Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Jan 28: A Division Bench of Jammu & Kashmir High Court Comprising Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Sanjay Dhar, upheld the appointment of 29 Naib Tehsildar.
The Division Bench partly allowed the LPA filed in Jammu Bench observed that the judgment of the Writ Court dated 18.08.2018 passed in SWP No. 360/2017 to the extent it quashes the Government Order No. 158-Rev of 2016 dated 09.11.2016 and directs the official respondents to consider the appointment of the petitioners therein against the posts of Naib Tehsildars including grant of relaxation in upper age limit and to grant them similar benefits as have been granted to the petitioners in Inamul Haq Hajjam’s case, is upheld, whereas the directions made by the writ Court to the extent of placing the writ petitioners over and above 29 selected candidates (appellants herein) in the seniority list as well as the directions regarding quashment of their appointments and consequent stoppage of their salaries etc., are set aside.
The Background of the case is that the J&K Service Selection Board issued three separate Advertisement Notices on 16.04.2002, 04.05.2005 & 26.05.2008 inviting applications for a total of 111 posts of Naib-Tehsildars. The selection process culminated in making recommendation by the Board in favour of selected candidates, who were appointed to the posts of Naib-Tehsildars. The process came to be completed in the year 2009-10.
Division Bench after hearing battery of lawyers appearing for the both the sides observed that a bare perusal of above entry shows that it specifically mentions that in the case of Naib-Tehsildars, the minimum prescribed qualification shall be Graduate having passed Matric in Urdu as one of the subjects. The learned counsels, appearing for the selected candidates/appellants while interpreting the aforesaid SRO, it appears to us, are misreading the same. In our opinion, there is no ambiguity in the language of the afore quoted rule. Our aforesaid opinion gets strengthened from the fact that in the cases of these selected candidates/ appellants relaxation in their qualification has been granted by the Government, which clearly shows that they were not eligible as per the Rules in vogue, as they did not possess the requisite qualification i.e., Graduate having passed Matric in Urdu as one of the subjects.
DB observed that there is, however, merit in the submission of the appellants that it was not open to the Writ Court to issue directions against the selected candidates as regards their seniority and status of their appointments without impleading them as parties to the writ petition. In the instant case, the learned Writ Court while passing the impugned judgment has observed these principles in breach, inasmuch as, none of the selected candidates was a party to the proceedings before the Court.
DB further observed that apart from the above, these selected candidates (the appellants herein), upon grant of relaxation in qualification by the Government, have been working as Naib-Tehsildars since the year 2010. Thus, equity tilts heavily in their favour and in view of the discussions made in preceding paras, it would neither be appropriate nor in the interest of justice to disturb their appointments at this belated stage.
DB observed that in the light of the foregoing discussion, the aforesaid Intra-Court Appeals, and the Writ Petitions are disposed of with the directions that LPASWs No. 199/2017 and 200/2017 filed before Srinagar Wing of the Court as well as APSWP No.19/2016, SWP Nos. 2608/2015, 577/2016, 1103/2017, 1993/2017, 1876/2018,1980/2018 & SWP No. 2069/2018 filed before Jammu Wing of the Court shall stand dismissed.
DB further observed that LPASW filed in Jammu Bench that the judgment of the Writ Court dated 18.08.2018 passed in SWP No. 360/2017 to the extent it quashes the Government Order No. 158-Rev of 2016 dated 09.11.2016 and directs the official respondents to consider the appointment of the petitioners therein against the posts of Naib Tehsildars including grant of relaxation in upper age limit and to grant to them similar benefits as have been granted to the petitioners in Inamul Haq Hajjam’s case, is upheld, whereas the directions made by the writ Court to the extent of placing the writ petitioners over and above 29 selected candidates (appellants herein) in the seniority list as well as the directions regarding quashment of their appointments and consequent stoppage of their salaries etc., are set aside.
Follow our WhatsApp channel