STATE TIMES NEWS
JAMMU: State High Court sets-aside the advertisement notice No.07 of 2016 dated September 5, 2016 to the extent it advertised the post of Professor, Anaesthesiology.
This significant direction has been passed in a petition filed by Dr. Bashir Ahmad Dar who was working as an Additional Professor in the Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Sher-i-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences, Soura, Srinagar (SKIMS), wherein he had offered his candidature for the post of Professor, Anesthesiology, advertised by SKIMS in terms of notification No.04 of 2014 dated August 1, 2014.
The advertisement, apart from other conditions of eligibility, prescribed the essential experience for medical candidates.
Justice Ali Mohammad Margrey after hearing both the sides observed that it has established beyond doubt that the documents/certificates produced by the petitioner to support his claim of having acquired teaching experience while working in KAAH, MoH KSA have not been considered or taken into account. The petitioner’s fundamental right of consideration has thus been violated.
Court further observed that now, the question is what direction can be given at this stage. The Court itself does not have the expertise in this regard, nor can it assume to itself the power of the expert body to determine the petitioner’s eligibility; this has to be left to, and to be done by, the competent authority, i.e., the Screening Committee of the Institute. As seen above, their previous exercise on this count has not been above suspicion and, therefore, cannot be said to have been fair.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interest of justice, therefore, it is provided as that in order to establish his claim of having gained teaching experience for the period in question while working in KAAH, MoH KSA, the petitioner shall produce documentary proof before the Member Secretary, Screening Committee, within a period of one month from today; within a week of the receipt of such documents from the petitioner, the Member Secretary shall place the same before the Screening Committee for scrutiny and according of consideration to such documents; in the event, the Screening Committee is satisfied about the claim of the petitioner, the respondents shall convene the Apical Selection Committee and proceed ahead with the selection process in accordance with the applicable norms.
In the event the Screening Committee is of the opinion that the petitioner has failed to establish his claim, the result of their such findings, together with reasons, shall be communicated to the petitioner by a speaking order for his information.
Thereafter, the respondent-Institute would be free to start a fresh recruitment process vis-a-vis the post in question. With these directions High Court disposed of the petition SWP No. 1019/2015, was accordingly, disposed of with the above directions.
Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey further observed that so far as the petitioner’s second writ petition, SWP No.1763/2016, is concerned, Court has already said that the advertisement of the post during the pendency of the petitioner’s first writ petition and during the currency of the interim direction was certainly an action non-est in the eyes of law. Such action cannot withstand the scrutiny of law.
The advertisement notice No.07 of 2016 dated September 5, 2016 to the extent it advertised the post of Professor, Anaesthesiology, deserves to be set aside. It is so ordered and the writ petition is, accordingly, allowed to that extent.
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