‘Such requests involve executive decisions must be taken up with appropriate authorities’
Srinagar: The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a petition seeking age-relaxation benefits in Central Government recruitment for displaced Kashmiri Pandits.
As per the news agency—Kashmir News Observer (KNO), the plea, filed by Panun Kashmir Trust under Article 32 of the Constitution, asked for parity in age-relaxation for Group C and D posts, similar to what has been extended to victims of the 1984 anti-Sikh riots and the 2002 Gujarat riots.
A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta heard the matter and dismissed the petition at the initial stage. The Court observed that decisions regarding age-relaxation and related benefits fall within the domain of policy-making and are not to be determined through constitutional writ jurisdiction.
At the beginning of the hearing, Justice Nath asked whether such an issue could be adjudicated under Article 32 and questioned if it was appropriate for the judiciary to intervene in a policy matter of this kind.
Appearing for the petitioners, Advocate-on-Record Sudarshan Rajan sought to argue that the exclusion of Kashmiri Pandits from such provisions amounted to discrimination.
The petition claimed that displaced Kashmiri Hindus, who were forced to leave their homes during the unrest in the valley during the late 1980s and early 1990s, continue to face disadvantage in accessing government jobs due to the lack of special consideration in recruitment rules.
The petition also raised the issue of what it called “hostile discrimination” against Kashmiri Pandits, stating that while other riot-affected communities have been granted concessions, similar treatment has not been extended to this group.
It argued that the victims of the Kashmir violence fall within the same class as those affected by other communal disturbances for whom age-relaxation policies have been framed.
The Supreme Court, however, did not accept this line of reasoning, stating that it was not the proper forum to seek such relief. The bench made it clear that such requests involve executive decisions that are within the scope of government policy and must be taken up with the appropriate authorities—(KNO)