news details |
|
|
| JKHC rejects contempt action against chairman of SSB | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, July 22: A Division Bench of the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, comprising Chief Justice N Kotishwar Singh and Justice Javed Iqbal Wani, has refused to initiate contempt action against the Chairman of the Jammu & Kashmir Service Selection Board (SSB) for alleged non-compliance with a 2013 court direction to undertake a fresh selection process for the posts of Assistant Information Officer Grade-II, as advertised in 2006.
The Division Bench pointed out that the direction could not be enforced due to a policy decision taken by the Union Territory (UT) Administration. The decision, made on January 29, 2022, involved the withdrawal of all posts referred to the Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission (JKPSC) and JKSSB before October 31, 2019, in cases where selections had not been finalized or where pending litigations existed. Consequently, the SSB was unable to make any appointments following the selection process.
The petitioners contended that the administrative decision should not nullify the court's order and accused the SSB of willfully disobeying the court's directions. However, the Division Bench clarified that the administrative decision was not aimed at a particular case or specific reference to the order dated May 10, 2013, but rather applied generally to all cases where selections had not been finalized until the policy decision and where litigations and pending cases were involved.
The Bench noted that in 2019, the SSB had formed a Committee to initiate the selection process afresh, as directed by the Division Bench. Accordingly, written tests and interviews were conducted, but subsequently, the policy decision to withdraw the posts was taken, leading to the inability to make appointments.
The Court emphasized that the Division Bench had not issued any specific direction to issue appointment orders based on the selection made by the concerned selection authority. Therefore, the non-appointment of candidates could not be considered contemptuous.
The Division Bench explained that selection and appointment were two distinct parts of the recruitment process and did not necessarily go together. It clarified that being recommended for appointment did not grant a person an absolute right to be appointed. The appointing authority could choose not to appoint any recommended person based on valid reasons.
With these observations, the Division Bench absolved the SSB of contempt charges and concluded the matter. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
