Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Ravinder Kumar Bindroo vs State Th.Industries Deptt.And Ors. on 11 November, 2013
Author: Hasnain Massodi
Bench: Hasnain Massodi
1
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT JAMMU
LPASW No. 68/2010
CMA no. 101/2010
Date of order: 11.11.2013
Ravinder Kumar Bindroo V State of J&K and ors.
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. M. Kumar, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hasnain Massodi, Judge
Appearing counsel:
For the appellant(s) : Mr. C. M. Koul, Advocate.
For the respondent(s) : Mr. Gagan Basotra, Sr. AAG.
Mr. K. M. Bhatti, Advocate.
1) Whether approved for reporting : Yes/No in Press/Media
2) Whether to be reported in : Yes/No Digest/Journal M. M. Kumar
1. The short issue raised in the instant appeal filed under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent is, whether the appellant could be considered to have made the grade for appointment to the post of Geological Assistant advertised by the J&K Services Selection Board- respondent no.2. The Writ Court has found that one Surinder Singh filed SWP no. 949 of 1988 and the Writ Court had issued directions to the respondents to consider his case for appointment as Geological Assistant, in case he was found selected by the Board against any available vacancy.
2. The appellant filed SWP no. 434 of 1996 claiming appointment against one of the posts of Geological Assistant for which he had competed in the year 1983. The writ petition was disposed of on 03.08.1998 directing the respondents to consider his representation 2 and provide him same relief as was granted to one Surinder Singh. The respondent-State passed Government Order 213-Ind of 1999 dated 01.09.1999 rejecting the claim of the appellant on the ground that his name had never figured in the merit list, therefore, he was not entitled to be appointed. The Government order was the subject matter of SWP no. 1035/2002 along with CMA no. 873/2002.
3. The Writ Court took notice of the pleadings filed by the petitioner and the objections of the respondent- Board. It was categorically denied that the respondents did not consider the appellant in the selection process initiated vide Advertisement Notice no. 03 of 1983. The respondents stated in categorically terms that his merit was considered in the selection process initiated vide Advertisement Notice no. 03 of 1983. In fact respondents specifically referred to the marks obtained by the appellant in pursuant to Advertisement Notice of 1983 and the same was stated to be 47.82 and that of the last selected candidate had secured 56.80. The Writ Court also took a categorical notice of the fact that the appellant was given time to file rejoinder but he opted not to do so. After noticing the aforesaid facts and circumstances the Writ Court dismissed the writ petition with the following conclusion:
"In view of the specific stand taken by the respondents that the petitioner was far below the last selected candidate in the selection process of 1983, I am not inclined to accept petitioner's plea which even otherwise does not appear to have been raised as a fact and is rather a plea based on misreading of the order impugned in the Writ Petition.3
Respondents' stand, based on the records of the Board, indicating the petitioner to be much below the last selected candidate in the selection process initiated pursuant to the Advertisement Notice No.3 of 1983 cannot, thus, be disbelieved.
Petitioner's counsel's submissions that the respondents had committed error in rejecting the petitioner's case, on the basis of the merit obtained by him in the selection process subsequently to the selection process of 1983 is, accordingly, found to be without merit.
Finding no merit in the Writ Petition, it is, accordingly, dismissed."
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
5. It is true that on earlier dates of hearing, this Court has directed production of record pertaining to the selection made in pursuance of Advertisement Notice No.3 of 1983 dated 11.07.1983. However, after hearing learned counsel for the parties at length and keeping in view of non-filing of rejoinder, we do not feel necessity of perusing the original record particularly when the appellant himself raised these issues after such a long period. In fact the appellant felt encouraged by the litigation initiated by one Surinder Singh who had filed SWP no. 949 of 1988. Consequently the appellant filed SWP no. 434 of 1996 which culminated in passing the Government order 213-Ind of 1999 dated 01.09.1999 whereby the claim of the appellant was rejected for appointment as Geological Assistant. After passing of the order in the year 1999 the appellant filed SWP no. 1035 of 2002 again after considerable delay.
4Therefore in these facts and circumstances, we do not feel necessity of calling for the record.
6. The pleas of the parties are absolutely clear that the case of the appellant was considered in pursuant to Advertisement Notice No.3 of 1983 dated 11.07.1983. He was obviously far below than the last selected candidate. The appellant has secured 47.82 marks whereas the last selected candidate secured 56.80 marks. Therefore, we are of the considered view that no case is made out for admission of the appeal and same is liable to be dismissed.
7. For the reasons aforementioned, this appeal fails and same is dismissed.
(Hasnain Massodi) (M. M. Kumar)
Judge Chief Justice
Jammu,
11.11.2013
Vijay