Shaban Ganie R/o SaliaGanieGund, Anantnag 3. Nazir Ahmad Sheikh, Age 47 Years S/o Ab. Rehman Sheikh R/o Ainu BraiAshmuqam, Anantnag. ….. Appellant/petitioner(s) Through: - Mr. Sheikh Younis, Advocate V/s 1. UT of J&K through Commissioner/Secretary to Law Department, Civil secretariat, Srinagar. 2. High Court of UT of J&K and Ladakh, through Registrar General 3. Principal Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice, High Court of UT of J&K and Ladakh. ….. Respondent(s) Through: - Mr. M. I. Qadri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Owais Shafi, Advocate for R2-3 Mr. F. N. Shah, GA CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE (ORDER) 04.06.2025 (Oral) 01. The writ petitioners three in number have been working as Sweepers/Mali in the district Judiciary for the last 17 to 25 years on daily- wage basis. The petitioner No. 1 was engaged as Sweeper in the Court of learned Munsiff, Anantnag vide order dated 18th of October, 2005, issued by Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document the Munsiff (Judicial Magistrate 1st Class), Anantnag on the directions of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Anantnag. Petitioner No. 2 was engaged as Mali on daily-rated basis by the Principal Secretary to Lord Chief Justice (Acting) vide order No. 952 dated 02.01.2008. So far as the petitioner No. 3 is concerned, he came to be engaged on day-to-day basis, with a day’s break, as Sweeper in the Court of Munsiff (Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class), Aishmuqam on 29.06.2000. This order was passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Anantnag on 29.06.2000. It is thus evident that the petitioners are continuing as Sweepers/Mali on daily-wage basis for the last 17 to 25 years. 02. With a view to conferring the benefit of regularization of services on the daily-wagers, who had been working in the District Judiciary for the last more than ten years, the then Lord Chief Justice in the exercise of powers conferred by Rule 12 (a) of the Jammu and Kashmir Ministerial and Other Staff of the Subordinate Courts Rules, 2016 [“the Rules of 2016”] framed “The Regularization of Services of Daily-Wagers in the Subordinate Courts of J&K Regulations, 2022 [“the Regulations of 2022”]. As per the Regulations of 2022, it is provided that all daily-wagers, who have been engaged by the competent authority on daily wages and were possessing the basic qualification for appointment at the time of their initial engagement and have served for more than ten years regularly, shall be eligible for regular appointment, provided their work and conduct has remained satisfactory and there are no disciplinary proceedings pending against them. 03. The case of the petitioners, who had been working on daily-wage basis for the last 17 to 25 years in the district Judiciary of district, Anantnag, Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document was processed under the Regulations of 2022 for according them the benefit of regularization. The case of the petitioners has been turned down by the competent authority on the ground that the Regulations of 2022 do not contain any provision for relaxation in qualification. It may be noted that in the case of the petitioners, the relaxation in qualification was required and it was in that context, the case was put up before the competent authority for relaxation. 04. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners are before us, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to seek mandamus to the respondents to consider their case for relaxation of education qualification in terms of the Rules of 2016. The directions are prayed for, primarily, on the ground that the High Court has been, in the similar circumstances, relaxing the education qualification in case of similarly situated persons and that there is ample power under the Rules of 2016 to relax the education qualification in exceptional circumstances. 05. The writ petition is contested by the respondents. In the reply affidavit filed by the Registrar General on behalf of the High Court, the stand taken is that under the Regulations of 2022, there is a specific provision for relaxation of age in appropriate cases, but there is no such power reserved in the competent authority to relax the qualification. It is submitted that for the aforesaid reason, the cases of the petitioners for relaxation of qualification have been turned down by the competent authority. Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 06. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, it is not in dispute that all the three petitioners are in the service of district Judiciary, Anantnag as Sweepers/Mali on daily-wage basis for the last 17 to 25 years. It is true that at the time of initial engagement of the petitioners and even as on date, they do not hold the qualification of matriculation, which is a prescribed qualification for the post of Class IV in the district Judiciary under the Rules of 2016. It is also not in dispute that what for the relaxation of qualification which may be required in the case of the petitioners, the petitioners are otherwise falling in the zone of consideration for regularization under the Regulations of 2022. It is because of their eligibility minus requisite qualification, the cases of the petitioners were recommended to the competent authority for relaxation. 07. In view of the pleadings of the parties and in particular the stand taken by the High Court, following question that begs determination in this petition is: whether under the Regulations of 2022 read with the Rules of 2016, there is power vested in the Lord Chief Justice to relax the qualification. 08. A bare reading of the Rules of 2022, particularly Rule 6 (iv) thereof, the Regulations contain a provision only with regard to relaxation of age and this relaxation has to be accorded strictly in terms of the proviso to Rule 8 of the Rules of 2016. 09. We are in agreement with the stand of the High Court that Regulations of 2016 do not specifically contain similar provision, providing for relaxation of qualification for regularization of daily-wagers, otherwise eligible for regularization under the Regulations of 2022. We are, however, Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document of the opinion that the Regulations of 2022 cannot be read in isolation. In any case these Regulations have been framed by the Lord Chief Justice in the exercise of power conferred by Rule 12 (a) of the Rules of 2016 and, therefore, are nothing but extension of the Rules of 2016. Rule 10 of the Rules of 2016 is relevant for discussion we have undertaken and the same is set out below:- “10. Qualification for appointment (i) No person shall be eligible for appointment in the service, whether by direct recruitment or on promotion, unless he fulfils the requisite qualifications prescribed for such appointment in the Schedule-‘B’, [as the case may be,] to these Rules. Provided that while granting promotion to a higher post, officials who are in service on the date these rules come into force shall be considered notwithstanding their qualifications and due regard shall be given to the service rendered by such employee. Chief Justice may grant relaxation in academic qualification to an in-service candidate in such cases, if he is otherwise suitable for the post and his service record has remained satisfactory: Provided that in exceptional cases, for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Chief Justice may relax the qualification bar, either generally or in individual cases. (ii) Only domiciles of Unition Territory of Jammu and Kashmir shall be eligible for appointment in the service.” 10. From reading of Rule 10 of the Rules of 2016, it clearly transpires that the post of Class IV against which the petitioners are to be regularized is a post borne on Schedule ‘B’ and is required to be filled up by way of direct recruitment. Regularization of Sweepers, Malis, Chowkidars etc, as Class IV employees is per se a direct recruitment to Class IV post and, therefore, covered by Rule 10 of the Rules of 2016. It is true that in terms of Class (i) of Rule 10 of Rules of 2016, no person is eligible for appointment in the service, whether by direct recruitment or on promotion, unless he fulfils the requisite qualification prescribed for such appointment in the Schedule-‘B’. Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 11. Indisputably, the minimum qualification prescribed for Class IV post in Schedule ‘B’ is matriculation. None of the petitioners is a matriculate and, therefore, in view of provisions of Class (i) of Rule 10 of the Rules of 2016, they are not entitled to be engaged as Class IV. However, proviso second to the Clause makes an exception and confers upon the Lord Chief Justice power to relax the qualification bar in exceptional cases and this the Lord Chief Justice has to do for reasons to be recorded in writing. The Lord Chief Justice may exercise this power, either generally in a class of employees or in individual cases. 12. Since the regularization in terms of Regulations of 2022, would ultimately result into direct recruitment to the post of Class IV, borne on the cadre of service constituted by the Rules of 2016, as such, the applicability of Rule 10 of the Rules of 2016, cannot be excluded. 13. Viewed thus, we are of the considered opinion that in terms of Rule 10 of the Rules of 2016, in particular proviso second appended thereto, the Lord Chief Justice has ample power to relax the qualification bar in exceptional cases. 14. In the instant case, we have seen that the petitioners have been working as Sweepers/Mali on daily-wage basis for the last 17 to 25 years and have raised their families on the meagre income, which they had been deriving out of this engagement. It would be too harsh at this stage to deny them the regularization that too on the ground that they do not possess the qualification of matriculation. We are not sure whether at the time they were engaged as Sweepers/Mali, there was any qualification prescribed for the aforesaid posts. It is apparently the case of exceptional nature. The Lord Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chief Justice, in the interest of justice, may exercise the power of relaxation of qualification to mitigate the hardships of petitioners. 15. In view of aforesaid, we allow this petition and direct the competent authority to re-consider the case of the petitioners for relaxation of qualification bar in terms of Rule 10 of the Rules of 2016, keeping in view the observations made hereinabove. Let the consideration be made and fresh orders be passed within a period of two months from the date a copy of this order is served upon the respondents. 16. Disposed of along with connected CM(s). (SANJAY PARIHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE SRINAGAR 04.06.2025 “Mohammad Yasin Dar” Whether the order is reportable: Yes Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document