news details |
|
|
| HC quashes reversion order of orderly | | |
JAMMU, APRIL 24
Justice YP Nargotra of J&K High Court, Jammu wing, has quashed the order of Registrar Cooperative Societies, whereby petitioner was reverted from the post of Junior Assistant to orderly.
This significant order was passed in a writ petition filed by one Jaspreet Kour who came to be appointed as Junior Assistant on compassionate grounds, as her mother, who was working as Junior Assistant died during the service period, in terms of SRO 43 of 1994 on March 11, 2006. The petitioner 10+2 joined against the post of junior assistant, however, the Registrar Cooperative Societies on April 22, 2006 issued corrigendum, whereby petitioner was appointed orderly instead of junior Assistant.
Justice Nargotra, after hearing Adv SK Puri appearing for the petitioner and Deputy AG, Vinod Bakshi appearing for the respondent State, observed that from bare reading of the rule, it is manifest that for being eligible to appointment under Rule 3, a person has to satisfy, two conditions, firstly that he comes within the purview specified under rule 2 and secondly that he possesses either of the qualification prescribed under rule, matriculation or up to matriculation, if such person possesses the qualification above matriculation, then he can be appointed to the post lowest in rank of non-gazetted services and, if such person possesses the qualification up to matriculation, then he can be appointed against class-IV post. Rule 3 takes the precedence over SRO 82 because of its containing non-obstante clause.
Justice Nargotra further observed that in this view of matter, the petitioner was fully eligible to be appointed on the post of Junior Assistant, as such could not have been reverted to the post of orderly under corrigendum impugned dated April 24, 2006 issued by Registrar Cooperative Societies. Therefore, these petitions are allowed and accordingly the corrigendum and order of April 24, 2006 issued by the Registrar Cooperative Societies J&K, is hereby quashed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be restored back to her original position of post at which she was appointed in terms of order dated March 11, 2006 and shall be given all consequential benefits including the monetary benefits and disposed off the petition with the consent of counsels for the parties. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
