news details |
|
|
| Petitioner struggling for 15 years to get the post of SI | | |
JAMMU, MAY 08
Justice Nirmal Singh of Jammu & Kashmir High Court, Jammu wing, in landmark judgment today decided the case of petitioner, who had appeared in the selection process for the post of Sub-Inspector in 1991-92, but appointed one lady with lesser marks, has directed the State respondent that they shall issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner against a post having the same pay-scale as that of SI in the Home-Department after relaxing the age limit as on the date.
The Court further directed that needful should be done by the respondents within a period of two months from the date and ordered that a copy of this order shall be made available to them.
In his petition Jagmohan Singh submitted that in pursuance to the advertisement dated August 20, 1991 issued by the respondents, he applied for the post of Sub-Inspector in the executive wing of the J&K Police for which the educational qualification was graduation with minimum age limit of 28 years on January 1, 1991. The petitioner being eligible submitted the application and participated in the selection process which comprised physical measurement and outdoor test, written test and viva-voce. The petitioner qualified all the tests and was called for interview. It is further stated that the petitioner had applied under NCC category as he was possessing “B” and “C” certificates. The respondents issued select list in the month of November 1992 in which the name of the petitioner did not figure. The petitioner submitted though he had secured 164 marks, one Jabeen Akhter, who had secured only 161 marks was appointed and the petitioner was ignored. The petitioner moved representations before DGP and the CM. He stated that the CM recommended his case directing the DGP tp undo the wrong done to him and subsequently the DGP on February 7, 2004 recommended to the Financial Commissioner Home for appointment to the post of SI in relaxation of rules and upper age limit, but the said recommendation was not acted upon and the case of the petitioner was rejected.
Justice Nirmal Singh, after hearing Adv Rahul Pant appearing for the petitioner and Additional Advocate General Mr. BS Salathia appearing for the state respondents, observed that the Governor has rejected the proposal for giving appointment to the petitioner and made a statement that this file including the draft prepared by the Home department was misplaced. In view of this statement made by AAG, Court is of the opinion for the negligence of the department concerned and the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. When the respondents themselves have recommended the case for appointing him to the post of SI, then he cannot be denied of his rightful claim merely because the file was misplaced. Even the Chief Minister of the state before whom the representation was made by the petitioner examined the case and issued directions to undo the wrong done to the petitioner.
Justice Singh further observed that respondents in their objections have pleaded that in terms of government instructions September 17, 1991, five percent seats are reserved for women candidates and it was under this quote Jabeen Akhter was selected/ appointed even though she possessed lesser merit than the petitioner. The respondents, however, while inviting the applications have not mentioned in the advertisement notice that there will be reservation for women candidates, therefore, the aforesaid plea of respondents that Jabeen Akhter though lesser in merit was appointed under the category cannot sustain.
In his landmark judgment Justice Singh further observed that the Court is of the opinion that the case of the petitioner merits consideration in the light of the facts that he was denied of his rightful claim due to lapse on the part of the respondents because a draft note was prepared in this case by the authority concerned vide which sanction was accorded to appointment of the petitioner as SI in relaxation of recruitments rules and upper age limit in favour of the petitioner and this draft note prepared on February 17, 1995 was sent for the approval of Governor of the state but the file as per the stand taken by the respondents was misplaced in the office concerned. Court would have no hesitation in directing the respondents to issue an appointment order in favour of the petitioner, even though Court is aware of the fact that it would not be proper to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioners as Sub-Inspector after about and one and a half decade, the respondents due to lapse on their part are duty bound to adjust the petitioner on the post having pay-scale equivalent to the post of Sub-inspector in the Home Department..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
