Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Baldev Raj vs State Of J&K And Ors on 1 August, 2023
Author: Moksha Khajuria Kazmi
Bench: Moksha Khajuria Kazmi
Sr.No. 19
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
SWP No.641/2010
IA No.3189/2010
IA No.918/2010
Baldev Raj ....Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Through :- Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate.
V/s
State of J&K and ors. ....Respondent(s)
Through :- Ms. Arpana Gupta, Assisting counsel to
Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr.AAG.
Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE
ORDER
01. In the instant petition, the petitioner, herein, is seeking direction upon the respondents to consider the appointment of the petitioner as follower and also to consider the petitioner at par with the similarly circumstanced SPOs. It is stated that on 20.12.1998, the petitioner and his father did a commendable job for the Police Department, resulting into registration of a case u/s 14 Foreign Act, 3/6 Indian Passport Act. 27, Arms Act, 120-B RPC and under other offences against mischievous elements and the brave act of the petitioner and his father has been recorded at police Station Hira Nagar. The Superintendent of Police Kathua Sh. R.R. Swain IPS appointed the petitioner as SPO vide his order dated 30.01.1999 and posted him at BPP Sherpur. It is stated that the order was based on confidential report and the petitioner was found suitable for working as policeman and SP Kathua made request to the higher authorities for approval of his appointment which was approved and on the basis of the said order, the petitioner joined his duty as SPO at BPP Sherpur on 30.01.1999. After serving as SPO in the said police post for the period of one and a half year, he was verbally 2 transferred to police station Hira Nagar where the petitioner had worked for a period of six months.
02. It is stated that the petitioner was terminated from service by SSP Kathua without assigning any reason. It is stated that along with petitioner many other boys who had not contributed for the Police Department were again appointed as SPOs and they are still continuing as SPOs, in fact some of them have been made permanent, whereas the petitioner was terminated without assigning any reason.
03. Respondents have failed to file reply.
04. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
05. In the instant petition, the petitioner has not challenged the termination order by which he was terminated by the competent authority on 29.12.2000. The petitioner has only sought direction in his application as follower, on the basis of representations which are pending before the competent authority.
06. As a matter of fact, the petitioner who has already been terminated by the respondents, has no right to be considered for the appointment against the post of follower. The best course opened for the petitioner was to challenge the order passed by the respondents on 29.12.2000, but the petitioner, herein, had not only failed to place on record the termination order but has also not referred any application to the extent that he is aggrieved of his termination made by the respondents on 29.12.2000.
07. Be that as it may, the instant petition is devoid of any merit and is, therefore, dismissed.
(MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI) JUDGE Jammu:
01.08.2023 Eva 3