Excelsior Correspondent
SRINAGAR, Dec 20: High Court today observed that law cannot come to the rescue of the officials of Home Department in having extended a benefit in favour of certain employees in disregard to rules and law and directed them to reframe seniority of Chief Prosecuting Officers (CPOs) by placing them at appropriate place.
The Division Bench of Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey and Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul upheld the writ court judgment and directed the department to comply with the directions of the writ court without further wastage of time.
They directed the department to re-frame the seniority of the rival candidates and other appointees by placing them at an appropriate place permissible under rules and in consequence thereof necessary benefits including promotion that accrue due, be granted to them respectively.
The DB recorded that the law cannot come to the rescue of the officials in the department in having extended a benefit in favour of certain employees in disregard of rules and the law on the subject and cannot be a signatory to the wrong done by the official respondents.
The Government vide Order No. Home-102(P) of 2012 issued a final seniority list of Chief Prosecuting Officers wherein the rival candidates have been shown at Serial Nos. 15, 22 and 25 respectively. The seniority was objected to by the aggrieved candidate by addressing a representation to the concerned, which did not yield any result, constraining to file a writ petition before the Writ Court.
The plea raised before the Writ Court was that the aggrieved candidate has all along been senior to the other candidates right from the date of appointment and the course is changed probably for the reason that they have been considered against the roster point available to the officials belonging to the RBA category as such deserves to be placed at the appropriate place therein over and above the other candidates.
The writ court allowed the writ petition by quashing the Government order by directing respondents to reframe the seniority of the rival candidates along with other appointees figuring in Order No. 2250 of 1995 dated 12.08.1995 by placing them at an appropriate place permissible under rules.
The DB said the writ court, while allowing the writ petition has appreciated the controversy in its right perspective. The official respondents, DB added, neither before the writ court, nor before this Court, took a plea in support of its decision that it was for the inadequate representation of the reserved category candidates that a considered decision was taken by the Government, based on the quantifiable data collected in this behalf, that reservation in promotion should be provided in favour of the candidates challenging the writ court verdict.
Since the enabling provision to which the reference, during arguments, has been made viz. Aricle 16 (4-A), does not cover the reserved category to which the appellants admittedly belong, therefore, there was absolutely no occasion for the respondents to have undone the existing set-up/ seniority position of the aggrieved candidates and his rival candidates.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel