news details |
|
|
| HC quashes appointment of Nasreen Khan as Director Archives, Archaeology & Museums | | Asks Government to consider Mohammad Shafi Zahid for Director's post | | Jehangir Rashid
SRINAGAR, Dec 4: High Court has quashed the appointment of Nasreen Khan as Director, Archives, Archaeology & Museums on officiating basis. The Court has directed the State Government to consider Mohammad Shafi Zahid, Deputy Director, Archives, Archaeology & Museums for the position of Director, Archives, Archaeology & Museums.
A Division Bench of High Court comprising of Justice Mohammad Yaqoob Mir and Justice Muzaffar Hussain Attar while upholding officiating promotion of Nasreen Khan said that when Annual Performance Reports (APRs) are not available, seniority has to be made base for promotion. The court observed that since the APRs of appellant (Mohammad Shafi Zahid) were available and had been graded 'outstanding' the appellant is fit to head the Department of Archaeology.
Both Justices Mir and Attar also said that there is also specific mention of appreciation letters, documents and certificates favoring the appellant. They observed that all these aspects have been ignored with the sole object of excluding the appellant from getting what he was entitled to.
"The impugned judgment (ordering for appointment of Nasreen Khan on officiating basis), for the stated reasons, is not sustainable, as such, quashed. The official respondent shall afresh accord consideration to the promotion case of the appellant and respondent number 3 (Nasreen Khan) in accordance with the applicable rules, more particularly Rule 25 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules. The same process be undertaken and completed within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date copy of the order is served upon respondents," said the division bench.
The division bench pronounced the judgment on the appeal filed by Zahid after the arguments put forth by Advocate Mian Abdul Qayoom on behalf of petitioner and Advocate Moshin Qadri and Advocate Nazir Ahmad Malik on behalf of the official respondent.
The division bench ruled that the case of appellant for promotion to the post of Director, Archives, Archaeology and Museums has not been considered the way it deserves to be. The court ruled that appellant possesses impressive career which is evidenced by various communication placed on record. The meritorious work has been appreciated by different institutions in and outside the country placed on record, the court observed.
"When the official respondent had declared Nasreen Khan unsuccessful and unsuitable, same was not challenged by her, how she has been considered and promoted on officiating basis as Director vide Government Order No. 114-Cul of 2012 dated 27.09.2012. The findings recorded by the learned Writ Court on the issue are not convincing. In the impugned judgment, while dealing with this issue, erroneous reasoning has prevailed to the exclusion of the appellant- Mohammad Shafi Zahid," the division bench said.
The court observed when Nasreen Khan was not eligible and not suitable for promotion then how official respondent has taken a U-turn and issued the order of promotion on officiating basis in favour of Nasreen Khan. Such action of the respondent cannot be said to be fair in the background of the facts presented in connection with the case.
In the petition, Zahid has submitted that Nasreen Khan is suffering from Hamparesis for quite a long period and has been unable to work in her parent department Archives, Archaeology & Museums and had not challenged the order which concluded that she is unsuitable for promotion on the grounds : (a) physically being unwell, not in a position to attend office regularly and do justice with her assignment, (b) does not possess five (5) years experience as Deputy Director Archives, Archaeology & Museums, and (c) for non-availability of APRs.
The court had ruled that reasoning recorded in the impugned judgment for upholding the officiating promotion of the respondent number 3 is inconsistent with the rules and is erroneous. The court had further ruled that the order of promotion on officiating basis appears to be calculated only to exclude the appellant. It observed that Rule 25(2) of Classification, Control & Appeal Rules providing for merit and ability has been totally ignored. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
