Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, July 12: High Court today dismissed a petition filed by a Sub-Inspector seeking retrospective effect to his appointment in Jammu and Kashmir Armed Police.
The petitioner Arif Khan was selected for the post of Sub-Inspector in the Armed Police in the year 1999. However, order of appointment in his favour was not issued due to adverse character verification as he was found involved in a criminal case under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act (TADA) in which he was arrested and detained under the Public Safety Act.
The detention of the petitioner was quashed in 1992 and later he came to be discharged/acquitted in the criminal case in 1994. In the year 1998 the State High Court ordered his appointment as Sub-Inspector but the respondents assailed the judgement of the Writ Court in the Division Bench, which upheld the order of Writ Court and accordingly petitioner was appointed as probationary SI in the Armed Police in the year 2000.
However, after eight years the SI moved a petition seeking seniority with effect from the year 1990 along with his batch mates and to promote him to the rank of DySP.
During the course of arguments, Advocate M I Sherkhan appearing for the petitioner submitted that he was illegally deprived of the benefit of appointment along with his batch mates due to his false implication in a criminal case.
However, Additional Advocate General, Wasim Sadiq Nargal submitted that there was no illegality in not appointing the petitioner along with his co-selectees in the year 1990 in face of adverse character verification.
“No direction for giving retrospective effect to the appointment of the petitioner was issued either by the Writ Court or by the LPA Court so there is no cause of action for filing fresh writ petition in this regard”, he added.
After hearing both the sides, Justice Janak Raj Kotwal observed, “for all the reasons the benefit of retrospective effect cannot be granted and even equity is not in favour of the petitioner”, adding “respondents, therefore, cannot be said to have committed any illegality in refusing retrospective effect to the appointment of the petitioner”.
With these observations, court dismissed the petition.
Follow our WhatsApp channel