Competent Authority Must Consider Statutory Relaxation of Qualification Bar for Long-Term Temporary Employees

The seven applicants were appointed to the respondent department (Handicrafts) between 1992 and 1996.

This litigation marks their third attempt to seek regularization and pensionary benefits.

Their claim was rejected by Respondent No. 4 via Order No. 118-DHHK of 2024 dated 08.07.2024, on the grounds that they did not possess the requisite educational qualifications.

The applicants challenged this rejection, arguing that they have served for nearly 33 years and that the Government possesses the power to relax qualification barriers.

The respondents contended that they lack the competence to regularize migrant substitutes and that the applicants cannot repeatedly litigate the same grievance.

1. Whether the court has the power to direct a relaxation of statutory qualifications or age requirements for regularization.

2. Whether the competent authority can be directed to consider a proposal for relaxation of rules based on long-term service and humanitarian grounds.

The Tribunal primarily noted that Courts do not possess the inherent power to direct the relaxation of qualification or age bars.

Rule 5 of the JK Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, read with Rule 8 of the JK Business Rules, which empowers the competent authority (the Government) to grant such relaxations.

Supreme Court’s decision in Jagoo v. Union of India, which emphasizes fair employment practices and humanitarian considerations for long-term temporary workers to uphold Article 21 rights.

The Tribunal observed that while it cannot legally mandate a relaxation of rules, it can direct the administration to evaluate cases on individual merit.

It noted that the applicants have dedicated their "prime youth"—nearly 33 years—to the department, and rejecting them solely on a qualification bar without considering a relaxation proposal was mechanical.

Although the Director (Respondent No. 4) lacked the power to grant relaxation, the Tribunal found that the Administrative Department (Respondent No. 3) remained competent to initiate such a proposal.

The Tribunal balanced the respondents' plea of "repeated litigation" against the "fresh cause of action" arising from the 2024 rejection order, concluding that a humanitarian approach was warranted under the JK Business Rules to ensure justice and prevent unnecessary litigation.

The court held that the respondents should take a "humanitarian view" in light of the applicants' extensive service and the legal principles laid down in Jagoo v. Union of India, without awarding costs.