Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 431 (JK)

Sukhchain Singh v. State

2008-11-14

SUNIL HALI

body2008
1. The petitioner claims that he was appointed vide order dated 7.10.1988 as Junior Scale Stenographer in the grade of Rs. 1150-2050/- by the J&K Service Selection Board, Jammu. It seems that order to this extent was issued by the respondents and the petitioner was adjusted as Junior Scale Stenographer against the vacant post caused due to transfer of Smt. Vipan Kumari. 2. A query was raised by the Director, Sheep Husbandry regarding genuineness of the selection order of the petitioner. Vide letter dated 3.4.1989, it was communicated that no such selection has been made by the J&K Service Selection Board, Jammu. The letter indicates that the petitioner has been selected by committing a fraud. 3. On receipt of this communication, respondents vide order dated 12.4.1989 cancelled the appointment of petitioner as Junior Scale Stenographer and restored his status as Junior Assistant, the post which he was holding prior to his appointment as Junior Stenographer. Vide order dated 17.4.1989, the petitioner was placed under suspension as Junior Assistant. 4. It transpires that a FIR was lodged against the petitioner. The petitioner has questioned order of his suspension before this court. The Division Bench of this court vide its order dated 12.2.1999 passed in LPA (W) No. 34/1990 disposed of the appeal with the observation that petitioner had no roll in forging the selection letter and accordingly he was exonerated. The respondents were directed to take remedial measures as they deemed proper. In pursuance of the directions issued by the Division Bench of this court, the respondents vide communication dated 2.6.2002, reinstated the petitioner as Junior Assistant. 5. The petitioner has questioned this order on the ground that he was selected by the J&K Selection Board as Junior Stenographer as such could not be reinstated as Junior Assistant. He further contends that nothing discriminatory has been found against him regarding forgery in appointment order. 6. On the other hand Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents states that on the basis of communication received from the Service Selection Board, Jammu that the petitioner had got his appointment order by way of forgery his appointment was cancelled. The appointment of petitioner as Junior Stenographer was cancelled and his status as Junior Assistant was restored. He was placed under suspension as Junior Assistant. The petitioner has not questioned the order of cancellation of his appointment as Junior Stenographer. The appointment of petitioner as Junior Stenographer was cancelled and his status as Junior Assistant was restored. He was placed under suspension as Junior Assistant. The petitioner has not questioned the order of cancellation of his appointment as Junior Stenographer. He has only questioned the order of suspension which has already been revoked. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Undoubtedly, the petitioner has not questioned the order of cancellation of his appointment as Junior Stenographer. There is nothing on record, which shows that petitioner has been exonerated either by the Departmental Enquiry Committee or by any other agency and whether the petitioner has manipulated his selection order or not there is no such findings from any quarter. He has only questioned the suspension order, which stand already revoked. 9. In view of the above, I find no force in this writ petition which is dismissed.