news details |
|
|
| HC pulls up Govt for continuing 'adhocsim' | | | S Sabaqat
Srinagar, Dec 4: Observing continued adhocism for indefinite period in violation of Supreme Court judgment by state government, J&K High Court today pulled up government for continuing 'adhocism' and make shift arrangements in different government departments including R&B with a strict remark that it is not known as to what are the compelling reasons for government to continue adhocism for indefinite period in violation of Supreme Court directions. While hearing a petition filed by four Superintendent Engineers challenging government order regarding promotion on adhoc basis of their counterparts a single bench of Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey today observed that Government has not registered seriousness of the matter and it has become routine for the government to violate the rules and judgments of the court. The Court strictly directed state government not make any arrangements against the posts of AEE, EE, SE and CE on adhoc / in-charge basis and also directed state to provide details of the posts against which the AEE, EE, SE and CE who are working on adhoc basis within a period of two weeks.Meantime noticing the violations of the judgment passed by the apex court with reference to the in-charge arrangements made by the government against posts of Assistant Executive Engineers (AEE), Executive Engineers (EE), Superintendent Engineers and Chief Engineers (CE), the court also had sought assistance of Advocate General in this regard . "It has long since been settled that an officiating promotion cannot be made without the consultation of the PSC for a period of more than six months," the court directed.Court also directed Commissioner Secretary R&B to file affidavit indicating the steps taken by the government for implementation of the judgment passed in Suraj Prakash case. Justice Magrey further directed government to detail out the reasons forming basis for making adhoc arrangements in the shape of impugned order.Court also directed that the said affidavit should be based on the official records and anything found contrary shall be viewed seriously and officer will be proceeded against. Counsel representing petitioners said that the order impugned has adversely affected the rights of the petitioners because the respondents have failed to consider them for promotion, instead promoted the persons who are far junior to them. He invited attention of the court to various judgments of the Supreme Court and submitted that during the pendency of SWP No 2513/2013, the High Court while issuing notice to the other side had directed that promotions, if any made, shall remain in abeyance . He further submits that there is no compliance of the direction passed by this court in LPA instead the respondents on extraneous consideration have accorded the benefit of in-charge arrangement in favour of respondents in terms of impugned order. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
