Excelsior Correspondent
Jammu, Feb 5: State High Court today rejected the anticipatory bail application of Tarsem Lal Chief Education Jammu (under transfer) who was booked by the State Vigilance Organization Jammu in much publicized Class IV appointment.
The allegations against the petitioner are that he, in connivance with others, by abusing his official position, granted illegal and undue benefit to undeserving candidates and selected them for Class IV posts. It is stated that the petitioner as a part of the selection Committee had selected approximately 90 candidates against the aforementioned posts in the Education department out of which at least 15 candidates had not at all filed their application forms before the Zonal Education Officer concerned, as per the advertisement notice. These selections thus, are stated to be back-door appointments. Apart from this, in regard to 13 selected candidates, it is alleged that the marks were fraudulently raised with a view to confer undue benefit on them. It is further alleged that at least, six candidates were either given less marks by the Interview Committee or were shown as absent but subsequently, their points were fraudulently raised which led to their selection. Besides this, it has been alleged that the petitioner had violated the relevant Government orders fixing the criteria according to which, the selection was to be made and marks allocated for viva there-under.
Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur of J&K High Court Jammu Wing after hearing Sr. Adv BS Slathia with Adv Meenakshi Slathia appearing for the applicant whereas Sr. AAG Gagan Basotra appearing for the state observed that Testing the facts and circumstances of the present case, it will be seen that the allegations pertain to a process of recruitment for which approximately 12000 candidates had responded as against 90 Class IV vacancies, in the Education department. A selection Committee comprising four members was constituted consisting of Principal DIET; District Social Welfare Officer; Assistant Director Employment besides the petitioner who was the Chief Education Officer and the Chairman of the Selection Committee was entrusted the job of selection.
Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur further observed that While the courts have emphasized the need to ensure that no unjustified harassment, humiliation is caused due to the unjustified detention of an accused yet, a fine balance has to be maintained to ensure that no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation in the matter.
Since the present controversy affects a large number of people, it would be in public interest that the investigating agency gets a free hand to investigate the matter thoroughly. Exercising this discretion in favour of the petitioner, in my opinion, would seriously prejudice the proper investigation in the matter as was held by the Apex Court titled CBI. Anil Sharma, Upon this Court observed that the custodial interrogation was more elicitation oriented than questioning an accused who is well ensconced with a favourable order Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. With these observations Court rejected the bail application.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel