news details |
|
|
| HC quashes appointment of private respondent Asst Jail Supt | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Oct 30: In a petition filed by Shahzada Musharib challenges the select list issued by respondent No.2 in reference to Item No. 53 of advertisement notification No. 02 of2003 dated 10.12.2003 whereby and whereunder the respondent No.3 has been selected on the post of Assistant Superintendent of Jail. The petitioner also seeks direction to the respondents to select and appoint him on the post of Assistant Superintendent Jail notified vide notification dated 10.12.2003.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar after hearing both the sides observed that apart, from perusal of record it clearly transpires that the check list filled up and signed by the petitioner with reference to notification No. 02 of 2003 has been tempered at more than one places. When confronted with the aforesaid position, learned counsel appearing for the Selection Board could not justify the aforesaid tempering. Record clearly reveals that with a view to deprive the petitioner of selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Superintendent Jail notified by notification No. 02 of 2003 and confer wrongful benefit upon respondent No.3, the officers/officials of the respondent-Board indulged in tempering of the records. It is painful to notice that even the officers at the helm of affairs have made all efforts to justify the wrong committed by its officers who were associated with the selection process in question. It was expected of Service Selection Board to come clear in the reply affidavit and admit omissions and commissions committed by its officers. Had the court not perused the relevant record, the tempering in the check list of the petitioner would have gone un-noticed.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar further observed that it is not in dispute that if petitioner is awarded 13 points for interview and the same are added to his total tally of selection merit, he would make it to the select list being a person with highest merit in the selection for the post in question. The learned counsel for the Board does not deny this position.
With these observations, High Court allowed the petition and ordered that the selection of respondent No.3 as Assistant Superintendent Jail is quashed. The respondent No. 2 is directed to forward the selection of the petitioner against the post of Assistant Superintendent Jail, in reference to Notification No. 02 of 2003, to the respondent No.1with its recommendations for appointment within a period of four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is received by it. Respondent No.1 shall issue the appointment order of the petitioner within a period of four weeks thereafter. The petitioner shall be entitled to appointment as Assistant Superintendent Jail retrospectively with effect from the date respondent No.3 was so appointed, with all consequential benefits, except monitory benefits. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
