news details |
|
|
| HC allows 22 petitions challenging select list of SI | | | early times report
Jammu, Sept 13: In a landmark judgment Justice Sunil Hali of Jammu & Kashmir High Court (Jammu Wing) while allowing twenty-two writ petitions challenging the selection-list of Sub-Inspectors, directed State respondents to consider the merit of petitioners vis-à-vis those candidates who have been selected on the basis of the concession granted by then Advocate General. The court also directed in case the merit of the petitioners is higher than those in the select list as a result of such concession, the petitioners shall be appointed against the post of Sub-Inspectors from the date the said persons have been appointed as per their merit petition.
This landmark judgment pronounced in 22 writ petitions filed in the year of 2008 and 2009 challenged the selection list of Sub-Inspectors on the basis of advertisement notice February 25, 1999. Having failed to make the grades in the said selection process, unsuccessful candidates challenged the selection/appointment in petition No 276/2000 on the ground that being state-cadre post, the selection was required to be made on state-wise basis while as the same was made on Province level.
The writ Court disposed of the said petition by a common order against which LPA came to be filed by the State. Division Bench of this Court while disposing of the LPA quashed the select-list and vide order August 19, 2001 and issued direction to the State re-draw the merit list on State wise. Against the order of Division Bench, SLP came to be filed by the State which too was dismissed by the Apex Court on August 10, 2004 and the judgment of the Division Bench was affirmed. In view of directions of the Division Bench and affirmed by Apex Court, State-wise merit list was re-drawn, as a result of which 47 candidates who were earlier selected/appointed did not come in the merit zone as they were ordered to be ousted. Order their ousting was not given effect too as a result of which contempt petition came to be filed. On presentation of the contempt petition, Notice issued to respondents to implement the judgment of Division Bench.
This order, however, challenged by the ousted candidates before the Apex Court in the year 2006, the Apex Court vide its order dated May 10, 2007 passed the order in which it has been mentioned that Mr. Altaf H Naik (then) Advocate General fairly submits that all the 47 petitioners who are likely to go out of job as a result of impugned order passed the High Court and 22 respondents will accommodated on the post of Sub-Inspector. He further submitted that all 47 petitioners who are selected on the accounts of impugned selection and are presently working will be allowed to continue on their posts.
In view of this statement made by the Advocate General, the Apex Court do not think feel to determine any legal question involved in this matter. Consequently the appeal stands disposed of in view of the statement made by then Advocate General.
The petitioners even though have secured either equal marks or higher marks than the private respondents have been left out which action of official respondents is said to be discriminatory in nature and violation of Article 14 and 16 of the constitutions.
Justice Sunil Hali after hearing Advocates Surinder Kour, Abhinav Sharma, Shahzad Azeem, Sudesh Sharma and A.S Salathia appeared for the petitioners in the 22 petitions whereas AAG Jagdish Parihar appeared for the state observed that in view of the directions issued by the High Court that concession given by then Advocate General in accommodating 47 candidates would not dilute the impact of judgment passed by the Division Bench and affirmed by the Apex Court, Court allowed these 22 petitions with the directions to the officials respondents that the merit of petitioners shall also be considered vis-à-vis who even though not selected on the basis of concession given by then Advocate General but otherwise and have secured lesser marks than the petitioners after redrawing the merit on State-wise. In case of any of such selected candidates have secured lesser marks vis-à-vis petitioners, in that eventuality the petitioners shall be given the same benefit as has been given to said candidates who are lesser in merit than petitioners and directed the respondents to complete this process and appropriate orders passed within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order is made available to them by the petitioners. ---JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
