| Writ of Quo-Warranto dismissed with costs Rs 10,000 | | Posts of Assitt Professors Cardiology, Urology | | Jammu, Sept 24: In a petition filed by Lawlex Education & Research Trust charitable Education and Research Trust having its head office at 56, Mohalla Dalpattian, Tehsil and District Jammu, challenging declaring Dr. Dharminder Kumar presently posted as Assistant professor Cardiology Dept GMC and Dr. Elias Sharma presently posted as Assistant Professors, Urology, respectively, with direction to the State respondents to remove these two respondents from their respective posts and to fill up the same by promoting the eligible persons strictly in terms of the J&K Medical Education (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1979, Justice Ali Mohd Magrey of J&K High Court Jammu Wing after hearing Adv SK Shukla, Sr. Adv BS Salathia with Adv Ms Meenakshi Salathia for the petitioner whereas Deputy AG Neeru Goswami appearing for the state and Sr. Adv MK Bhardwaj with Adv Vasu Dubey appearing for Dr. Dharminder Kumar and Sr. PN Raina with Adv JA Hamal appearing for Dr. Elias Sharma and FA Natnoo appearing for the PSC, dismissed in limine with costs of Rs.10,000 alongwith the connected CMA. Costs shall be deposited in Lawyers Welfare Fund within one month from today, failing which Registrar Judicial shall frame Robkar against petitioners for non-compliance of directions of this Court, and list the same as suo-moto contempt petition.
While dismissing the petition Justice AM Magrey observed that It needs to be mentioned here that the documents appended by the petitioner with this petition, which are copies of government orders, have not been obtained by him in due course of law, say under Right to Information Act. A bare perusal of these documents shows that some of these have been photocopied from the concerned Government files. For instance, Government order dated 04.12.2012, annexure 'D" appended to the petition is shown to have actually been endorsed to HRM Section; and Government order dated 11.07.2008, annexure 'E' appended to the petition is shown to have been endorsed to Government Order file. This casts a serious cloud on the bona fides and intentions of the petitioner. The petitioner professes to espouse the public cause of legal awareness, but at the same time has himself not obtained the documents, relied upon by him, in a legal manner. It is not disclosed by the petitioner how he has come in possession of these documents. After all, there is a legal mechanism established by law for obtaining copies of governmental documents. These government orders have not been photocopied from any Government Gazette.
Court leaves it to the discretion of the Government in the Health and Medical Education Department to hold an enquiry, or take such other legal course as may be available, to ascertain how these documents have been photocopied from the Government record files; who is responsible for the same and what action should be taken for such a lapse. Reading between the lines, the contention of the respondents about the mala fides of the petitioner cannot wholly be brushed aside. Law is settled that busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners have absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as a proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity. (JNF) |
|
