news details |
|
|
| DB directed respondent for appointment of petitioner | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Mar 16: Division Bench of J&K High Court Jammu comprising Chief Justice Barin Ghosh and Justice Muzaffar Hussain Attar in appeal filed by the state against the order of judgment of the single judge, declined to interfere with the judgment and order under appeal, except that the appointment pursuant to the judgment and the order passed by the single judge be given to the petitioner/respondent as quickly as possible, but not later than three months from the date of judgment issued by the Division Bench and the petitioner/respondent shall be entitled to all the monetary benefits of the said appointment from the date of his joining.
As per case details an advertisement issued by the respondents, the petitioner Razak Ahmed who belongs to open merit category was selected, when the merit list was published, the name of the petitioner was shown in the category candidates. The petitioner was asked to establish that he belongs to the reserved category, petitioner made a representation he does not belong to any reserve category and made it clear that he having not represented to any reserve category. The petitioner also submitted that he has been selected in the open merit category and by mistake he was shown to have been selected as member of reserve category. This submission of the petitioner was not accepted by the respondents. The petitioner filed a petition in the state high court through Advocate Surinder Kour, the petition was allowed. Against the state has filed this appeal in which AAG HA Qazi appeared for the state.
Division bench directed the appellant to produce the records. The appellant has reported that the record are now not traceable, except a hand written teshil wise and category wise list of candidates on the basis the appellant has prepared a tabulation is kept with the records, from the said tabulation, it appears that some people who got lesser marks that then petitioner and belong to open merit category were also appointed. In that we of the matter, DB do not interfere with the judgment and order under appeal and directed the state to appoint the petitioner. ----(JNF)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
