{"id":276300,"date":"2022-10-29T11:00:20","date_gmt":"2022-10-29T05:30:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=276300"},"modified":"2022-10-29T11:00:20","modified_gmt":"2022-10-29T05:30:20","slug":"principles-of-natural-justice-jk-and-ladakh-hc-the-expression-application-of-mind-is-not-meant-as-a-matter-of-usage-for-ritual-sake-but-is-a-living-principle-of-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/29\/principles-of-natural-justice-jk-and-ladakh-hc-the-expression-application-of-mind-is-not-meant-as-a-matter-of-usage-for-ritual-sake-but-is-a-living-principle-of-law\/","title":{"rendered":"[Principles of Natural Justice] J&K and Ladakh HC | The expression ‘Application of Mind’ is not meant as a matter of usage for ritual sake but is a living principle of law"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

   <\/p>\n

Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court<\/b>: While deciding the instant petition wherein a person’s engagement as Rehbar-e-Khel<\/i> was cancelled as he joined his duty after a lapse of 21 days as he was not physically present in India at the time, the Bench of Rahul Bharti, J., observed that that expression “Application of Mind<\/i>” is not meant as a matter of usage for ritual sake, but is a living principle of law out of which only an administrative\/ judicial\/quasi-judicial decision, must bear its natural delivery and not come by caesarean mode. “The legal principle of Application of Mind in its operational level, envisages the full view, comprehension and understanding of the facts of a given case, without any edit regarding which a decision in return is warranted in law from the decision maker<\/i>”.<\/p>\n

Facts<\/b>: The petitioner in pursuance to a J&K Government policy embodied in Govt. Order no. 141-Edu (YSS) of 2017 dated 27-10-2017, aiming to address the needs of physical fitness of the school children in the government schools, was appointed as Rehbar-e-Khel<\/i>. For the purpose of competing in the selection process, the petitioner had come from Oman where he had been then working as a Cashier in a hotel since February, 2017 and had gone back after competing in the selection process and was still staying in Oman when the selection list came to be published and his order of engagement dated 27-02-2019 came into picture. In terms of the requirements enlisted in the said composite order of engagement, it was stated that the selected candidate shall join his\/her duties within a period of 21 days.<\/b><\/p>\n

As soon as the afore-stated order came, the petitioner started the process to getting back to India and to join her service. The petitioner, acting through his father, also submitted his joining related documents before the District Youth Services & Sports Officer, Doda. The petitioner came to report for duty on 26-03-2019 after he had reached back India a day before. Thus, instead of joining duty within 21 days, the petitioner had joined duty on 26th day from the day next to the date of issuance of engagement order dated 27-02-2019.<\/b><\/p>\n

However, on the complaint of a wait-listed candidate who complained that the petitioner’s appointment was illegal as he was not present in India at the time of his appointment, the Youth Services & Sports Department, Jammu, via Order no. DG\/YSS\/Estt\/11112-16 dated 01-01-2020, cancelled the petitioner’s engagement as Rehbar-e-Khel<\/i>. The petitioner thus challenged this impugned order before the High Court.<\/p>\n

Observations<\/b>: Upon perusal of the facts and the impugned order, the Court made the following observations—<\/p>\n