Daya SagarNo prime political party has truthfully worked for the cause of the victims of SRO-202. Even Omar Abdullah’s NC has failed to stand to fair trial. NC- Congress Govt. had realised after some time the bads of their New Recruitment Policy 2011 and had withdrawn New Recruitment Policy by issuing Government order No:156F of 27-06-2014.Hence atleast NC was expected to request the LG of UT of J&K for correction. But even after S.O 184 of 04-06-2020 ( The Jammu and Kashmir Appointment to Class IV (Special Recruitment Rules 2020) has been issued by order of LG UT of J&K the statement of Provincial President Devender Singh Rana as reported in media is silent on the rules 8,9,10,11,12 of SRO-202 becoming part of The Jammu and Kashmir Appointment to Class IV (Special Recruitment Rules ) 2020. He/NC had all opportunity & reasons to question, but has not. Girish Chandra Murmu has also disappointed the well meaning people by not making fair use of Art-309 of COI while orderingof S.O 184 of 04-06-2020. Small parties like Sainik Samaj Party, AAP party did make some statements.
No doubt wisdom in Keeping 5 years probation period even for Doctors could be questioned But more bad is denying allowances like DA, HRA, CCA, TA, CEA, CHSA for a period of 5 years Lt Governor of UT of J&K rethink for using Art-309 of COI to undo SRO-202
J&K CSR says in Article 31-C: Probationer means a Government servant employed on probation in or against a substantive vacancy in the cadre of a Department….Note I.-The status of a probationer is to be considered as having the attributes of a substantive status except where the rules prescribe otherwise. Note 2.-No person appointed substantively to a permanent post in a cadre is a probationer unless definite conditions of probation have been attached to his appointment such as the condition that he must remain on probation pending the passing of certain examination. So much care has to be taken while dealing with services under the State. Section-124 of J&K Constitution did say ” Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Legislature may by law regulate the recruitment, and conditions of service of persons appointed, to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State: Provided that it shall be competent for the *Governor, or such person as he may direct, to make rules regulating the recruitment, and the conditions of service of person appointed, to such services and posts until provision, in that behalf is made by or under an Act of the Legislature under this section and any rules so made shall have effect subject to the provisions of any such Act.” And Constitution of India too under Art-309 : Recruitment and conditions of service of persons serving the Union or a State nearly lays down similar constitutional position with the proviso : Provided that it shall be competent for the President or such person as he may direct in the case of services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union, and for the Governor *** of a State or such person as he may direct in the case of services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State, to make rules regulating the recruitment, and the conditions of service of persons appointed, to such services and posts until provision in that behalf is made by or under an Act of the appropriate Legislature under this article, and any rules so made shall have effect subject to the provisions of any such Act. Hence while issuing orders like SRO- 202 of 30-06-2015 (Jammu and Kashmir Special Recruitment Rules, 2015) by order of the Governor J&K under Section- 124 of J&K Constitution utmost care was needed for laying doing general conditions of recruitment and service for a very large segments of the government employees to be appointed after 30-06-2020 against a substantive vacancy in the cadre of a Department. But that care was not judiciously applied. May be 80% of new appointees after 30-06-2020 are to be victims of SRO-202. The case with the NC- Congress Govt’s new recruitment policy under Order No.257-F of 2011 dated 27-10-2011 later with drawn by Government order No:156F of 27-06-2014 surely was no different except that PDP-BJP Government went a step ahead and `incorporated even an option for bringing some gazetted posts too in the domain ( order for recruitment of nearly 1000 qualified doctors was made under SRO 202 rules in 2019).But appointing a person under a substantive graded regular post on probation for five years and denying during probation period all allowances like DA, HRA,CCA, Transport Allowance , Child Education Allowance (CEA) , Child Hostel Subsidy Allowance (CHSA), etc, would always sound unfair to any rational wisdom. Ofcourse 5 years long period of probation ( as policy in general) without increment too could be socially / professionally questioned. It is not because the Memo No.28020/l/2010-Estt(c) 21-07-2014 supra issued by the GOI MoP, PG&P (Department of P & T) that talks of probation period of one to two years, I would be quoting that memo also here simply for questioning 5 years probation but surely it could be quoted here in support to contest non payment of annual increment ( that otherwise an employee earns out of his fair performance over one year ) for a period as long as for 5 years too (surely) appears unwise. No doubt the action of the then Government and the present government continuing with Jammu and Kashmir Special Recruitment Rules, 2015 had cover of Section-124 / has some cover of Art-309. Even if some one goes to court, it will most likely go in favour of Government even if action / policy of the executive appears not fair / in human violating basic fundamental rights of some citizens since Art-309 protects it. Is the case of SRO-202 victims not similar to the plight / helplessness of 1947 refugees from West Pakistan staying / cultivating lands in J&K, the woman Permanent Residents (PRs) of J&K, ST PRs who had been denied political reservationsand non PR Indian citizens denied right on100 % government jobs/ seats in government professional colleges / fixed assets in J&K where even the higher Courts had shown helplessness in view of Art35A of COI being there to protect the unfair acts of the then State Government / Legislature. So, here too it could be said that the then governments made unfair use of Section-124 of J&K Constitution and now the executive have Art 309 to protect. It is only the LG of UT of J&K and LG UT of Ladakh who can write off the unfair recruitment policies/ rules like SRO-202.
We lost another gem: Amitabh Bachchan remembers co-star Jagdeep
Director Bhansali reaches police station to record statement
Ajay Devgn’s “Maidaan” to release in August 2021
Potential COVID-19 vaccine by Zydus Cadila gets DCGI nod for human clinical trials
Sushant suicide: Bhansali’s statement to be recorded on July 6
© 2020 State Times Daily Newspaper