news details |
|
|
| KAS seniority List Challenged | | HC directs State not to make promotions on substantive basis | | EARLY TIMES REPORT
Srinagar, September-30:- Justice Mansoor Ahmed Mir of Jammu & Kashmir High Court today disposed off CMPs filed in various writ petitions in Srinagar and Jammu Wings of the State High Court challenging the final seniority list of Kashmir Administrative Service and directed the State not to make promotions on substantive basis, but in order to run the administration/Government offices, they are at liberty to make appointments only on officiating basis. Court also made it clear that if such an arrangement is made, the same shall not create any right, interest or equity in favor of such person(s) and shall not cause any prejudice to the petitioners in any way.
These writ petitions, pertaining to the two wings of this Court emanate from the final seniority list of KAS cadre officers prepared and issued by the State GAD. The said list came to be challenged through the medium of various writ petitions filed at Srinagar and Jammu which were clubbed together and were finally heard and reserved.
According to the petition the grievances projected by the petitioners is that State-respondents have exercised their powers illegally, arbitrarily and passed the impugned seniority list. In terms of the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Administrative Service Rules, 1979, respondents have appointed the petitioners to the Time Scale of Kashmir Administrative Services vide Government order No.708-GAD of 2008 dated May 22, 2008, Order No.995-GAD of 2008 dated July 22, 2008 and Order No.1265-GAD of 2008 dated September 25, 2008, i.e., before the Jammu & Kashmir Administrative Service Rules, 2008 came to be notified on December 1, 2008. The petitioners were eligible and vacancies/slots were also available in their respective feeding services at the relevant point of time. However, representations came to be made by the private respondents and other aggrieved persons which were made basis for constitution of ‘Varghese Committee’ vide Govt. Order dated September 24, 2010. The Committee was of the considered view that the appointment in Time Scale is a fresh appointment and retrospective appointment/seniority cannot be granted to a person who was not borne on the cadre on that date.
Justice Mansoor Ahmed Mir after hearing a battery of lawyers for the both sides observed that Keeping in view the averments contained in petitions read with the reply filed by the appearing respondents and the report of ‘Varghese Committee’ coupled with the fact that the applicability of Rule 15(4) of Rules of 2008 read with other rules is to be determined, Court is of the considered view that the petitioners have made a case for admission and admitted all the petitions to hearing and issued notice to the respondents and observed that All the petitioners except petitioners, namely, Addul Hamid, Mushtaq Ahmad Chowdhary, Showket Hussain Kazmi, Mushtaq Ahmad and Dara Singh (have pressed into service the remedy provided by Rule 15(4) of Rules of 2008 by filing review petitions before the official respondents which are still pending. Whether such remedy can be availed or not is a matter to be decided by the competent authority. It is worthwhile to mention herein that in last paragraph of the impugned final seniority list, it is provided that if any person is aggrieved, he can make an application for review. In the given circumstances, if the official respondents are allowed to make promotions on the basis of final seniority list that would render the writ petitions infructuous and breed litigation, but it is also to be kept in mind that the Government has to run the administration, seats are vacant and are to be manned in order to ensure smooth functioning of the administration/Government offices and ordered that the impugned final seniority list is kept subject to the outcome of writ petitions with a direction to the official respondents not to make promotions on substantive basis, but in order to run the administration/Government offices, they are at liberty to make appointments only on officiating basis. It is made clear that if such an arrangement is made, the same shall not create any right, interest or equity in favour of such person(s) and shall not cause any prejudice to the petitioners in any way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
