STATE TIMES NEWS
JAMMU: In a petition filed by Chandan Singh seeking quashing Notification No. 02 of 2016 dated October 10, 2016 issued by respondent No.3, whereby 35 candidates were shortlisted for viva-voce for filling up seven posts of Class-IV in the Open Merit Category.
The petitioner has further prayed for a direction to respondent Nos. 2 & 3 to conduct interview under Ex-Servicemen category and recommend him for appointment to the post of Class-IV (Health and Family Welfare Department), District Cadre, Kathua.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar after hearing Advocate Surjeet Singh Andotra for the petitioner, allowed that the petitioner should be considered against the post of Ex-Servicemen. Since all the 13 posts advertised have been filled up, as such, the respondent No.5 being the candidate last in the Open Merit has to go and make place for the petitioner. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and selection/appointment of respondent No.5, which was kept subject to outcome of the writ petition vide order dated October 28, 2016 is quashed and a direction shall go to the respondent No.3 to consider and appoint the petitioner in the Ex-Servicemen category as Class-IV with effect from the date the 13 candidates selected in terms of the select list published on December 21, 2016 were appointed. Needless to say that the petitioner on his appointment shall be entitled to all consequential benefits minus monetary benefits.
Before parting with the judgment, Justice Sanjeev Kumar observed that, “I deem it my duty to remind the official respondents of their statutory obligation to carry out the reservations in letter and spirit as are provided under the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Act and the Rules framed there-under. In the instant case, respondent No.3 by ignoring the mandate of the Reservation Act and the Rules framed thereunder and by sheer misinterpretation of the provisions of Rule 4 of the Reservation Rules committed a glaring mistake of which brunt has fallen on the respondent No.5. I am sure that respondent No.5 was not contributory to the illegality committed by the official respondents, yet he became the beneficiary at the cost of the petitioner. It is because of these pressing reasons, I had no other option but to quash his appointment so as to make place for the appointment of the petitioner but nothing prevents the State to take a holistic view of the matter and consider the retention of respondent No.5 against any available post of Class-IV in the department. This would balance the equities in the matter and would save respondent No.5 from bearing the brunt of the illegality committed by the respondents. The fact that the respondent No. 5 is class-IV employee in the service of State for the last more than one year shall also be taken into consideration. I leave it to the official respondents to find ways and means to retain the services of the respondent No.5 against any available post, if possible”.
Woody Allen won’t stop writing despite Hollywood condemnation
‘Pinkathon’ organised to promote health awareness among women
Deepika-Ranveer to get married in November
Harassment stories anger me: Raveena Tandon on #MeToo
#MeToo: Anu Malik to step down as ‘Indian Idol 10’ judge?
© 2017 State Times Daily Newspaper