Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Syed Umra Ahsan vs Rahul Sharma Chairman Jkssb And Anr on 29 April, 2025
Author: Javed Iqbal Wani
Bench: Javed Iqbal Wani
Sr. No. 48
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Case No:-CCP(S) No. 411/2019
in
SWP No. 2180/2018
Syed Umra Ahsan .....Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Vikas Mangotra, Advocate
Vs
Rahul Sharma Chairman JKSSB and Anr. ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Ms. Saliqa Sheikh, Advocate vice
Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE
ORDER
29.04.2025
1. In the instant contempt petition, the petitioner has alleged non- compliance of order dated 26.10.2018, in terms whereof, writ petition of the H I Gcame petitioner being SWP no. 2180/2018 H to be disposed of with the direction OF JAMMU & C Othe to the respondents to consider U Rrepresentation T of the petitioner dated KASHMIR AND L A in 17.01.2018 and decide the same D accordance AKH with rules governing the field, with the rider that there is no legal impediment thereto and pass a speaking order thereof.
2. Respondents have filed statements of facts, wherein it is being inter-alia stated that in compliance to the order passed by this Court on 26.10.2018, the matter came to be examined and placed before the Board in its 183rdMeeting held on 24.06.2021 for considerationand after considering all aspects, the petitioner was found to be Not Eligible and, accordingly, the claim 2 of the petitioner was rejected and a speaking order thereof was passed on 28.09.2021.
3. During the consideration of the instant contempt petition, the petitioner herein has filed supplementary affidavit in response to the said statement of facts, stating therein that the respondents did not consider the representation of the petitioner dated 17.01.2018 and failed to take into account the experience to her credit in accordance with the requirements of the advertisement notice dated 30.01.2011 and, as such, the said consideration accorded by the respondents, in essence, is not in line and tune with the directions passed.
4. On 09.10.2024 while taking cognizance of the aforesaid supplementary affidavit of the petitioner, the counsel for the respondents came to be directed to produce the experience certificates of the petitioner, which have been produced by the learned counsel for the respondents today.
5. Perusal of the representation of the petitioner, which was required to be considered by the respondents specifically refers to the said Experience Certificates possessed by the petitioner, which seemingly have not been taken cognizance of by the respondents while considering the representation of the petitioner.
6. Under these circumstances, the respondents are yet again directed to revisit and reconsider the case of the petitioner in line and tune with the order, non-compliance of which is complained of while having regard to the contents of the representation, as also the certificates referred and annexed 3 thereto and pass fresh consideration order within four weeks from today notwithstanding the consideration order earlier passed by them.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, proceedings in the instant contempt petition are closed in order to enable the respondents/contemnors to comply with aforesaid directions. Should the petitioner be dissatisfied with the fresh consideration order passed by the respondents, the petitioner shall have liberty to re-agitate the matter.
8. The certificates produced by the counsel for the respondents are returned back in the open Court.
(Javed Iqbal Wani) Judge Jammu 29.04.2025 Javid Iqbal