Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Aadil Bashir vs Union Of India [1992 Supp.(3) Scc 217 on 30 December, 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR
CMP no.2987 of 2013
SWP no.1058 of 2013
CMP no.1702 of 2012
Aadil Bashir
Petitioner
State of J&K & ors
Respondents
!Mr. M. Y. Bhat, Advocate
^Mr. R. A. Jan, Sr. Advocate
Ms. Nazima, Advocate, For no.3
Mr. Azhar-ul-Amin, Advocate, For official respondents
Honble Mr. Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey, Judge
Date:30/12/2013
: J U D G M E N T :
1. This application, CMP no. 2987/2013, has been filed by respondent no. 3 in the writ petition seeking vacation / modification of the interim order dated 16.8.2013 whereby it was directed that one post of Junior Scale of J&K Administrative Services / J&K Accounts (G) Service under Handicapped Category shall not be filled up until further orders from the Court. Facts pertinent to the disposal of the present application are mentioned hereunder.
2. The Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) issued Notification no. PSC/EXM-12/58 dated 09.04.2012 inviting applications in prescribed forms from the permanent residents of J&K State for Preliminary Examination for 35 posts of Junior Scale of J&K Administrative Service; 22 posts of J&K Accounts (G) Service and 08 posts of J&K Police in the pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 PB-2 with grade pay of Rs.4800 through Combined Competitive Examination in accordance with SRO 387 dated 01.12.2008 read with SRO 154 dated 19.05.2011 and SRO 98 of 2012 dated 22.03.2012. The Notification contained the following break of the posts so advertised:
Sr. No. Service OM RB A SC ST ALC OSC PHC Total
1.
June Scale of J&K Administrative Service 22 06 03 03 01
-
* 35
2. J&K Accounts (G) Service 12 05 02 02 01
-
* 22
3. J&K Police (G) Service 03 01 01 01 01 01
-
08T O T A L 65 The asterisks used in the PHC column against the first two services in the aforesaid break of posts in the Notification, was annotated in the following manner:
*One post in each in Jr. Scale of KAS and J&K Accounts (G) Service is earmarked for selection of Physically Challenged Candidates through Horizontal Reservation in Accordance to Govt. Order No.61-SW of 2001 dated 13.03.2001 and Combined Competitive Examination Rules, 2008.
3. The petitioner appears to have offered his candidature as general candidate under the Physically Handicapped Category suffering from locomotors disability.
According to the petitioner, he appeared in the Preliminary Examination, qualified the same and was, thereafter, called for Main Examination under Roll no.1901298. Subsequent thereto, according to the petitioner, the Commission issued Notification dated 28.05.2013 whereby 226 candidates were declared to have qualified for interview and no candidate from Physically Handicapped Category (PHC) was declared qualified for interview. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved of the said Notification challenged the same in the writ petition wherein he made the following prayers:
That the Notification dated 28.05.2013 issued by Public Service Commission may be quashed to the extent of filling up of two posts under PHC Category candidates against those two posts.
And by issuance of a writ of mandamus the respondents be directed to consider PHC Category candidates including the petitioner on the basis of merit obtained in Main Examination for the two Reserved PHC Category posts as prescribed in the basic advertisement notice and consider the petitioner for select ion and allow him to appear in interview and thereafter consider him for appointment on the basis of his merit in Main Examination and interview against the posts reserved for PHC category. And the respondents be directed to do the needful accordingly as is being done by Union Public Service Commission in terms of the Reservation Rules, which are similar and same as applicable in J&K State, as same shall be in the interest of justice. In the petition, the petitioner did not array any successful candidate as party respondent.
4. Alongwith the writ petition, the petitioner made a civil miscellaneous petition, CMP no.1702/2013, with a prayer, inter alia, to direct the Commission to conduct interview of the petitioner under PHC. On 06.06.2013, while issuing notice in the petition, this Court directed the Commission to conduct the interview of the petitioner under PHC at his own risk and responsibility. The result of the petitioner was directed to be kept in sealed cover till final disposal of the writ petition.
5. Thereafter, on 29.07.2013 the petitioner made an application, CMP no. 2242/2013. In the said application, the petitioner stated that pursuant to Court order dated 06.06.2013 he had been interviewed and that the Commission had issued a notification on 23.07.2013 indicating that 37 candidates, including one candidate under PHC, had been selected under the Open Merit Category (OMC). The petitioner in the application claimed that, since in terms of the basic Notification the respondents had advertised 37 Open Merit posts out of which one post each in Junior Scale KAS Service and J&K Accounts Gazetted Service had been earmarked for PHC candidates through Horizontal Reservation and since only one candidate under PHC had been selected, the respondents be directed to reserve one post out of the two advertised PHC candidate posts.
6. While issuing notice in the aforesaid application, CMP no. 2242, one of the Coordinate Benches of this Court, by order dated 30.07.2013, directed that respondents shall not finalize the selection under the PHC till next date of hearing. However, the said order was later modified on 16.08.2013 in the following terms:
Direction dated 30th July, 2013 with the consensus of learned counsel for the parties is modified to the extent that now process for selection shall be finalized, however, one post under Handicapped Category shall not be filled up until further orders from the court. The application, CMP no. 2242/2013 was, accordingly, disposed of. However, the basic application for ad-interim relief, being CMP no. 1702/2013, remained pending.
7. On 16.09.2013, one Kumar Abhishek son of Girdhari Lal Sharma resident of Poonch, moved an application, CMP no. 2808/2013, for impleadment as party respondent in the writ petition. In the said application, he stated that he was one of the candidates declared to have qualified for interview under Open Merit Category vide Notification dated 28.05.2013 and appears in the said Notification at serial no. 96. He also stated therein, inter alia, that the Commission had declared and notified the result of the Combined Competitive Examination pursuant to Notification dated 23.07.2013 and that he figured at serial no. 36 of the Select List. The said application was allowed in terms of order dated 20.09.2013 on the no objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the said Kumar Abhishek was ordered to be arrayed as party respondent no.3 in the writ petition, SWP no.1058/2013.
8. Subsequently, on 26.09.2013, the newly arrayed respondent no.3, made the instant application, CMP no.2987/2013, seeking vacation / modification of order dated 16.08.2013 so far as it directed reservation of one post under PHC.
9. Meanwhile, it may be mentioned here, the Commission filed its reply / objections to the writ petition. Respondent no. 3, too, filed his reply / objections to the writ petition.
10. In their respective replies filed by the Commission and respondent no. 3, it was brought on record that the Commission declared and notified the final result of the Combined Competitive Examination in terms of Notification dated 23.07.2013 and the selectees were also called upon to undergo Medical Examination and, in fact, the selected candidates had already undergone medical examinations etc. Faced with this situation, the petitioner has filed CMP no. 3612/2013 seeking to amend the writ petition. The petitioner has also placed on record the memo of amended writ petition wherein the petitioner has sought quashment of not only the Notification dated 28.05.2013 issued by the Commission notifying the candidates who had qualified for interviews, but has also challenged the Notification dated 23.07.2013, i.e., the final select list, to the extent it shows the name of respondent no.3. It may be mentioned here that pursuant to the order dated 16.08.2013 passed in CMP no. 2242/2013, the Commission, vide Notification dated 04.09.2013, while notifying the list of 64 candidates in order of merit who have been recommended for appointment, have withheld one post in open merit category. The petitioner has challenged this Notification as well to the extent his name has not been shown therein. The petitioner has also prayed for Mandamus directing the respondents to select and appoint him against the PHC post on the basis of his merit obtained in written test and interview in terms of reservation rules. The petitioner has further prayed for prohibition against appointment of respondent no. 3 against the post in question.
11. As submitted above, respondent no. 3 has filed the instant application, CMP no. 2987/2013, seeking vacation / modification of order dated 16.08.2013 passed in CMP no. 2242/2013 so far as it directed reservation of one post under PHC.
12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material on record and considered the matter.
13. Though the learned counsels for the parties have advanced full-fledged arguments at the Bar on the merits of the writ petition, yet I think it would be appropriate to restrict this order only to the fundamental principles governing the grant or vacation of an ad-interim order or direction.
14. The law on grant or vacation of ad-interim reliefs, interlocutory orders or interlocutory injunctions is not res integra. It would be appropriate to mention herein the law laid down by the Supreme Court in this regard. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. COCA COLA Co., (1995) 5 SCC 545. In paragraph 43 of the aforesaid judgment, it has been observed and held as under:
The grant of an interlocutory injunction during the pendency of legal proceedings is a matter requiring the exercise of discretion of the court. While exercising the discretion the court applies the following tests (i) whether the plaintiff has a prima facie case; (ii) whether the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff; and (iii) whether the plaintiff would suffer an irreparable injury if his prayer for interlocutory injunction is disallowed. The decision whether or not to grant an interlocutory injunction has to be taken at a time when the existence of the legal right assailed by the plaintiff and its alleged violation are both contested and uncertain and remain uncertain till they are established at the trial or evidence. Relief by way of interlocutory injunction is granted to mitigate the risk of injustice to the plaintiff during the period before that uncertainty could be resolved. The object of the interlocutory injunction is to protect the plaintiff against injury by violation of his right for which he could not be adequately compensated in damages recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial. The need for such protection has, however, to be weighed against the corresponding need of the defendant to be protected against injury resulting from his having been prevented from exercising his own legal rights for which he could not be adequately compensated. The court must weigh one need against another and determine where the balance of convenience lies. [] In order to protect the defendant while granting an interlocutory injunction in his favour the court can require the plaintiff to furnish an undertaking so that the defendant can be adequately compensated if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial. In paragraph 47 of the judgment, the Supreme Court has further observed and held as under:
47. In this context, it would be relevant to mention that in the instant case GBC had approached the High Court for the injunction order, granted earlier, to be vacated. Under Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, jurisdiction of the Court to interfere with an order of interlocutory or temporary injunction is purely equitable and, therefore, the Court, on being approached, will, apart from other considerations, also look to the conduct of the party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court, and may refuse to interfere unless his conduct was free from blame. Since the relief is wholly equitable in nature, the party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court has to show that he himself was not at fault and that he himself was not responsible for bringing about the state of things complained of and that he was not unfair or inequitable in his dealings with the party against whom he was seeking relief. His conduct should be fair and honest. These considerations will arise not only in respect of the person who seeks an order of injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 or Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but also in respect of the party approaching the Court for vacating the ad interim or temporary injunction order already granted in the pending suit or proceedings.
15. I am conscious that the Civil Procedure Code is not applicable to the writ proceedings, but the principles thereof are. Above being the law on the subject on ad- interim reliefs, let the case at hand be examined.
16. In the instant case, Mr. M. Y. Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner, in order to demonstrate that the three tests governing the exercise of discretion by the Court for grant of ad-interim relief, namely, prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, tilt in his favour, precisely raised two points: first that since 3% posts have been reserved for Physically Handicapped Category candidates, therefore, at least six candidates deserved to be qualified for interview. He submitted that, instead, no candidate has been declared qualified in the Main Examination for interview from amongst the PHC category. Contrary to that, he contended, in so far as the candidates belonging to other social reserved categories are concerned, in order to ensure that the ratio of 1:3 of candidates to be interviewed is maintained in those categories, their cut off merit point has been lowered, which has not been done in the case of the candidates belonging to PHC. This, according to the petitioners, is absolutely illegal, discriminatory and violative of the Act and the Rules. This is the principal case of the petitioner. His second argument is that in terms of the basic notification inviting applications for the Preliminary Examination, two posts, one each in Junior Scale KAS Service and J&K Accounts (G) Service, have been earmarked for selection of PHC candidates and, therefore, he has a right to be appointed against one such post.
17. On the other hand, Mr. R. A. Jan, learned Senior counsel for respondent no. 3, referring to the relevant provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1998 (for short 1998 Act) and the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules, 2005 (Reservation Rules, for short), submitted that since the law provides horizontal reservation for the Physically Handicapped Category candidates, a candidate claiming consideration under such category is not entitled to any separate relaxed standard for determination of his merit, and that since the petitioner has failed to secure the minimum marks in the Main Examination fixed by the Commission to entitle him to be called for interview, he cannot seek selection or appointment to the post against which the applicant-respondent no.3 has been selected.
18. Mr. Azhar-ul-Amin, learned counsel for the Commission, submitted that the petitioner was a General Candidate belonging to the Physically Handicapped Category. He was required to obtain minimum qualifying marks in the written part of the main examination fixed by the Commission in terms of SRO 387 dated 01.12.2008. Since he failed to obtain the minimum qualifying marks, he was not short listed for interview. Learned counsel also submitted that it is not correct to say that no candidate from PHC has been declared qualified for the interview. According to him, out of 226 declared to have qualified for viva-voce, one candidate with Roll no. 1101355 under PHC category (Main category Open Merit) qualified for the interview and, in fact, was included in the select list by dislodging the last candidate in the Open Merit Category.
19. Let me first deal with the second point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The basic notification inviting applications, carried an annotation that one post each in Jr. Scale of KAS and J&K Accounts (G) Service is earmarked for selection of Physically Challenged Candidates through Horizontal Reservation in accordance to Govt. Order No.61-SW of 2001 dated 13.03.2001 and Combined Competitive Examination Rules, 2008. In this connection, it would suffice to say that Government Order no. 62-SW of 2001 (wrongly mentioned as Order no.61-SW in the notification) dated 13.03.2001 did not intend to, or create, any reservations in favour of the Physically Handicapped Persons; it was only aimed at identifying the posts in different establishments of the Government which could be utilized for appointing such persons. The note appended to the notification, therefore, did not create any reservations over and above what was provided by the Reservation Rules, 2005; the note was only meant to identify the posts against which the Physically Handicapped Persons, otherwise making the grade, could be selected. This is further fortified by Explanation (C) appended to Rule 4 of the Reservation Rules, 2005 which provides that for the purpose of clause (e) reservations in recruitment shall be available for physically challenged persons for services and posts specified under section 22 of the Jammu and Kashmir Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1998.
20. In so far as the first point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, I deem it unnecessary to quote the relevant provisions of the 1998 Act or the Reservation Rules having bearing on the matter. It is the positive case of the petitioner that he is a Physically Challenged Person suffering from locomotor disability. It is further his admitted case that Physically Challenged Persons are entitled to 3% Horizontal Reservation out of which 1% each, in order of preference, is prescribed for persons with (i) blindness or low vision; (ii) Hearing Impairment; and (iii) Locomotor Disability or Cerebral Palsy. Explanation (B) under Rule 4 of the Reservation Rules provides that the horizontal reservation means the reservations which would cut across the vertical reservation (what is called inter-locking reservation) and the person selected against the physically challenged quota will have to be placed in the appropriate category viz. if he / she belongs to the scheduled caste category, he / she will be placed in that quota by making the necessary adjustment and similarly if he / she belongs to the open competition category, he / she will be placed in that category. Horizontal reservation is not the same as vertical reservation. The distinction between the two types of reservations has been explained by the Supreme Court number of judgments, referred to and relied upon by none other than the learned counsel for the petitioner.
21. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in this connection, has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, AIR 2007 SC 3127.
22. In Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission (supra), the Supreme Court has held as under:
Before examining whether the reservation provision relating to women had been correctly applied, it will be advantageous to refer to the nature of horizontal reservation and the manner of its application. In Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India [1992 Supp.(3) SCC 217], the principle of horizontal reservation was explained thus (Pr.812) :
all reservations are not of the same nature. There are two types of reservations, which may, for the sake of convenience, be referred to as 'vertical reservations' and 'horizontal reservations'. The reservations in favour of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes [(under Article 16(4)] may be called vertical reservations whereas reservations in favour of physically handicapped (under clause (1) of Article 16] can be referred to as horizontal reservations. Horizontal reservations cut across the vertical reservations - what is called interlocking reservations. To be more precise, suppose 3% of the vacancies are reserved in favour of physically handicapped persons; this would be a reservation relatable to clause (1) of Article 16. The persons selected against the quota will be placed in that quota by making necessary adjustments; similarly, if he belongs to open competition (OC) category, he will be placed in that category by making necessary adjustments. Even after providing for these horizontal reservations, the percentage of reservations in favour of backward class of citizens remains - and should remain - the same. A special provision for women made under Article 15(3), in respect of employment, is a special reservation as contrasted from the social reservation under Article 16(4). The method of implementing special reservation, which is a horizontal reservation, cutting across vertical reservations, was explained by this Court in Anil Kumar Gupta vs. State of U.P. [1995 (5) SCC 173] thus : The proper and correct course is to first fill up the Open Competition quota (50%) on the basis of merit; then fill up each of the social reservation quotas, i.e., S.C., S.T. and B.C; the third step would be to find out how many candidates belonging to special reservations have been selected on the above basis. If the quota fixed for horizontal reservations is already satisfied - in case it is an overall horizontal reservation - no further question arises. But if it is not so satisfied, the requisite number of special reservation candidates shall have to be taken and adjusted/accommodated against their respective social reservation categories by deleting the corresponding number of candidates therefrom. (If, however, it is a case of compartmentalized horizontal reservation, then the process of verification and adjustment / accommodation as stated above should be applied separately to each of the vertical reservations. In such a case, the reservation of fifteen percent in favour of special categories, overall, may be satisfied or may not be satisfied.) [Emphasis supplied] (Highlighting & underlining supplied) The law on application of vertical and horizontal reservations thus stands elaborately settled and explained. Whereas vertical reservations create separate slots or compartments for each of the reserved categories, say SC / ST / OSC / ALC / General according to the prescribed percentage of reservations; horizontal reservation cuts across and shares the very same slots or compartments. In other words, a person claiming horizontal reservation would otherwise belong either to General Category, SC category, ST Category or OSC category or ALC category and would thus be considered against one of such vertical categories to which he may belong, but would not by itself constitute a separate slot or compartment. As a necessary corollary, if such a candidate would belong to any of the Social Reserved Categories, he would be entitled to the same relaxed standard as may be applicable to such Category, not because of being a PHC candidate, but because of belonging to the Social Reserved Category. If a reserved category candidate makes the grade, he can even go into and be selected in the General Category on the basis of his merit. Further, depending upon the nature of horizontal reservation prescribed compartmentalized horizontal reservation or overall horizontal reservation if in a given category, say, for instance, General Category, the required number of PHC candidates do not come in the selection list as per the percentage of reservation fixed for such candidates, the short fall would be made good by dislodging equal number of selected candidates of the General Category figuring at the bottom of that category.
23. Resultantly, the contention of the petitioner that the Commission ought to have summoned six PHC candidates for interview is misplaced and misconceived.
24. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The Combined Competitive Examination is governed by the provisions contained in the Conduct of Combined Competitive Examination (for Direct Recruitment to various Services) Rules, 1995 framed under Section 124 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir promulgated in terms of General Administration Department notification SRO 161 dated 17.07.1995. Sub-rule (iii) and (iv) of Rule 8 of the aforesaid Rules provide as under:
(iii) The Main Examination will consist of a written examination and an interview test. The written examination will consist of papers of conventional essay type (out of which one paper will be of qualifying nature only) in the subjects set out in Appendix-IA and the detailed syllabus in Appendix-IB.
(iv) Candidates who obtain such minimum qualifying marks in written part of the Main Examination as may be fixed by the Commission in any or all the papers at their discretion shall be summoned by them for an interview.
The interview test is intended to judge the mental caliber of a candidate. In broad terms, this is really an assessment of not only his intellectual qualities but also social traits and his interest in current affairs. Some of the qualities to be judged are mental alertness, critical powers of assimilation, clear and logical exposition, balance of judgment, variety and depth of interest, ability for social cohesion and leadership, intellectual and moral integrity;
Provided that a candidate who fails to secure such minimum number of marks as are fixed by the Commission in their discretion in more than one subject shall not be eligible to be called for interview. Rule 9 of the aforesaid Rules prescribes that the number of candidates to be summoned for interview will not be more than thrice the number of vacancies to be filled.
25. A conjoint reading of sub-rule (iii) of Rule 8 and Rule 9 would show that in effect and in essence the minimum cut off mark in each of the categories may not actually be fixed by the Commission, but would rather be determined by the marks obtained by the competing candidates. This may be explained like this: Suppose there are 10 vacancies in a particular category to be filled in. As per Rule 9 the ratio of candidates to be summoned for interview has to be 1:3, which means, the Commission has to call 30 candidates for the interview. The cut off point would thus be the marks as may have been secured by the 30th candidate. The Commission would have nothing to do with determination of such cut off point. Sub-rule (iii) of Rule 8 is basically a provision to meet and safeguard anomalous situations. In that view of the matter, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Commission has lowered the merit position of other category candidates so as to bring them within the 1:3 ration is unfounded and an argument bereft of any merit.
26. Law, as it is, requires that a candidate belonging to PHC in order to be entitled to be called for the next step in the selection process, would have to obtain such minimum qualifying marks in the written part of the main Examination as would bring him within the number of candidates in his Category as per the 1:3 ratio fixed by Rule 9. It is not that a PHC candidate would be entitled to be called for interview irrespective of whether or not he qualifies the written examination as per the minimum qualifying marks in the written examination so determinative of his merit position within his Category, namely, SC / ST / OSC / ALC / General category.
27. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also cited a recent judgment dated 08.10.2013 of the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.7541 of 2009 titled Union of India v National Federation of Blind. In the said judgment, the Supreme Court has held that the computation of reservation for persons with disabilities has to be computed on total number of vacancies in the cadre strength. Consequently, the Supreme Court has, among other things, directed the Central Government to modify the OM dated 29.12.2005 and the subsequent OMs. Since the said OM is not applicable in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, therefore, the judgment is of no help to the petitioner.
28. The petitioner in the instant case was a General Category Candidate. Since he has failed to make the grade to find a place within the number of candidates called for interview in the said Category, it becomes immaterial to ascertain whether as per 3% horizontal reservation fixed for PHC candidates as against the total of 65 seats one PHC candidate or two such candidates ought to have been selected. Nonetheless, it is the case of the respondent Commission that one PHC candidate was included in the final select list by dislodging the last Open Merit candidate.
29. As against the petitioners claims, as discussed, above, the applicant-respondent no.3 has been selected as an Open Merit Candidate. He is also stated to have undergone the Medical Examination. However, recommendation in his favour has been withheld by the Commission on account of the interim direction dated 16.08.2013 passed by the Court in CMP no.2242/2013. On the touchstone of the law, as laid down by the Supreme Court in Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. COCA COLA Co. (supra), the question is whether the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, has a prima facie case in his favour. Prima facie case connotes a case where a serious issue is involved for determination prejudicing the right of the applicant. As seen from the above discussion, there does not seem to be any such serious issue involved any more, prejudicing the right of the petitioner as cannot be taken care of by the Court at the final disposal of the case. I am convinced that on the contrary the applicant-respondent no.3 has made out a prima facie case in his favour. The balance of convenience also lies in favour of the applicant-respondent no.3, inasmuch as he stands selected; whereas the petitioner has not even qualified the Mains Examination. The other selectees are stated to have already been appointed. The applicant-respondent no. 3 is unnecessarily suffering. He cannot be compensated by damages for the loss of appointment; whereas the interests of the petitioner, if any, can adequately be secured pending final disposal of the writ petition.
30. For all what has been said and discussed above, CMP no.2987/2013 is allowed. The interim direction dated 16.08.2013 passed in CMP no. 2242/2013 is vacated. The official respondents are free to proceed with the filling up of the said post. Appointment of the applicant-respondent no. 3, if made, shall remain subject to the final outcome of this writ petition. It is made clear that in the event his selection is finally quashed, his appointment shall cease to operate. CMP no.1702/2013 shall abide the above order.
CMP no.3612/201331. In view of the fact that the averments made in the amended writ petition were relied upon and referred to by the learned counsel for the parties during the course of arguments, this CMP is allowed on the deemed no objection from the respondents. The amended writ petition stands taken on record. Respondents to file their respective replies thereto within a period of 6 weeks with an advance copy thereof to the learned counsel for the petitioner who in turn would have two weeks time thereafter to file, rejoinder if any. The matter be listed final hearing in the 2nd week of March, 2014.
(Ali Mohammad Magrey) Judge Srinagar, 30.12.2013 Syed Ayaz, Secretary