Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Arjun Singh And Others vs State Of J&K And Another on 14 February, 2020
Author: Sanjeev Kumar
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar
Sr. No. 27
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT JAMMU
SWP No. 2530/2018
Arjun Singh and others .....Petitioner(s)
Through :- Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Advocate
V/s
State of J&K and another .....Respondent(s)
Through :- Mr. Aseem Sawhney, AAG
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
ORDER
1. Petitioners in this petition are seeking their appointment as Physical Education Teachers w.e.f. 27th April, 2010 with all consequential benefits instead of w.e.f. 12th April, 2017, the date on which the petitioners were formally appointed to the post of Physical Education Teachers.
2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the filing of the instant writ petition are that, advertisement notification bearing No. 06 of 2008 dated 28.05.2008 came to be issued by Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection Board inviting inter-alia, the application for the posts of Physical Education Teachers in the Department of Youth Services and Sports. The petitioners being graduate with outstanding sports career and eligible in terms of advertisement notification submitted their application forms for various districts. The J&K Services Selection Board after conducting the selection process and considering the petitioners also eligible for the post, prepared a select list in which the petitioners' named figured as selected candidates. The appointing authority i.e. the Department of Youth Services and Sports, however raised issue of eligibility with regard to the petitioners and others who were possessing the qualification of graduation with outstanding sports career. 2 SWP No. 2530/2018
3. The dispute landed before this Court by the medium of SWP No. 332/2011 and other clubbed matters. These writ petitions were filed by the petitioners and similarly situated persons who despite being in the select list were not appointed by the appointing authority on the ground of their ineligibility to hold the post. It is stated that in some similar cases the respondents had issued the appointment orders but same too were later on kept in abeyance. All these matters were considered by a Bench by this Court and vide judgment dated 03.10.2016, all the petitions were allowed and while holding the petitioners eligible for the post, a direction was issued to the respondents to appoint the petitioners as Physical Education Teachers, pursuant to their selection made by Services Selection Bard, with all consequential benefits.
4. In compliance to the judgment passed by this Court, respondents considered the petitioners and ultimately vide order dated 12.04.2017 appointed the petitioners as Physical Education Teachers in their respective districts. The grievance of the petitioners is that though the first part of the judgment passed by this Court has been implemented by issuing the appointment orders in their favour but no consequential benefits have been so far accorded. It is claimed by the petitioners that since they were illegally denied the appointment which was due to them along with other selected candidates with regard to whom the appointing authority had not raised any issue of eligibility and therefore they are also entitled to be appointed from the said date. The petitioners submit that others with regard to whom there was no dispute with regard to their eligibility were appointed on 27.04.2010.
5. Mr. Aseem Sawhney, learned AAG appearing for the respondents sought time to file objections. However, in view of the admitted position of 3 SWP No. 2530/2018 facts and law, I do not think it appropriate to grant him any further opportunity. The judgment passed by this Court is required to be complied with in letter and spirit.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that the judgment passed by this Court dated 03.10.2016 is to be given the full effect. It is true that first part of the judgment providing for issuance of appointment orders in favour of the petitioners has been complied with, however, the petitioners have been appointed prospectively and their inter-se seniority has been provided to be determined on the basis of their merit in the selection. The requirement of the judgment passed by this Court as also of the rules is that they are to be appointed retrospectively with effect from the date, the candidates selected along with them in their respective districts have been appointed.
7. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of holding the petitioners entitled to their appointment from retrospective date i.e. the date on which candidates selected along with them in their respective districts were appointed and shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits minus monetary benefits. Let this exercise be undertaken and appropriate orders passed by the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date, a certified copy of this order is served upon the respondents.
(Sanjeev Kumar) Judge JAMMU 14.02.2020 Shammi Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No SHAMMI KUMAR 2020.02.17 11:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document